EFF Takes Bnetd Case 432
An anonymous reader sent in: "As reported three previous times, Blizzard is attempting to squash the Battle.net emulator and open source bnetd project. The EFF has taken the case. Read the press release. LawMeme also has a satiric fable."
Good Penny Arcade (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002
What a terrible approach to build game interest! (Score:4, Insightful)
It is these gaming communities that build interest in the games, add features, etc. These enthusiasts dump untold hours into improving games and this is how the software companies reward them?
I have some ties to N.E.R.D. [nerdtreehouse.com], the worlds 3rd largest CounterStrike server and would venture to guess that 90+% of the gamers happily paid for their software. The community only gets better when Sierra Games [sierra.com] backs the gaming centers.
Re:What a terrible approach to build game interest (Score:2)
This is wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
Not a good defense. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the one that Blizzard/Battle.net may get the upper hand on.
Whoever stated that Diablo II, Starcraft, etc were to be "interoperable programs"? I believe by the TOA that Blizzard products are only sanctioned to run with other Blizzard products (two copies of Starcraft for example) or Battle.net.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a load of crap on the part of Blizzard and Battle.net. (here on out I will never purchase another Blizzard product) But the truth is, the EFF has made a very bad claim in defense of bnetd.
A good defense. (Score:3, Insightful)
No one stated that Diablo, etc. were Interoperable programs. That was directed at bnetd being interoperable. Since Bnetd is trying to interoperate (thru reverse engineering) with Blizzard software, the DMCA clearly states that they do not have to interoperate with ALL the functonality Blizzards' server provides.
Its a very sound defense using the very law you are attacked with to defend yourself.
Re:Not a good defense. (Score:2)
You can't say 'Diablo II is only allowed to interact with such-and-such programs' and more importantly, you REALLY wouldn't want to. What about input drivers, such as any of the Gravis programs which remap keys? That's a program "interoperating" with Diablo II. Does Blizzard really want to injoin those programs from working?
So long as a program isn't written to specifically get around anti-piracy provisions of a second program (bnetd is NOT: it's written to provide a server. the lack of CD-KEY checking is necessitated by Blizzard. This is exactly the argument that Bleem won in their lawsuit vs. Sony).
Keep in mind that the TOA of Blizzard products isn't law, and bnetd is NOT violating that TOA - the person using the Blizzard product might be, but that's not bnetd's problem (again, Bleem/Connectix case...) In any case, somehow I doubt that that TOA is even valid for certain things (we REALLY REALLY need some judge to come and say "get real, this is crazy" on these idiotic software licenses)
Blizzard is REALLY STUPID to continue this case in the court. IANAL, but honestly, the case is just way too similar to the Bleem and Connectix VGS case to survive. Here, Blizzard/Viviendi have an uphill battle, whereas all the EFF has to do is start filing briefs with tons upon tons of references to previous case law.
Re:Not a good defense. (Score:2)
For the most part it's an easy way to save the $50 on the price of the game. Most of the fun in playing Diablo 2 is the multiplayer. You can only get on Battle.net if you have a valid CD-Key (ie bought the game. I'm not taking into account key generators). Therefore with bnetd you don't need to buy the game.
Essentially Blizzard is using this to try and stop people from pirating their software. Either that or force bnetd to have an out of band authentication to battle.net... But that would defeat the purpose.
Re:Not a good defense. (Score:2)
EFF Focus? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I'm not sure this is the right test case for DMCA. Vivendi is arguing that they need to shut bnetd down because it is being used to circumvent the terms of the beta program for Warcraft III. IMHO that seems like a reasonable concern.
It may be worthwhile to argue the case, but it seems to me that it'd be better for EFF to focus its efforts on fighting the worst abuses of DMCA, in order to get it overthrown. I worry that they will try to fight _every_ use of DMCA, spread themselves too thin, and lose all their cases.
Re:EFF Focus? (Score:2)
Why should the bnetd project be penalized if a beta tester breaks the terms of their agreement? This comes down to the old 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' kind of argument. If a tool has a legitimate use but can be used for criminal activities as well, do you get rid of the tool altogether? Luckily, with the DMCA, you don't have to worry about such philosophical arguments, because you just have your team of lawyers scare the shit out of anyone who comes within 500 miles of your intellectual property. Right or wrong, if you don't have the moola to dance with the sharks of a mega-corporation, you're screwed (unless some kind organization like the EFF or ACLU picks up your case).
Re:EFF Focus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Were you in favor of banning VCR's because they could be used for copyright infringement?
It may be true that bnetd is being used to circumvent the terms of the Warcraft beta, but I think that's not the issue here. The main issue is that the people who have signed the beta agreement are circumventing the terms of that agreemement, not the bnetd authors. Heck, the people responsible for bnetd may have never seen the agreement, how can they be held liable for violating it?
I think this is a perfect test case for the DMCA, because the law lets content owners go after any technology that can circumvent access controls, without regard to fair use rights or copyright expiration, instead of going after the individual people who willfully violate copyright, which would put content creators in the awkward position of calling their customers a bunch of criminals. I think this is wrong, and this case can show it is wrong.
Steve Jobs said it best when he introduced the iPod... Piracy is a social problem, not a technological one. I say that any method to curb piracy that relies on technological measures is doomed to fail.
Copyright Violations and Speeding Tickets (Score:2)
The best metaphor I can find for handling this situation is that of speeding tickets. Speed laws are concretely defined but almost everybody violates them to one degree or another. Gross violators of speed laws are pulled over by the cops and ticketed.
So I propose a system where the FBI creates copyright encforcement officers. Their basic role will be to track people who commit copyright violations on too large a scale. The violators, rather than being dragged into criminal court would be "ticketed", sent a fine that they are expected to pay or fight in court (as you would with a traffic ticket). Of course repeat offenders might be subject to greater penalties.
The advantage of this concept is it discourages gross violations of the law without unduly burdening consumers. Furthermore it makes it possible for copyright owners to go after the people truely responsible for violating the law, not the service providers that they use to do so.
Re:Copyright Violations and Speeding Tickets (Score:4, Insightful)
If a significant percentage of users/drivers etc, are breaking the law on a regular basis, might there be something wrong with the system?
I use this same agument against those who say that users who open virus attachments in outlook are just stupid, and that MS doesn't have any responsibility. Sure they do. Users will do stupid things, and your responsibility as the designer is to help prevent self immolation!
Same with the copyright problem. If there are millions of people doing it - ask WHY!!! Is it because the stuff costs more than it's worth? Is it because the users don't have money?
Frankly, I wonder if this is a great balance of power. The copyright holders by and large are huge corporate interests. Trying to bring them to heel is impossible. They can pass legislation like the DMCA to screw over consumers. Well, the reaction is like this...the copyright holders must sue _INDIVIDUALLY_ all the violators. Since it's probably not economically viable, the copyright holders will have to seek another solution - most preferably, to reduce the push to actually violate copyright. The most obvious result, is to lower prices, and loosen control. Once it's more work to violate copyright than just buy the product, most of us will simply buy.
I'll quit rambling now...
Cheers!
