Blizzard, Bnetd Respond on Bnetd Shutdown

EvilDonut writes: "Following the roar of protests following the shut down of the BnetD-project, Blizzard has posted a Battle.net emulation FAQ, citing their reasons to to search out and close any project that allows people to play Blizzard games online without using Battle.net. Their main arguments are software piracy and the ability to control and expire the WarCraft III beta." There's also a brief note from the Bnetd people, included below.

From: "Tim Jung"
Subject: bnetd.org shutdown

If you would like more information on this please feel free to contact me. I am one of the developers and the hosting ISP for www.bnetd.org. I have talked at lenght with both the Blizzard/Vivendi lawyers and with EFF lawyers about our options both as an ISP and as a developer.

As an ISP I did not force the group to do anything, but rather presented them with all the legal information I have recieved and asked them what they wanted to do. As you can imagine neither my company nor any of the developers have the money to fight the Blizzard/Vivendi lawyers at this time. So until we are able to get some legal help to fight this we felt we had no choice but to close down the site for now until the time at which we could fight this legal battle.

If you have any questions or suggestions let me know.

Tim Jung
System Admin
Internet Gateway Inc.

Comments

Solution

[pouwelse]

If their problem with the OpenSource server emulator is the piracy, problems can be solved easily.

Why should the on-line piracy validation be integrated with the server? It is "relatively" easy to split the actual battle.net serving with the vadidation process.

With an Open client/server protocol the client could get a ticket/.net pasport from the official site and play with the Free server...

Just my 5 EuroCents.

Poor CD key algorithm

[arivanov]

I will not comment on the other flawed ariguments, but this cought my attention:

They need to keep the CD key algorithm secret in order to be secure

This sound like yet another amateur cryptography to me. If they used a proper public key algo they would have no need to keep it secret.In other words: reading crypto books helps.

Re:Poor CD key algorithm

[pergamon]

That would be an excellent use for those silly CueCats. Scan a few barcodes off the back of the CD case when you install...

Simple solution...

[Whizard]

It's funny, there's actually a pretty simple solution to all of this, which neither Blizzard or the /.-ers want to admit: Blizzard just needs to release a legitimate version of the B.Net server, with CD key checks enabled, that anybody can use to start up a B.Net server. This should solve both the complaints of those, like me, who own a legitimate copy a game, but have never been able to actually get a game up and running on B.Net with friends due to the servers being so overloaded, and Blizzard, who seems to just be worried about piracy. But, that would be giving the customer freedom of choice, now, wouldn't it, and then Blizzard couldn't start charging for access to B.Net eventually.

Re:Well....

[radja]

>They wrote it.

Yes, they did. They wrote the battle.net server.

>They earned the right to sell it and protect it.

yup. but they aint selling the battle.net server software, and have protected it. As I understand it, bnetd is a cleanroom implementation. It was built from the ground up. Nobody stole the code, they're just getting competition that's better and cheaper than they are.

//rdj

presumed guilt?

[nobodyman]

You are both right, and wrong. Blizzard does indeed deserve to be able to fight piracy. I doubt many people would have beef with Blizzard trying to go after pirates. However, this is something entirely different. This is Blizzard quashing a product with a legitimate, innocent purpose , simply because pirates might be able to exploit it.

Here are reasons why bnetd was needed:

1. Battle.net is often slow, or even down.
   
2. You can't play on battle.net over certain types of corporate firewalls. On my company's firewall, for example, as soon as second person wants to play evertything gets hosed.
   
3. Up until recently, you couldn't play on a lan unless you had IPX enabled.
   

Based on my use of the product, I can assure you that people trying to use hacked copies were in the strict minority.

This is the IP equivalent of setting fire to a village because it might contain spies. If this kind of "ends justifying the means" logic were applied to any other aspect of life it be considered Draconian, but the DMCA allows this -- companies can prosecute groups whose work may present the slightest threat.

