Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard, Bnetd Respond on Bnetd Shutdown
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.
if you want to grab the files while you can, grab it from sourceforge here or here or here while they last. That should cover all the flavors.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
They wrote it.
They earned the right to sell it and protect it.
I'll still buy Blizzard games as long as they provide enough entertainment for the money.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
Well you could always play one of the developer friendly games OR you could being doing what your supposed to be doing, WORK...:)
Atleast thats what my wife tells me all of the time.
BWP
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.
Notice how they cleverly shift the argument from one of "Why did Blizzard (successfully) attempt to shut down this project?" to "Are you saying you support piracy?" This is what we call a strawman, boys and girls.
All they've done is piss off a bunch of people and possibly "prevent" a couple of copies of their games from being the target of copyright violation. Let's see... a couple fewer sales, or the loss of much goodwill? The really determined copyright violators will still find a way, then they'll make their methods known, so they're back to where they were in the beginning with fewer fans.
Yeah, great choice, guys.
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
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.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Blizzard is ultimately doing the right thing in going after people cracking the Beta, IMHO.
I mean, ideally they ought to allow things like bnetd for their published games, since that reduced the load on their real battle.net servers, which I think most of us will agree is often more than they can handle.
Instead of citing security of their protection algorithms, I think they ought to be working WITH the bnetd people -- they need to find a way to allow copy protection while still allowing user-operated servers.
If they need a real example of a system that works, they need look no farther than Half-Life or Quake3 -- they can be played on LANs without authentication, but by and large, you need a licensed copy to play on the Internet.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
Like any other software, once it hits the hands of someone outside the company it's going to be pirated. I checked Efnet last night, and the iso for the warcraft 3 beta is all over the place. It's sad that people pirate software, but that's the nature of the beast and no reason to shutdown a legit project. Now the bnetd server has gone underground, and will be modified by 3l337 h4X0r5 from here on out, and blizzard will not be able to get any control of that.
Why is Blizzard trying to shut down servers that emulate Battle.net?
Servers that emulate Battle.net facilitate software piracy of Blizzard products by circumventing Blizzard's authentication code. Blizzard products are intellectual property, and we are well within our legal rights to protect our products from software piracy.
We, at Blizzard couldn't figure out how to keep people from copying our software, so we decided to do authentication in the server, and hope no one figures out how to write their own server.
How do CD keys help reduce piracy?
Blizzard uses two main methods to combat piracy: disc-based copy protection and CD keys. As part of the login process, Battle.net authenticates the user's CD key and prevents people from logging in with the same key or an invalid key.
We realize that all attempts to combat piracy are futile. We put these schemes in place more to frustrate legitimate users than to stop determined people from copying our software.
Why doesn't Blizzard provide facilities that enable these emulators to authenticate CD keys through Battle.net?
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.
We believe that keeping our CD-key algorithms secret makes our software look more secure.
What about software that hasn't been released yet? Wouldn't it be better to have as many people testing the beta version of Warcraft III as possible, even if they are playing on non-Battle.net servers?
The primary purposes of the Warcraft III Beta are to get play-balance feedback and to test our Battle.net servers. Our servers aren't tested if people are playing the Beta on rogue servers. Additionally, the Warcraft III Beta is not intended to be a product demo; when testing ends, we need the ability to terminate the Beta's functionality. Rogue servers eliminate our ability to expire beta versions of our products.
This is just the beginning. We need to be able to, on a whim, terminate your access to a game you rightfully bought. We are testing this scheme under the guise of a "time limited beta test". If we let others run servers, they could play the game they paid for whenever they want!
What about the hobbyists who are not pirating your software but just want to use these servers as an alternative to Battle.net?
Unfortunately, software pirates have spoiled this situation for hobbyists. 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.
We don't understand why someone else would want to use an alternative to Battle.net. Our software is close to perfect, and who cares about those strange Linux-using customers?
Your games sell millions of copies. Why do you care if a few people pirate your software?
The sales success of a product should not exclude it from laws intended to protect intellectual property. Software piracy needs to be combated at all levels, and at Blizzard we intend to do our part to fight illegal distribution of copyrighted media.
Business as usual... "War on Piracy..." News at eleven...
The only legal recourse for Blizzard is to try to shut down individual game servers residing in the US (small potatoes), or to try and track down developpers individually should they also reside in the US.
If you're an american developer for this, just deny any involvement from this point on.
1201a of the DMCA reads: ''(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-- ''(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; ''(B) 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 ''(C) 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."