Striking a balance for the good of all... (Score:2)
As long as it is a trivial thing to violate copyright, the incentive to purchase is minimal. Why pay a single dollar for a song if you can obtain it on-line with little effort? The recording companies response to this is both to keep trying to make it harder (pointless) and to use the DMCA to make it risky for people to make that first effort to break their protection scheme. While I think there's some legitimacy in their desire to reduce copyright violation, there techniques are frighteningly draconian.
So, if the cost to get a pirated version of a song remains free and requires minimal effort, what are musicians to do? If it legitimately costs $10 to promote and produce an artist but nobody is willing to pay $10 vs. free, then that artist will not be produced. This leads to a reduction in the availability and quality of music because there's WAY less incentive to make the investment to find artists.
Re:EFF Focus? (Score:2)
This is *exactly* where the EFF need to step in and point out that these guys aren't on their own, and that there is a bigger issue at stake. We *have* to take a stand against big business out-gunning consumers and winning despite being in the wrong.
Re:EFF Focus? (Score:3, Interesting)
bnetd isn't actually doing it. the warforge project spun off of bnetd, because the bnetd people didn't want to allow support for the hacked beta.
However, because the project was OPEN SOURCE, anyone could pick right up where they left off, and in this case, someone did, and now there are tons of people anxiously awaiting the crack for the latest warcraft patch.
the bnetd guys really seem like they are on the level, and are getting slammed cause they do this for kicks, and thus don't have the $$ to back themselves up.
A shame really.
Warlords Battlecry 2 (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.warlordsbattlecry2.com/
http://www.
http://www.ssg.com.au/wbc
It has heros that can go up to level 50 and has over a 100 spells. Compare that to Warcraft 3, I believe their heros only go up to level 6 or 9 and have three spells. There are also 12 sides instead of Warcrafts 4.
Check out what the little guys have to offer
Actually Contributing (Score:5, Informative)
A payment has been sent to bnetd-defense@bnetd.org.
You will receive an email receipt for this transaction shortly.
For details on your transaction, please contact bnetd-defense@bnetd.org.
Item Name: Bnetd Project Defense Fund
Item Number: Defense Fund
Rather than just talk about it, I have put my money where my mouth is on this issue, by donating to the cause. I encourage everyone else to do the same at this link [bnetd.org].
Blizzard Entertainment sadly mislead? (Score:3, Offtopic)
Wasn't this already solved in the Sony case? (Score:2, Informative)
Whether it violates the DMCA is another issue. The courts ruled recently against Sony where developers reverse engineered portions of the Playstation to get access to underlying protocols so that developers could create an emulator for the PC. Even though the reverse engineering violated some terms of the DMCA, there were two important facts facts: (1) the new product was legal, and (2) they attempted to obtain the information from Sony, but they refused to offer it.
It appears that this case is the same. The defendant was unsatisfied with a product. The producer was unable or unwilling to provide the desired product. The defendant was forced to reverse engineer that product in order to offer the desired services. The only remaining question is whether Blizzard applied for a patant for their network protocols. (unlikely.) If they did not, they do not own the IP of the protocol (since the protocol is a method and must be patented, not copyrighted) and therefore Bnetd is fully within their rights to publish it.
Re:Wasn't this already solved in the Sony case? (Score:2)
IANAL, but I think we can safely assume that the protocol is not patented. If it were patented, part of the patent application would be the requirement for full disclosure of the thing being patented. In other words the protocol specifications would have to be in the patent application and available for public viewing.
Thus there would be no need for reverse engineering the protocol.
But, I could be wrong, and it wouldn't surprise me.
Re:Wasn't this already solved in the Sony case? (Score:2)
We're going to sue your ass because you didn't make sure that a stolen car couldn't be driven on your road.
[Sheesh Bonehead!]
Cheers!
Something I find interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
The point (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you agree with Blizzards point that the bnetd project does in some way promote piracy, unless you are a complete fool, you should not agree that the DMCA applies to this case. Blizzard is grasping at best.
Its everyone's right as a consumer to fight this even if you agree with Blizzard. This is everyone's chace to stop complaining about the DMCA and actually do something. This will determine if software companies have the right to not only tell you how, when, and where you will utilize their products after your purchase them but also gives them the right to prosecute you if you don't. If Blizzards case holds up, it will open the door for many many more useful emulation projects to be shut down.
Re:The point (Score:2)
Okay, I got slightly un-lazy and did some reading:
"2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
2a) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
2b) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
2c) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
Okay, so 2a and 2c seem okay -- it is not primarily designed to circumvent copyright protection, nor is it being marketed for that purpose.
It's 2b that scares me. Does it only have a limited commercial purpose other than copyright infringement? I cenrtainly has a very significant other purpose, but is it commercial? It's free! Some of the definitions for commercial [dictionary.com] and commere [dictionary.com] of commercial seem to indicate that it must be for profit (commerical-3), but some indicate that it might not (commercial-2, or commercial-1 with commerce-2). Could bnetd be illegal because it has a "bad" use, but is non-commercial, whereas if it were a commercial product it would be okay?! What's the legal/governmental definition of commercial?
I'm clearly NAL, so if someone who's more clued in could give me a little insight into what's really going on here and what things I've missed in my extremely brief survey, I'd appreciate it.
-Puk
p.s. The 3rd defition of commerce is "sexual intercourse". That's is news to me -- I don't even want to think about the implications.
Re:The point (Score:2)
Who has Responsibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
But I ask -- whose responsibility is it to ensure that the players are using a legitimate copy of the game? Should that be done at the network level, by the open-source game server, or at the client / cpu level, by the software that should have actually been paid for?
I say that the key-checking isn't anyone's responsibility but their own -- if you write software, and it doesn't check, then nobody else should be forced (or even expected) to do that job for you.
Look at it this way -- does HP have a responsibility to ensure that all users sending print jobs to its printers are doing so with properly licensed installations of Microsoft Office? 'cause that's about what the people here are asking for. There's no method for a printer to check whether a printjob came from a paid copy of Word, just as there's no way for bnet to check the validity of an incoming connection. Nor should there be.
They came up with a lousy copy protection / validation scheme. Too bad for them.
[note -- I admit that I'm not particurlarly versed on the specifics of this case, so if I zigged when I should have zagged up there, try to ignore that and focus on my argument, eh? thanks..
Re:Who has Responsibility? (Score:2)
Blizzard should not to have assumed that when playing on Battle.net you would always be talking to the actual Battle.net servers controled by Blizzard. They made an assumption that is not always going to be true.
On a side note, thinking about this battle.net thing, what if (in an alternate universe) Blizzard had gone bankrupt and the Battle.net service shut down? Without projects like bnetd, there would be no way to play these games multiplayer over the internet.
Re:Who has Responsibility? (Score:2)
The digital world is a strange one since copying is free.
Re:Who has Responsibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody's. To legally place that responsibility upon anyone, legitimizes copy protection.
Copy protection is just a hack. It's a cheap way for publishers to avoid expending effort enforcing copyright. If it works for some of them, fine: let 'em try doing things that way. IMHO, it's a bad idea, but they should have the right to try it (for now -- but every time I see it abused, it makes me want to take away that right). Copy protection should never be legitimized or legally recognized or institutionalized. It should remain merely a hack. That's where DMCA went wrong.