"I just wanted to play starcraft at work... and now I'm going to jail?" *sigh*

Re:Translation

[egburr]

If there were a Linux client - and to my knowledge there are no Linux version of any Blizzard games - they would have no problem playing on Blizzard's main server, assuming they had a valid CD key.

Yes, they would, for the very same reason I have problems playing on Blizzard's BattleNet servers with a windows client. Their BattleNet servers are overloaded, full of spamming jerks, and are completely unusable for any group of people trying to play a game together.

That is why my friends and I setup our own bnetd server. When we login to our own server, we can actually find each other. We can all join the game that someone creates. We don't get incessant messages while we are playing: to join a clan, visit a site, or make money fast.

We all have legitimate copies of the game. Blizzard made their money from us. Let us play the game.

My response to Blizzard

[rossz]

What follows is my personal response and does not necessarily represent the beliefs of any persons working on the bnetd project. Also, although I am not currently a member of the bnetd project, Blizzard's actions have prompted me to support this open source program in whatever way I am able.

You can view the letter in its entirety here at Blizzard Takes Action to Protect.

"Although these programs might have been made with good intentions, they directly promote software piracy..."

The software, bnetd, no more promotes piracy than a crowbar promotes breaking and entering. Just as a crowbar can be misused, bnetd emulator can also be misused. A lock pick set is illegal here in California without a license because its primary purpose is to circumvent security. No license is required to own a crowbar or hacksaw just because these devices might be used in an illegal manner.

"...thereby eliminating Blizzard's ability to protect legitimate consumers..."

I'm a legitimate consumer. I own just about everything ever made by Blizzard. Your disrupting the development of bnetd has interfered with my ability to play the game. Shutting down bnetd is a violation of my fair use of software I legally own. Please explain the logic used to derive at the conclusion that disrupting my ability to play is actually helping me.

"we are well within our legal rights to protect our products from software piracy"

No one disputes this right, but you have not gone after the pirates any more than the police would by going after the manufacturer of crowbars.

"In order for us to keep our proprietary CD-key algorithms secure, we cannot allow outside servers to query for the validity of CD keys."

Security through obscurity is no security at all. Your algorithm with be reverse-engineered, eventually. When that happens, the inherent weakness will be public knowledge. CD key generators are already floating around the web. Obviously, the security of the CD keys has been seriously compromised. If you make the CD key verification code public, it can be implemented into bnetd and most users of the program will, no doubt, implement. In truth, the CD key verification should not be necessary. The game will not run without a valid game CD in the drive. If something is circumventing this verification, is is completely unrelated to bnetd. We are not pirates and we do not like pirates.

"Unfortunately, software pirates have spoiled this situation for hobbyists."

No, Blizzard - you have. The pirates are always going to be there, regardless of what you do to legitimate owners of the games.

"We are constantly working to improve Battle.net, and we sincerely hope that one day, no one will see any reason to seek alternatives to Battle.net for playing Blizzard games.

You have? When did this happen? Diablo 2:LoD has been virtually unplayable for several months now. Why do you think we seek an alternate closed realm? Since Blizzard has obviously abandoned the game to the hackers and cheaters, we have been forced by you to come up with our own solution. If you actually made an attempt to do something about the horrid condition of the realms, we might not be setting up our own realms. We want a nice place to play the game, free of cheaters and dupers. You won't give this to us; so, like an abandoned step-child, we must try to go our own way. With the state of the realms in a perpetual state of self-destruction due to Blizzard's neglect, and with Blizzard's complete lack of interest in making existing customers happy, I have decided there is no reason to purchase another Blizzard product ever again. You have lost a customer. How many will you have to lose before you realize you must SUPPORT YOUR EXISTING CUSTOMERS. During the previous duping exploit a few weeks ago, a Blizzard talking head said they had "come up with a solution that should be satisfactory to most people." We're still waiting. When is this mythical solution going to be implemented? Perhaps when he said "most people" he was referring to the Blizzard marketing division and the dupers. I'm sure the the only people satisfied with Blizzard's non-solution will be the marketing people (they are hoping it will drive people to their new game) and the dupers (they are free to abuse the realms to their heart's content).