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

Re:Well....

[arkanes]

Offtopic so, I'll try to remember to take off my +1 bonus - the grounds for the only (even mildly) successful gun suits are based about predatory marketing (IE, gun makers intentionally market products to be used for criminal purposes), very much the same as the cigarrette cases, and, in fact, much like the DeCSS case (in principle, different laws obviously).

Re:Well.... [ot]

[amorico]

IIRC, the gun lawsuits were threatened because the gun companies were pushing a LOT of guns in states that had less strict gun purchase requirements and that allowed them to trickle in to states that had more stringnent rules in order to prevent crime. Their distribution policies were undermining public safety efforts.

I'll bite on that troll

[bofkentucky]

there's really only one use for a gun-- kill or injure people.

So the biathalon, target shooting, hunting, pest control, and self-defense aren't valid reasons for owning a gun? The anti-gunners in the US and around the world (Look what has happened in Austrailia, the UK, and Canada) pick and prod at gun owners rights until there is nothing left. I'll be the first to admit, I don't need a howitzer, mortar, tracer ammo, or a fully-automatic machine gun, but those have been banned in the US since the late 1930's. In the 60's after the assinations of MLK jr. and JFK sr., the anti-gunners yelled and screamed that we needed to take highly accurate "sniper's rifles" of the streets. Then through the 70s and 80's they wanted to get rid of the infamous "Saturday Night Specials", small cheap handguns that anyone could afford, but were not the most accurate pistols on the planet.

I don't mind the instant background checks on gun purchases, but at the same time, I don't want the Gov't to have a record of every firearm and round of ammo I have in my home, in the event of a massive policy shift that vioates the constitution, I want to insure that I have a chance to defend my rights as a citizen of the US. Bottom line:

• The gun regs on the books are fine as the stand, just enforce them. Richmond Virginia did and saw great sucess in decreasing crime.
• If you commit a violent (Rape, murder, robbery) felony with a gun in your possesion, you get double the max sentence
• If you aren't a US citizen and you are found to be in possesion of a firearm, instant deportation of you and your immediate family, no sense in my tax dollars paying for your stupidity

Re:Well....

[dasunt]

Actually, I think the lawsuites aren't focusing on the fact that guns kill people, but on the evidence that gun manufactures specifically targetted the criminal market and tried to flood high-crime areas with guns.

Its equivalent to being able to sell most chemicals with little regulation in the US, but packaging a "make-your-own-meth-kit", even if you don't name it as such, would probably get you into a lot of legal hot water.

Before you pass judgement on lawsuites, maybe you should look at the reasons why they are suing.

Re:Well....

[Grax]

re's really only one use for a gun-- kill or injure people.

That's a load of bull. I could make a better argument about tobacco's only use being to kill and injure people with the number of poisons it contains. It addicts you and then poisons you til you die.

Guns are used for hunting (killing animals is still considered acceptable by huge numbers of meat eaters in this country), target shooting (the olympic biathlon event for one), and self-defense (OK, that is killing people but they were all bad).

I do agree with you that it is silly to sue the gun manufacturers. This country has had guns throughout its history and there are numerous ocassions when they were necessary (both for hunting to survive and self-defense to survive). To suddenly say that those who make guns are responsible for crimes with them is quite crazy.

Re:Well....

[MrTaz65]

Oh, you mean like GM(?) did when a drunk rear-ended some kids car at 60 mph and the kid burned to death?

Yeah, the family sued big-car-company and got millions. Damn that car company, they should design cars to withstand a 60MPH collision.