Blizzard should deal with the copyright issue and sue the infringers, instead of thrusting new responsibilities upon other parties.
Re:Who has Responsibility? (Score:2)
What?! Why is everybody looking at me? Was it something I said?
Is This Fight The Good Fight? (Score:2)
Regardless does the EFF really think this is something worth fighting over? IIRC, Warcraft 3 and Battle.net will have gone under major release/revisions and all of this will be moot. Why fight over something this transitory? I would would rather see the EFF tackle more serious issues like privacy issues than this...
So what is the underlying moral issue to fight for here?
Re:Is This Fight The Good Fight? (Score:3, Funny)
No dude, this is nothing to worry about. Fair Use and all that rot is just a bunch of theoretical bunk the pointy-headed academics use to keep us all confused. Just do whatever Blizzard and Disney want, and you'll be fine.
And when American Standard gets around to joining the game, you can ask them for permission to shit, and it'll be all good.
Yes it is a good fight. (Score:2)
Blizzard cannot afford to delay launching WC3, and they cannot afford to let the beta software remain active. If it were possible, I would take the Beta users who let their discs get copied for use on Bnetd to court and try to get them some jail time.
In the end however, the current business model is not really viable with current technology. But for the moment, there is not much to be done about it.
END COMMUNICATION
Servers are the key to growth (Score:2)
CVS is still up, mirror it ! (Score:2)
cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.bnetd.sourceforge.net:/c
cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.bnetd.sourceforge.net:/c
And presto... You've got the latest CVS tree. Enjoy it while it last !
Did anyone ever think about CVS over Freenet ? Now would be a good time !
Bnetd ok, but not ok (Score:2)
It's one thing to pirate music. The RIAA is an evil organization and I have no moral qualms about stealing from them. Blizzard is the only game developer to never ever make a crappy game. They almost made one crappy warcraft game, then they cancelled it. In fact not only are none of their games crappy, they are all smash hits, amazing, etc. I have moral qualms about stealing form blizzard, they deserve to get money for their software.
Why don't blizzard and bnetd team up to incorporate the copy protection into bnetd? Why doesn't blizzard write their own?
Re:Bnetd ok, but not ok (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bnetd ok, but not ok (Score:4, Interesting)
Bnetd proves that you don't need battle.net to play Blizzard games.
Except for the fact that it allow people who have pirated blizzard's games to play them online, which they would not be able to do with only battle.net.
So fucking what? They can also play pirated games offline where there are no controls at all. Shall we outlaw offline play of Blizzard games because there is no CD Key checking?
Bnetd has many completely legal and ethical uses. It allows people who have bought the game to play it even if Blizzard decides to close up shop (which seems only a few months off, way things are going) or even if Blizzard's ISP is having technical difficulties. It also allows people to play in a controlled environment free of cheaters, something Blizzard has failed to provide.
It's also not strictly true that you can't play with illegitimate CD Keys on Battle.net. Keys are valid until Blizzard invalidates them. You could tell your friend your valid CD Key, and as long as neither of you are online at the same time, both of you can share the CD Key and play on Battle.net. So much for stopping piracy. Battle.net does not in fact, prevent piracy of Blizzard games. In fact, one could say that, like Bnetd, the primary purpose of Battle.net is not to prevent piracy, but to provide an online arena where players can meet each other and play. That it can have some effect on piracy is a secondary function. Bnetd tried to add this secondary function, but Blizzard refused to cooperate. So it was left out.
I have moral qualms about stealing form blizzard, they deserve to get money for their software.
What exactly has Bnetd stolen from Blizzard? Be specific. Name an item that Blizzard once possessed that they no longer possess because of Bnetd. If no one has lost anything, no theft has taken place.
It's one thing to pirate music. The RIAA is an evil organization and I have no moral qualms about stealing from them.
This is not morality, this is what some people derisively call situational ethics. Your "morals" amount to "I'll do what I please." Following your ethical compass, it's OK to pirate Blizzard's software if you think it or the company sucks. I'll think I'll pass on your theory of ethics.
Sign the petition (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.petitiononline.com/blizdmca/ [petitiononline.com]
Letter sent to Blizzard... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have been purchasing and playing Blizzard games for about four years. I have enjoyed Blizzard titles like 'Diablo', 'Diablo II', 'Starcraft' and 'Starcraft: Broodwar'. I have spent hard-earned money on Blizzard titles and have spent countless hours playing them.
That said, I do not plan to purchase or play any more Blizzard titles. Why? Blizzard games has threatened legal action under the DMCA against the Bnetd project (http://www.bnetd.org/), an open source multiplayer system for games that use Blizzard's 'Battle Net' multiplayer system.
In press releases and news articles, Blizzard has indicated that it feels that because Bnetd will not and cannot check users for proper licensing that it contributes to piracy of Blizzard games.
Unfortunately, Bnetd is a small project run by volunteers who have no ability to hire expensive lawyers to defend themselves against Blizzard's claims, regardless of their merit. Blizzard software is effectively using their financial resources to silence and eliminate a possible competitor.
This practice is despicable. I don't associate with individuals who believe that this is an acceptable practice and I will not support a company who does so either.
Further, I will encourage everyone I know to stop supporting your company and to stop buying Blizzard games because of this reprehensible act. In effect, your 'anti-piracy' concerns have lost you a paying customer. I hope that the irony of this is not lost on money-conscious salespeople or executives.
Hopefully, Blizzard games will realize that it is driving away in dependant developers, gamers, and other customers with this act and will with withdraw its legal threats against the Bnetd project. Hopefully, it will even issue a formal apology to the members of the Bnetd project. Until then, what I stated above remains in effect. You have lost me and everyone else I speak to on the matter as paying customers.
No leg to stand on (Score:2)
So its clear that this case is a flop for Blizzard. Aside from it being a flop, there's nothing wrong w/ bnet. They're creating a superior open sourced solution for customers who paid GOOD money for Blizzard's products and DESERVE better than a laggy, slow, sucky network. Furthermore, how exactly do you shut down an open-sourced project, since it need not have any center of development? The best they could do is shut down the server bnet's using...but that doesn't stop the software from being developed. Sure, they can get an injunction against distributing the software, like in the BULLSHIT DeCSS case...but as DeCSS showed, an injunction against distributing something which is free to distribute DOES NOT WORK. DeCSS is more widely available now than it was before the court cases banning it.
However, this case DOES illustrate the dangers of the SSSCA as proposed by that fuck Hollings (who ever said the Democratic Party was the party "for the people". The SSSCA will like the DMCA be unconstitutional if passed; there's some hope it won't pass, because there are some very powerful interests that don't want it to pass (namely, IBM). However, pass or not, its just another example of how this is really a plutocracy not a democracy. Professors, librarians, programmers, scholars, college students -- all of these people's concerns and interests were steam-rolled over in the passing of the DMCA. Whether or not the SSSCA is passed, the people who MATTER won't have their voices heard.