It does not take a lawyer to know that bnetd is not a "circumvention device" under the DMCA, and by saying that the "pirates" "spoiled" it for the rest of legitimate users, they are even admitting that there are substantial legal uses and bnetd is not "primarily designed" to circumvent a copy prevention mechanism.
They wouldn't stand a chance if this went to court.
I use bnetd to play starcraft on linux on lan. I'm not going to put ipx just for one game.
Yes, I did buy the game, and yes I use winex to play it.
I also happen to be the geek to call for a few tens of persons when they have a technical problem or to talk about games.
I'm going to advice all those persons to never again buy a blizzard/vivendi game until this affair is settled between vivendi and bnet. There is obviouslly something better to be done for vivendi than to piss off fans with stupid useless legal moves.
Piracy is not harmed by this move, nor helped by the existence of bnet.
From the FAQ:
Q. What about the hobbyists who are not pirating your software but just want to use these servers as an alternative to Battle.net? A. Unfortunately, software pirates have spoiled this situation for hobbyists.
"Software Pirates" didn't spoil this for hobbyists. *Blizzard* spoiled it for hobbyists. In the style typical of any arrogant corporation, they don't care what their customers want; they just want to control every aspect of everyone's interaction with them. (IMO, this is typified by the horribly buggy CD copy protection on Diablo II -- ever try to play it with more than one CD-ROM drive, or the CD not in the first drive? Feh. They'd rather keep legitimate buyers from playing (hell, they already have our money) than risk letting even *one* "software pirate" slip through the cracks!)
Don't let Blizzard fool you. *They* are the ones who are causing problems here, not bnetd. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" (Yes, I know it's a legal principle, but it used to be widely practiced even by ordinary people... until the lawyers found they could make more money by pre-shafting people, so to speak.) Anyway, just my $0.02.
---Crash Windows XP with just a simple printf!
Any service that can validate a CD key or not would be an invaluable service for anyone attempting to determine what that algorithm is. Thus I can see why they would not want to provide that service.
Public key encryption is a tool that solves a completely separate problem, and could not be applied to this task.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Make this offer to blizzard : the bnetd supplies the server game code, but passes the authentication off to a Blizzard-run server....
Lets see how Blizzard would respond to that, if piracy really is the objection...
free experimental electronic music netlabel at www.viablehybrid.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
EA Originally DID shut down the UOX project which let ultima online users run their own servers for free instead of for pay. After the EA servers got overloaded and they couldn't support all the players, they dropped the lawsuits and let people have all the free servers they wanted. Now there are hundreds of free servers and UO is still in existence because of it, and the server load on the main server has dropped dramatically. Battlenet's currently running very close to the same problem. Its servers are laggy, even during non peak hours, and during peak hours its almost impossible to play.
Don't get me wrong, it is well within their right to do so. Blizzard has been put into a tough spot by these server emulators, because they are forced to choose between an uncontrolled environment (which leaves the very real possibility of piracy), and high server load and an irate community that somehow feels that their rights are being violated.
You don't have to agree with their position (which I personally do) but at least understand the reasons WHY they are taking this stance.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Sorry about the italics...I should have previewed...
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.
--to see which opensource Diablo lookalike is furthest along and offer your support towards its development.
If you want a real laugh, make it use the bnetd as its server [bnetd is GPL after all], so bnetd server can no longer be primarily regarded as a piracy tool [if it ever was]
Game development takes a long time and several years of effort, so a complete start from scratch to produce something that operates in a similar fashion to Diablo is probably not a good idea, but if you can assist on something that runs on both Linux and Windows you'll rip a lot of their profit base from under their feet. What better way to be avenged ? I suggest the bnetd developers have a look around for a suitable project!
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
something like a quarter of a milion people read slashdot (or so i'm told). my suggestion for a solution is simple:
if you don't agree with the politics of this desicion, don't buy the game. tell your friends not to buy yhe game.
i'll bet they are going to lose a lot more money from that then they would ever have done due to piracy.
try protecting your intellectual property from that!
Acts@core.mailboks.com Acrux@core.mailboks.com Adam@core.mailboks.com Adar@core.mailboks.com Ada@core.mailboks.com
using Kali, a software that's been around since.. 95 at least, http://www.kali.net/ , gamers were able to play IPX game on the net under the guise of "Lan" emulated games. Eventually this evolved to encompass tcp/ip games, such as diablo, allowing users to play together without connecting to battle.net server.