On another note, inspired by Sen. Hollings, here's my list of the top 10 people who should've been in the WTC when it collapsed:
1. Bill Clinton -- ex. Pres., #1 on the list for signing the DMCA into law. What a fuck.
2. Hollings -- #2 on the list for supporting a piece of legislation even worse than the DMCA (the SSSCA). Another wanker.
3. This one's a tie: Gary Wenig (President of Global Crossings) and Lawrence Whaley (President of Enron). These fucks got rich by selling stocks off of inside information while stock-holders got screwed.
4. Hillary Rosen -- President of the RIAA and one greedy bitch. Need I say moret han RIAA to explain my reasons here?
5. Jack Valentini -- President of the MPAA, another greedy fuck. Likewise, need I say moret han MPAA?
6. Robert Holleyman -- President of the BSA, a real greedy fuck who also uses Gestapo tactics to force compliance. Need I say more?
7. Jerry Falwell -- he thinks the purple teletubby is gay, and he thinks that 9/11 is punishment delivered to our nation for being sinful. Apparently, he'd prefer we bring back the inquisition, start torturing homosexuals, burning women at the stack for witch-craft, and throwing stones at Prostitutes.
8. Pat Robertson -- founder of the Christian Coalition. Christian Coalition to women: we own your uterus. CC to hoomsexuals: your evil and should all be converted. CC to prostitutes: your evil and need forgiveness or your going to hell. CC on witches: we need to stop spending money teaching evolution and use it to hunt down the Blair Witch.
9. Ingrid Newkirk -- president of PETA. According to these PETA fucks, animals are more important than people. A bunch of farmers in Ohio should go broke just so they can protect some fucking sucker-fish. Not only that, but we're all murderers because we eat meat. If these fucks like animals so much, how about they live with them?
10. Gary Condit -- need I say more?
Any suggestions for additional entries?
Re:No leg to stand on (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone who posts lists of people who should have been in the WTC.
Check duplicates (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree, the bnetd project isn't really getting around CD-keys since you have to have one to play the game, but I could see a problem where multiple people have the same key. If it's possible to check that key (which it may not be, depending on how it's encrypted/sent), that would make bnetd legal I think.
--trb
Massive backfire (Score:2)
Prior to this incident, my Diablo II addicted friends all played on Battlenet. They disliked Battlenet and complained about it frequently, but they weren't aware of any real alternatives.
Yesterday these same friends were giving each other tips on setting up bnetd servers.
I think Blizzard/Vivendia misjudged their customers.
This has little to do with Blizzard..... (Score:2, Insightful)
This case will be about our rights as software engineers to reverse engineer a protocal. This is something we have all benefited from, something we all have to do in our jobs as software developers at one point or another. Let's change the players in this lawsuit. Would most of you change our opinions if this was let's say Microsoft sueing the SAMBA team? Please correct me if I'm off base here, but that's what this is the equivalent too. Just because Blizzard makes video games doesn't mean we as software developers shouldn't stick up for our right to fair use.
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:2)
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is like creating an AIM server and telling all your friends to log the AIM client into it insted of the actual AOL server bucause you do want to be spammed by unknown people or because of firewall / network issues you keep getting disconnect from AOL.
However, the server you create will also let Trillian or whatever other client connect because you have no help from AOL
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:2)
A. Contains no actual content except "Blizzard makes good games. So they are good. Battle.net is also good. Why don't you like stuff that is good?"
B. Contains nothing having anything to do with actual law. EULA? Please! The UCITA has passed in 2 states that I know of, and NOT ONE case has proven that a EULA can be used as a legally enforcible document. Not one. And please, if you're going to make a statement such as "It violates copyright law" the least you could do is actually clarify what exactly you mean by that. How does it violate copyright law? This would be an important thing to explain in a discussion.
So, we shouldn't care if Blizzard abuses the DMCA because they make good games? That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on Slashdot. (and that is saying a lot.)
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:2)
Missing the Point (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously you can use Bnetd to facilitate quote bad things, let's say the piracy, but I hardly believe that is the focus of the project. Indeed, when discussing the issue with lawyers representing Blizzard, the Bnetd man made it clear that they would like nothing more than to roll in a function to do legitimate CD-Key checks, the way that Battle.net itself does. It's not something they can even implement without Blizzard's help. It goes without saying that the attorneys in question were not there to try and improve Bnetd, and as a result, they ain't trying to hear that. The blood of any breathing geek is enticed by the prospect of running their own Battle.net. What if they could? What if a sanctioned, but not supported product were delivered - one that diligently performed the anti-piracy measures assigned to it, ran their official ads, all while removing load from their main body of equipment? I'm trying to figure out who loses here.
Though Battle.net is a matchmaking service, it's silly to call that its only function. I've always thought of it as performing a sort of de facto authentication, a la Half-Life. This watchdog element is (I'm sure they believe) crucial to sustaining their business, and Blizzard has absolutely every right to try and protect their stuff via whatever methods they want to. Whatever else is going on here, I don't think that it's okay to make something that emasculates their security mechanism. I don't mean that in a legal sense, this violates statutes W, A, N, and G or what have you, I mean it in a personal one.
--
I support Blizzard and their attempt to protect their property, income sources, etc. What reason do they have to play nice and let bnetd do whatever they want? They certainly lose ad revenue if they do that, and they -potentially- lose more sales due to piracy.
If I had a product and was reliant upon providing a means for people to meet up for games, and used that as a revenue source, to feed my programmers and staff, and some joe schmoe comes along with a service that bypasses all that, and makes it easier for pirates to hop on, I'd be mighty pissed, and rightly so.
You might be pissed but... (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case it would seem that Blizzard feels that they DID have some sort of copy protection and that this software went around it - that's not so. What Blizzard HAD was a FEATURE in their server software that performed the JOB of checking for legit copies. While that could be construed as some sort of "copy protection" these guys did NOT crack it. They did NOT infringe - they simply chose not to include that feature. And for this Blizzard is unhappy? Would they have been happier if these guys had cracked their feature and implemented it? I think not...
The scenario of the early IBM BIOS has ben brought up before and I believe it's a VERY good parallel. IBM tried to take Phoenix and others to court for creating a "clone" BIOS years ago. However these folks were smart enough to have created a "clean room" implementation of the IBM BIOS. They simply (cough) created two teams - one to examine the original BIOS completely and the other to create a version of it without ever seeing the real original code. They were able to ask questions about timings and what occured when certain signals were injected into the "black box" - the results of those questions influenced their coding. When done they had code that did the same JOB as the original firmware but one that didn't actually the same CODE.
IBM lost their case - as Blizzard should surely lose theirs. These programmers never had access to Blizzard's original works - how could they possibly have infringed? IMO this is pretty cut and dry. Unless these people have included portions of the Blizzard binary or other "works" in their code they have no leg to stand on. Saddest of all is that these people are FANS of Blizzard's work and they are being stupid enough to alienate them. Duh!
Personally, I'm happiest with clients like iD has created (Quake etc.). Yeah, they rely on a "master server" but they don't require you to go through their "portal" to get the information you want. For that matter iD releases SOURCE of older games - they're VERY friendly to their fans and I buy their products as a result. Tribes and others have used this model too - it's nice though I don't think they release source. The GameSpy software sprung from this and I think it's terrific when a 3rd party can concentrate on a niche like that. Enter Blizzard... I don't know how different the Blizzard model is but if it's "broken" enough for people to work to code their own then they've got problems that need to be addressed by something other than a lawsuit against their fans. somehow I cannot imagine a company like iD doing this. Funny, I was considering buying one of their games too - glad I DL'ed the server code before it got zapped
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:2, Insightful)
Blizzard has no legal basis for their harrassment, and SLAPPs are unethical and disgusting. Just because Blizzard can use our fucked-up legal system to badger the innocent doesn't mean that they should. By your logic, Blizzard ought to send out goons to the Bnetd authors' houses and break their kneecaps as well -- why play nice?
Your logic is ... not there (Score:4, Insightful)
>bnetd do whatever they want? They certainly lose
>ad revenue if they do that, and they -
>potentially- lose more sales due to piracy
It's not up to them whether they should "let" people do things that are perfectly legal. It's not "playing nice" to respect the rights of other people; it's the way it has to be. Get all of the other fascists together and get this through your hard stone heads: Blizzard CAN NOT create legal policy; nor can any other corporation. They are not lawmakers; they can not decide to declare something illegal because it presses upon their revenue stream. They (and you) also need to realize that stretching the boundaries of an existing law while operating under the assumption that your legal opponents will not gather the funds needed to fight back is intolerable and does ABSOLUTELY NOT constitute fair defense of your property.
>I'd be mighty pissed, and rightly so.
No, not rightly so. It would suck because someone is COMPETING with you. Are you a capitalist or a dictator?
Re:Your logic is ... not there (Score:2)
Tell that to Disney & the RIAA, mmmmkay?
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:2, Insightful)
The law doesn't exist to protect your source of income. If your business model sucks, then you need to change your business model. You shouldn't be able to legislate your way to wealth.
Kevin
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:2)
I support Blizzard and their attempt to protect their property, income sources, etc. What reason do they have to play nice and let bnetd do whatever they want? They certainly lose ad revenue if they do that, and they -potentially- lose more sales due to piracy.
As someone stated eariler... Piracy is not a technological problem, its a social one. Every counter measure you put in a pirate's way is going to get circumvented. Its that simple. You aren't addressing the root problem by making it more difficult to pirate a game (and therefore making life harder for your paying customers).
If I had a product and was reliant upon providing a means for people to meet up for games, and used that as a revenue source, to feed my programmers and staff, and some joe schmoe comes along with a service that bypasses all that, and makes it easier for pirates to hop on, I'd be mighty pissed, and rightly so.
Yes, and if you put out a buggy, laggy and easily exploitable, peer to peer (p2p what were they thinking?!) method to play games should you be surprised if someone gets sick of it and publishes their own improved version of your service? Some fans created a service that obviously a _lot_ of players wanted but Blizzard never provided. Blizzard's copy protection is not implementable by anyone but Blizzard. Blizzard could have been creative and provided some means where CD Keys could be authenticated on BDnet servers but instead they chose to sue. So now you're blaming the fans because they went out and did what Blizzard wasn't willing or unable to? That's almost laughable. Nice, one Blizzard... I won't be buying any more of your software.
Jury nullification of an unjust law (Score:2, Interesting)
The real point of contention is whether what they're doing is legal (or moral, though that's not relevant for the court case).
The judicial systems of the United Kingdom and United States (except Louisiana state law) are built on the common law. The common law has a concept of "jury nullification," which specifies that a jury may find the defendant not liable on grounds that the law is unjust. Want more info? Ask Google [google.com].
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:2, Redundant)
See, thats just wrong.
Its really nice to rail against the machine, and attack a huge mammouth like Vivendi, but the story is old, and tired.
Listen, they wrote the game. It cost them money, and brainpower to develop the game, and when it was finalized, they chose to provide it to the world. And they provided it for a price, because after all, they had to pay for the programmers, and administration, and deployment and on-going maintaince.
So you can see where they would be a little peeved if somebody came along and developed a free server that would let everyone get around paying them a little money to use their own server.
Now, I don't agree with their decisions, I have always thought that if you give the servers away for free, more people will buy the clients (witness Quake II/III and HalfLife), but hey, they have the right to decide what to do with their property. If you don't like it, then don't buy the game. Its a simple as that.
It would be really nice if we lived in a utopian society, where everyone gave freely of themselves, and nobody needed anything. Unfortunately, the last time I looked, my phone bill needed paying, and so instead of living in your utopian world (aka, your parent's house), I've got to go back to work for the evil corporations and try to wrench a few bucks out of their hands.
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:2)
See parent for the original comment
-----------------
> Listen, they wrote the game. It cost them money, and brainpower to develop the game, and when it was finalized, they chose to provide it to the world. And they provided it for a price, because after all, they had to pay for the programmers, and administration, and deployment and on-going maintaince.
> So you can see where they would be a little peeved if somebody came along and developed a free server that would let everyone get around paying them a little money to use their own server.
Nice strawman. However, no one was questioning Blizzard's right to sell the game, or run their own game server in whatever manner they see fit. What was done was providing an alternate server (in part because the official Blizzard server's service was so terrible).
Blizzard was asked to help with the authentication part so the new server would behave in an IP-friendly way. Blizzard chose not to help, so the new server doesn't authenticate - and it isn't required to.
Blizzard wants to control the game and how/where it's played, but like any monopolist, provide the lowest level of service possible in exchange for money.
Blizzard has viable, legitimate competition for its server's service, and wishes to quash it. If Blizzard were really interested in good customer service, or protecting the terms of use of its beta games, they would have:
1. Improved the quality of their own server so that the Bnetd server was seen as unnecessary,
2. Assisted the Bnetd coders in providing an authentication mechanism using the Blizzard network. No more uncontrolled beta uses, no more using pirated games.
Blizzard did neither; explain again why they deserve any of their customer's server loyalty under a competitive, non-utopian, capitalist society?
> Listen, they wrote the game. It cost them money, and brainpower to develop the game, and when it was finalized, they chose to provide it to the world. And they provided it for a price, because after all, they had to pay for the programmers, and administration, and deployment and on-going maintaince.
> So you can see where they would be a little peeved if somebody came along and developed a free server that would let everyone get around paying them a little money to use their own server.
Nice strawman. However, no one was questioning Blizzard's right to sell the game, or run their own game server in whatever manner they see fit. What was done was providing an alternate server (in part because the official Blizzard server's service was so terrible).
Blizzard was asked to help with the authentication part so the new server would behave in an IP-friendly way. Blizzard chose not to help, so the new server doesn't authenticate - and it isn't required to.
Blizzard wants to control the game and how/where it's played, but like any monopolist, provide the lowest level of service possible in exchange for money.
Blizzard has viable, legitimate competition for its server's service, and wishes to quash it. If Blizzard were really interested in good customer service, or protecting the terms of use of its beta games, they would have:
1. Improved the quality of their own server so that the Bnetd server was seen as unnecessary,
2. Assisted the Bnetd coders in providing an authentication mechanism using the Blizzard network. No more uncontrolled beta uses, no more using pirated games.