Kali therefor ALSO bypasses the battle.net cd verification software, and has done so for the past 7 years.
Blizzard cracked down on bnetd, for the only reason, that it allowed ten's of thousands of players to play their closed beta unchecked.
Spite is what it really comes down too, as the piracy issue did not affect sales in any way for this beta.
another good deed for vivendi......
i have to object here. battlenet is free only in that there is no monthly fee. but, you certainly pay for it, as a portion of the retail price for the game. think of it as a 15 dollar or 20 dollar lifetime subscription.
:)
if battlenet were free, then you could theoretically play on it with a third party version of starcraft. however, you cannot.
i'm not denying that 50 dollars is a fair value for most of blizzard's games. they make great games, and starcraft is perhaps worth a half point on my gpa.
Servers that emulate Battle.net facilitate software piracy of Blizzard products by circumventing Blizzard's authentication code.
This is, of course, pure bollocks. I could as easily write that "Playing Diablo II in single-player mode facilitates software piracy by circumventing Blizzard's authentication code. What's really at issue is that they don't want any competition for their pay-for-play servers in the future, and are willing to overlook the fact that the bnetd folks aren't the ones who added WC3 support.
Here's the letter I wrote to Blizzard:
Dear Sirs,
I have been a Blizzard customer for many years now. My shelves have accumulated boxes of Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Starcraft, Diablo, Diablo 2,
and sundry expansion packs for those games. But I'm afraid actions your company has undertaken have persuaded me that I should stop being your
customer.
Like many others, I've been distressed recently by the damage hackers and cheaters have been doing to gameplay on Blizzard's Realms servers on the battle.net service. Duping items, hacking items, skill hacks, and various other methods of cheating have been running rampant. But until now, I've held out hope that Blizzard would take action to address these problems, and deliver on the cheat-free Realms that it has promised since before Diablo 2 was released.
Instead, I've noticed to my dismay that instead of investing its resources to improve the gaming environment for all legitimate players, Blizzard has instead chosen to squander those resources on stifling the innovation of those legitimate players. I speak, of course, of the letter threatening legal action Rod Rigole has sent to the bnetd project, hosted at http://www.bnetd.org. Mr. Rigole claims that this software violates the DMCA, and that it is Blizzard's interest that the software be suppressed.
Putting aside the fact that this is a questionable legal interpretation, given that bnetd is not a means to bypass anti-circumvention techology, does not facilitate copyright violation, and plainly lies within the DMCA's
exemption for reverse engineering done for the purposes of interoperability between privately-created software and preexisting software, and also putting aside the fact that I have never used the bnetd software, I am writing this letter to tell you that it is not within Blizzard's interest to take such action.
As evidence of that, I will offer the fact that your draconian action against a piece of software that only serves to enrich the gaming experience for thousands of your customers, has convinced me that I should not again purchase one of your products.
[signature]
Let's hear from the EFF folks.
Can Blizzard do this?
Note that I'm not asking wether or not they have a reason. Sure, you can limit piracy by controlling every possible environment in which a game is played. But do they have a right to shut down a clean reverse engineered network, just because they use their own network is an anti-piracy device?
If I sell a car, and one of my anti-theft devices is to place some sort of homing beacon under the hood, which is maintained and serviced at special approved dealers, then can I shut down independent mechanics who also service the car?
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Once again this is the whole licensing crap. If I paid for my copy of Diablo, Diablo II, Starcraft and WarCraft II then I should be able to play them online, but sometimes there are problems with firewalls and what not that render a battle.net server unaccessible. This is neither my fault nor their fault, but they have esentially turned my CD's into coasters.
As for the stuff about CD keys, I think we all know that's just skirting the issue some. The real issue is about control. Blizzard is after complete control just like every other closed software company is. The fact they make kick ass games shouldn't change your view in this case.
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
Each and every example Blizzard cites for their chasing down bnetd is an example of Blizzard trying to control what the consumer does with their software after the point-of-sale. Especially the "we want to expire the Warcraft 3 betas" excuse. They can go after pirates as much as they want, but if I have a legitimate copy they have no right to infringe upon my own rights.
"How in the world is blizzard going to handle complaints and support."
And we have the same, tired old excuse of "But Blizzard will have to support it!" Where the heck do you people get that idea? I answered Dell tech support calls a few years back and I only got support questions about non-Dell peripherals maybe once a day. And I never got a call asking to support hardware that the customer didn't buy through Dell (such as an HP printer).