Blizzard did neither; explain again why they deserve any of their customer's server loyalty under a competitive, non-utopian, capitalist society?
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:2)
The first post was offtopic because the dumbass didn't read enough to figure out that it has nothing to do with emulation of clients (wherever the hell he got that idea). Thus his post has nothing to do with the subject of discussion.
You were marked flamebait because you're a troll, responding just as ignorantly yet more antagonisticaly to said offtopic post.
Satisfied now?
The reasons is ... (Score:2, Informative)
Currently as it goes, if you want to play with others online using a Blizzard product, you are almost force to buy a legal copy. The introduction of emulators will by-pass that.
Blizzard has a legal beef here.
Re:The reasons is ... (Score:2)
As for your last statement about cd keys keeping people honest, this may be true, but no company has an obligation to make it especially easy for pirates to use its programs. Playability on Battle.net is something that Blizzard sees as a key selling point, and it does not have to release its cd key validation if it doesn't want to dilute this selling point.
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? No. (Score:5, Interesting)
As a paying customer, I demand value and satisfaction from my Blizzard software like Warcraft and Diablo2.
Since the Blizzard server is:
- SLOOOOW
- Unreliable
- Hacked all to hell
- VERY buggy
I choose to have the ability to play my ALREADY PURCHASED SOFTWARE on a server of my choice. Just because Blizzard would prefer I didnt doesnt mean jack.
Your argument that Bnetd is punishing Blizzard for creating value is totally incorrect.
It punishes Blizzard for NOT creating value on the server side.
I rewarded them for their client side software. What I choose to connect to is *MY CHOICE*.
And its entirely legal too..
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? No. (Score:2)
- SLOOOOW
- Unreliable
- Hacked all to hell
- VERY buggy
Excuse me, but I've seen these assertions before, and I have no idea why people make them.
Starcraft/Warcraft are peer-to-peer games. Battle.Net is the matchmaking service. There can be no gameplay issues with the servers because games do not connect to the servers.
Diablo II is the only client-server game, and admittedly it has major problems. The original Diablo was also a bit of a multiplayer disaster so I think the problem lies with their Blizzard North department, not their Battle.Net service.
And yet people use Diablo II as an example of why Battle.Net sucks. But by doing that, they have willfully ignored the fact that Diablo II supports direct TCP/IP games (not restricted to LANs) as well as an 'Open' player-hosted mode.
The point I'm making is this: As long as all people involved have a CD-KEY, I have never seen a valid reason for the existance of a Battle.Net emulator. That doesn't mean its wrong to create one, but it *is* wrong to justfy its creation by some manufactured need. And don't throw LAN party crap at me - there's no reason that 50 people can't either use LAN play mode or else all log into a private Battle.Net channel.
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? No. (Score:2)
Could it be that what you see as trivial requirements on the part of the server are not as trivial as you think, and are not being met on the authorized server?
Not in this case. I have examined my network traffic carefully, and gameplay is completely separate from the Battle.Net service. The only connection to Battle.Net remains idle until the game is over, and then it reports the outcome with a small status packet.
the slowness being reported may very well be a result of a buggy server that has been hacked so that new or returning users have to spend an unusually long time waiting to connect to another player. The server may have been hacked so that players with unmodified games get linked up to players with modified games. The bugs could be preventing people from connecting with the server at all, making the server appear to be unreliable.
Interesting idea, but I doubt that this is the case. Having followed Battle.Net's status carefully for several years, I can say that I have only seen the server's security compromised once, and that was for a Diablo II game server and not the Battle.Net chat service.
Connection issues with the server have previously been a major problem; I'll admit that up front. That said, many of the worst time periods were a result of DOS attacks, and the hosting ISPs for Battle.Net have really tightened up.
No - there are two levels of CD-Key authentication. The game itself checks that the CD-Key is mathematically valid. The Battle.Net service also checks all its clients for uniqueness and for revoked keys - two things which cannot be checked in offline play.
So people setting up competing servers will need one of two things: access to the code that can validate CD-Keys, or access to a service provided by the game manufacturer which can provide authentication of CD-Keys.
Access to the code would be pointless because the strength of Battle.Net's authentication is in the uniqueness and revoked-key checks. Without the Battle.Net key database, these checks could not be performed.
Creating a key-oracle service would also be ineffective, because it would require that the connecting server accurately report usage data. A modified third-party server could simply bypass the oracle check, or else it could check the key but not mark it as 'in use' to block other clients from sharing it.
From what I read, your arguments do not stand up.
I hope I have strengthened them somewhat
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? No. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bnetd doesnt HAVE to cause that problem. Blizzard can provide a very simple network request scheme to allow the Bnetd server to challeneg the cd-key.
Blizzard does NOT want that.
As such, it is a simple case of a software manufacturer who does NOT maintain their software (server-side) driving their customers to find alternatives.
As to playing the beta thru Bnetd violates the point of having an open beta?
It still exposes bugs on the client side, and BOY does Blizzard ever have PLENTY of those in EVERY release.
I get to decide, according to the law. (Score:4, Insightful)
By law, as a consumer, once I purchase a product, I am entitled to FAIR USE.
Software "licensing" has NEVER been successfully upheld in court, and many argue that it goes entirely against the protections the law has traditionally given the consumer.
Further, the Blizzard licensing agreement does not in fact restrict me from playing my software with a third-party server software.
Not to mention, they didnt come after the END USER violating those terms of service! They came after programmers who offered them an alternative. Programmers not bound by those TOS/Licensing terms.
So, No. I get to decide what I do.
How exactly... (Score:2)
Re:I get to decide, according to the law. (Score:2)
Really? Did you use the word "dumbass" in your testimony? Did you testify under the name l33t_j03?
TheFrood
Re:I get to decide, according to the law. (Score:2)
When you make a software purchase, you are entitled to fair use of your software. Courts have repeatedly ruled AGAINST software licenses - Klocek v. Gateway, Hill v. Gateway 2000. In general rulings FOR software licesning make a few statements, for example, from the most famous case FOR software licenses:
"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are un- conscionable). Because no one argues that the terms of the license at issue here are troublesome, we remand with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff." (ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg)
Here is where things get tricky. The majority of court opinions I've read view software licenses in terms of redistribution of purchased software(piracy), or warrenty disclaimers - I have yet to see a ruling state that such a license could govern HOW you use the software.
Fair use DOES NOT give you the right to redistribute software as you seem to state. Instead fair use gives you the right to A.) use the software as you see fit, B.) take screenshots/publish reviews, etc...
Basically, imagine purchasing a book. You can not legally copy the entire book or sell it as your own. You can however, quote, review, copy pictures from, write in, and research it.
IANAL, blah blah blah blah blah
Re:I get to decide, according to the law. (Score:2)
I most certainly can sell my copy of the game to one friend, by giving him my original copy of the game, deleting it from my hard drive, and destroying any other copies I've made. Anything else would be violating Blizzard's copyright. I can own a book without having copyright on the contents, and I can own a game without having copyright on the game.
Of course, your use of the word "twat" suggests to me that you're not really interested in an intelligent debate as much as you're interested in name-calling.
TheFrood
Wrong issue (Score:2)
Which is tough for the people who bought Blizzard games and use them with bnetd. But what the hell does it have to do with shutting down the bnetd project? I don't see any allegation that the bnetd folks broke licensing agreements.
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? No. (Score:2)
Why? I love the client side piece, I hate the server side piece, and I can replace that.
Why should I return it?
>The fact that Blizzard's service does not meet your expectations has nothing to do with the right of bnetd developers to reverse engineer Blizzard IP and exist parasitically
Nope. It simply provides ME with the right to LOOK for alternatives. Thats my right as a consumer under FAIR USE laws.
>What you choose to connect to might be your choice
Yes it is.
>but it's Blizzard's choice to kill bnetd - and bnetd, right now, are completely fucked. Doubly so since EFF stepped in, incompetent communists that they are.
No, it is their choice to attempt to kill bnetd. And fail.
And the EFF beign incompetent?
I presume since you post as AC, you have a law practice that defends the rights of millions of computer users around the world -- SUCCESSFULLY -- pro bono in most cases..
Right?
In that case the BnetD guys are in the clear (Score:2)
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:2)
I'd rather run a bnetd server on my co-lo box and let friends connect to it!
Verant tried to do the same Everquest did the same but at least they have the excuse of revenue stream losses (though at 35 quid a pop for the add-ons it's not like the monthly fee is the stream).
What this suggests to me is that Battle.net will stop being free once Warcraft is released and Blizzard are going to start charging for access.
All the other piracy stuff is just FUD
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:2)
it's not like the monthly fee is the stream
should be
it's not like the monthly fee is the only stream
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Blizzard sells games - people BUY games. Bnetd is not challenging the sale of those games - it's allowing people to play the games as they were intended - on a Battle.net server. Blizzard cannot, should not, and absolutely will not ever be able to say "oh, and you can only play these games on OUR server at Battle.net, and if you try to play them anywhere else, that's illegal."
bnetd is creating a free alternative to a necessary extra piece of 'hardware' to use the game to its full value. This is IDENTICAL to the Bleem/Connectix case. Completely identical. In that case, they created a free implementation of a Sony PlayStation on a computer, and the courts agreed "well, yes, if people BUY the games, they can attempt to PLAY them on whatever they want." If you try to say that bnetd is wrong, then by extension WINE is wrong, Bleem is wrong, hell, VMware is wrong. But they're not. Why? Because reverse engineering is legal, and critical, for any healthy economy.
Blizzard makes money off of games. In fact, Battle.net earns them no value, no reward in your own terminology. God. Blizzard, and everyone else, are just plain stupid here - let bnetd run, and Blizzard makes MORE money, for crying out loud. How the heck can it be bad to offer people MORE ways to play a game you're selling?!?
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:2, Troll)
Were you asleep when DMCA got passed somehow? As pointed out in the argument summary and many posts on here, this law made reverse engineering very illegal in most cases, and this law has been tested in courts. Please don't talk down to "us people" when you don't understand the legal grounds on which Blizzard is making their argument.
How the heck can it be bad to offer people MORE ways to play a game you're selling?!?
Yes, Blizzard is very stupid. When 10 of my buddies and I use our warez'ed ISO copies to setup our own Battle.Net implementation with our keygen'ed keys, I definitely see how Blizzard makes MORE money.
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:2)
I do understand the legal grounds on which Blizzard is making their argument - that is, none. Bleem was upheld even under the DMCA, so look, Blizzard has no chance.
And maybe Blizzard should find a way to stop warez copies, rather than stopping a Battle.Net server emulator. After all, even without the bnetd server emulator, there're still many different ways to play multiplayer games.
Look, piracy's basically a constant in terms of cost: it goes up a little some years, down some others. Why? Because pirates are smart people - and fundamentally, there's no way to prevent piracy - it's digital, and you can mess with it. The only way you could get rid of piracy is for a game like EverQuest, where the 'game' is located somewhere else, and EVEN THEN, someone could STILL make an additional 'EverQuest' server if they emulated it clean-room.
If Blizzard wants to stop piracy, stop the pirates, not the people who are doing perfectly legal things. But why aren't they doing this? Because it's bad for companies (and inefficient) to go after individual people. Too bad. Individual people are breaking the law. Sue them, not people who are doing LEGAL things.
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:2)
For a fee of $x / month we will allow you to use some of our network services with limited disk space allocated to you.
These are the services on offer
1 HTTP : You may connect and download material from our HTTP server.
2 FTP : You may connect and upload or download material from our FTP server subject to your disk space limits.
3 SMB / CIFS : You may upload or download files subject to your disk space limits
4 IRC : You may connect to our IRC server and engage with other paying users of our service
5 BNETD : You may connect to our bnet server to play online games with other paying users.
6 ECHO : You may have packets echoed back to your IP.
7 NFS : You my transfer files subject to your disk space limit.
8 QUAKE3 : You may connect to our Quake server and play against other users of our system.
Can someone tell me why *I* as service provider am breaking the law if someone uses a pirated client in case (5) but I am not all the other cases.
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:2)
Two quick points - first of all, I think the case will resolve in Bnetd's favor, and have contributed funds to them as I pointed in another post. Secondly, Quake3 connects to the master id network to validate its key, as does Battle.Net, validating keys, after which the users can play. So it's not correct for you to compare the two, as eliminating the legitimacy check from this battle.net implementation would create a completely separate environment from the official Blizzard network, unlike Quake3.
Re:Bah, simpler argument (Score:2)
Blizzard copyrighted their GAME. They did NOT copyright the protocol that their game uses to interact with Battle.Net, nor could they (at least, not without someone being able to do a clean-room reverse engineer).
God, suck it up, Blizzard. Blizzard didn't even come UP with the "Online Play" idea in the first place! Why the hell are they the only ones allowed to play?
Re:Excellent examples! Thanks. (Score:2)
Who modded this up ?? It's a troll !! (Score:2)
To those that modded the comment up :
Print out the comment '"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed.'. Hang it on your wall where it is easily visible to remind you of what a troll looks like.
Re:Who modded this up ?? It's a troll !! (Score:2)
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:2)
The authors of bnetd wrote a program and want to give it away for free. The people who run their own bnetd servers own their own computing resources, and want to allow other people to use them, for free. None of Blizzard's code was used, none of Blizzard's resources is used. If it's a free society, as you say, then what legal basis does Blizzard have to interfere? It doesn't really matter who you think is creating value or not, that's not what our laws are based on (yet).
Doing as you please with somebody else's service is a different matter.
Bnetd is in no way Blizzard's service. The only thing it has in common with Blizzard's software is that it is compatible with some of Blizzard's clients. Compatibility does not imply legal liability.
It is perfectly appropriate for Blizzard to see legal redress when they are victimized by criminals.
Of course it is. The criminals, in this case, are people who distribute or obtain illegal copies of Blizzard's clients. Writing your own server program and making it compatible is NOT a crime.
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:2)
You are not a capitalist. I'd try to find an appropriate label for you, but your ideas don't even make sense. How can you say that Blizzard should be rewarded for creating a network server (battle.net) but if someone competes with it they are a "parasite"? Have you thought about what you are saying at all? (probably not). If I decide to manufacture something that is not under patent; i.e. televisions, am I a parasite because I didn't invent the television? Are you a complete idiot, a fascist, or both? I will continue to live in our lovely free market, capitalist system where I am free to flourish and become successful. Enjoy your twisted, bizarre fantasy world.
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:2)
Now Blizzard is too successful. They attracted a market segment that they did not have the resources to support. Servers become laggy, more hackers become interested in hacking their characters, etc. The value decreases because of the degrading network. This is akin to an airline not maintaining their aircraft, which malfunction more often, causing the service to their passengers to be downgraded. Sure, there will still be people willing to use it, but the company would lose current or potential customers because of their reputation.
Blizzard has refused to maintain value. Bnetd arose to fill the needs of the players, and is in fact adding, not siphoning, value to Blizzard's game. Blizzard's own infrastructure cannot handle their customers, and Bnetd is a free solution to help alleviate that. If not for Bnetd, various once-fans of Blizzard will decide not to purchase any future games because of their bad experiences with Blizzard's service.
Blizzard made a mistake in underestimating their market. It's their fault that they are losing a lot of potential revenue because they cannot meet the demands, and it is stupid that they would alienate their fans.
And it is illegal to throw an illegitimate lawsuit at a group that didn't break the law (even under the DMCA, what the Bnetd guys are doing is legal).
So let's not kid ourselves and not blindly defend corporations just because we are in a free capitalist system. Capitalism is a way of doing business, not an excuse to break the law.
Re:Blizzard is Right (Score:3, Interesting)
It wouldnt have if Blizzard would have:
1. Cooperated with them to create an authentication method (Blizzard doesnt want to at all!)
2. Maintained the Battle.Net server to a level encouraging people to NOT look for alternatives. Between Diablo, and Diablo2, and now Warcraft3, it has become BLARINGLY obvious that Blizzard is NOT capable of maintaining a server of sufficient size, sophistication, and protection to maintain gaming of any quality on the server-side.
>The alternative is to hand over the CD-Key construction details - to an OPEN SOURCE product, no less - and paint a picture in source code of how to generate valid keys.
Not at all! There is ABSOLUTELY no reason why Bnetd couldnt do simply pass a network request from the Bnetd server to the Blizzard network directly to request an authentication challenge. Blizzard doesnt want that, because it challenges THEIR NETWORK beign the sole means of playing!
Blizzard is WRONG. I paid for the software, I am legally allowed to use that software in any fashion I see fit, including connecting it to a third-party server!
Re:Blizzard is Right (Score:2)
Re:Blizzard is Right (Score:2)
You're right blizzard doesn't have to, but then they should cry foul cause they suddenly have some competition, they could have co-operated, and their products would still sell.
Poor quality of service does not grant the right of others to violate the law (in this case DMCA.) Unfortunately for bnetd, their software cannot verify CD keys (even if it did I wonder if Blizzard would have a case.) Because of this, it's clear that those who create copies of their CD key protected software for distribution could use these copies on the internet without paying for it. bnetd permits (and I daresay encourages) usage of pirated software.
You're right poor service isn't an excuse, but bnetd hasn't broken any laws, blizzard is scared of losing control of the online play (and possible loss of revenue from ads). Also creating a product that could lead others to break the law isn't illegal, besides blizzard was given the opportunity to co-operate, they refused, thus digging their own grave... it also gives them an excuse to go after them. "THEY DON'T HAVE CD-KEY CHECKS!!" yeah cause blizzard didn't let them.
I don't have a copy of their EULAs for any game that uses Battle.net, but I'm sure that you paid for a software license, and not actual software. This is an important distinction as you (as well as Blizzard) are bound by the terms of that license. Go read that EULA, and tell me where it says you can do with their software as you please.
Again you're right, but what does that have to do with anything? the bnetd guys didn't agree to the EULA, and as far as I know blizzard can't hold everyone in the world to an arbitrary contract that says you won't make a competing product. I also don't imagine anywhere in the EULA it states that you won't make a competing battle.net server.
I agree with what Blizzard is doing to the extent that they should have the right to protect their IP. Now, if bnetd validated CD keys, the piracy argument(based on CD key challege/response) goes out the door.
What's wrong with creating a competing product?? bnetd hasn't stollen any IP from Blizzard, they've just created a server that's compatible with blizzard's client... how would you feel if MS went after every company that makes a mail server that works with outlook? the fact is blizzard has control and they want to keep it that way, but all bnetd has done is create a compatible server for a client, and there's nothing illegal about it, they're under no obligation to provide every fail safe and every feature that the orginal does either. There is also nothing illegal about using software to connect to any server you wish. EULA's are not the end all and be all, there are tons of laws that make most of the statements in EULA's totally rediculous and un-enforcable, I especially like the ones that say I've agreed to the EULA by opening the box before I've even read the EULA... which is contained in the box ;) For some reason people think that just because things have been a certain way for a while, that they should stay that way, they're just plain wrong.
Re:Blizzard is Right (Score:3, Insightful)
Tough shit. Since when is the law based on guaranteeing revenues? If Blizzard's copy control mechanism is based on an invalid assumption (i.e. that all servers will be controlled by Blizzard), that is Blizzard's problem. Point me to the law that says "thou shalt not do anything that interferes with a company's ability to generate profit".
Re:wrong; other alternative exists (Score:2)
Re:wrong; other alternative exists (Score:2, Insightful)
It accomplishes exactly the same process that the bnetd-thru-network-auth model would.
Re:wrong; other alternative exists (Score:2)
No you don't.... (Score:2)
Re:No you don't.... (Score:2)
Yes, of course you can brute force by faking packets, but once again, Blizzard controls the validation end of the process. So, if they detect that 100 requests for key validation of different keys have come from a certain IP, they can ban the IP or do anything else they want with this information.
Now suppose they work with a 3rd party of open source server implmentation to do this key validation. Now immediately they lost the ability to police their keys. Because now when you look at the string of bad requests, you can't necessarily ban that IP or do any further examination, b/c that might be a server, and is passing those requests on through no fault of its own. Distinguishing betweeen bnetd servers and normal users would be irrelevant, as anyone could install bnetd, or once again, pretend you're a server.
Regardless, this discussion is almost silly. First of all, this is too much effort, on both sides, and secondly, as people have pointed out, this alone does not prevent piracy. BUT it's a deterrent Blizzard has chosen to build in, and they have every right to do so. When I say I support the case, I mean I agree that it seems legal to create own server implementations by people. But I do not buy into the argument that "we tried to work with them on the key issue and they wouldn't work with us" - Blizzard doesn't have to work with anyone on the key issue because I don't see any workable solution that would protect their key algorithm. And yes, there are keygens, but only Blizzard knows which cd keys have been sold and which have never even been created yet.
I hope that exhaustively addresses your points.