Customers aren't quite as dense as you seem to think. And this is before you consider the amount of work they'd have to go through to set up a connection to a non-Battle.net server. I will truly be surprised if anybody went through the effort to play StarCraft on one of these servers under the assumption that the server was owned and operated by Blizzard.
At best this is an example of Blizzard using the excuse of a very small minority to infringe upon the rights of everybody.
"It would damage all the work they put into making network play secure and reasonably safe from identity theft."
Then why are they afraid to let it compete with the security of other server operators?
Thanks for not just folding on this, guys. I was worried for a bit there.
If the DMCA isn't going away, we at least have to show corporations that trying to make unsubstantiated threats will cost them more than they seek to gain -- in terms of popularity of the software and in terms of legal battles. I think they've got very little to stand on here (as opposed to the DeCSS case, which I think the DMCA was basically written for), so good luck in your fight.
Why should I not boycott all products from your company as you appear to be just another pathetic DMCA loser?
Sigs are for people who started using the net _after_ '86.
I'm disgusted not only by what Blizzard has done, but by the fact that they feel the need to slander the bnetd project as well.
This is from the announcement on battle.net's main page:
Certain programs have been developed that allow users to bypass Battle.net's CD-key-authentication process. Although these programs might have been made with good intentions, they directly promote software piracy by allowing users who have illegitimately obtained our games to play them as if they'd been legitimately purchased. Furthermore, because these programs allow access without a CD key, they render malicious users unaccountable, thereby eliminating Blizzard's ability to protect legitimate consumers. Therefore, Blizzard has taken an aggressive stance opposing the use of these programs.
This paragraph contains at least on case of spin-doctoring, as well as one outright lie:
"Certain programs have been developed that allow users to bypass Battle.net's CD-key-authentication process." Technically, this is true, but it's a gross misstatement of the bnetd project's aims. This sentence implies that circumventing copy-protection was bnetd's primary purpose, when in fact it was not.
"...they directly promote software piracy by allowing users who have illegitimately obtained our games to play them as if they'd been legitimately purchased." Again, making it sound as though that's the primary goal of the program, and ignoring the fact that the bnetd team asked Blizzard if they could implement CD-key checking.
"Furthermore, because these programs allow access without a CD key, they render malicious users unaccountable, thereby eliminating Blizzard's ability to protect legitimate consumers." This is a lie, pure and simple. Blizzard will stll be able to protect leigimate users on battle.net from malicious ones; the existence of bnetd won't change that one bit. Bnetd poses no danger to batle.net users, and claiming that it does is scurrilous. Blizzard is fabricating this to make users think it's acting in their interests. It's not.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
If I (digitally) stamp copyrighted material onto the "chewy nougut center", I can claim the crunchy chocolate coating is an "Access Control Mechanism".
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
> It does not take a lawyer to know that bnetd is not a "circumvention device" under the DMCA
/could/ validate cd-keys, the service (being open source) would obviously expose the mechanism that checks the key, and let anyone just add a /* */ around it.
/physically/ protect yourself from hobbyists while preventing piracy.
You don't think so? I'd say that a reverse-engineered server that makes pirated software functional by bypassing a CD-KEY check fits that description exactly.
Even if the BNETD guys
The problem with software is that you can't
Signifigant Non-Infringing Uses...
I agree.
Let's say a bunch of friends and I buy copies of the game, but we only have 56k modems and crappy phone lines to connect to the 'net. Ping times to BNet stink, even on a good DSL connection. Let's also say that none of us have higher-end computers with enough juice to play the game and host a TCP/IP game at the same time, but we do have an extra machine we can tie into the mix. So, we set up a bnetd server locally in order to play some games together, on a halfway decent connection, without the relatively high latency one gets with the official servers, especially during peak times. We have fun, with the game we legally bought.
Just because something might allow something illegal to be done, doesn't mean that it is, in and of itself, illegal. A gun could be used to rob a bank - yet you can walk into a gun shop, or even WalMart (if you're buying a rifle) and buy one. You can even buy ammunition for the gun, although it could cause signifigant harm to someone if you shot them with it. It's perfectly legal to own ammunition, and even use it - for hunting, target practice, etc...
Why don't the servers ask for a CD key? Then leave it to Blizzard to authenticate the key?
Well, there's the pseudo-trojan problem - someone other than the bnetd people modify the code to export the validated CD key to a file (or website, IRC channel, etc...) as being "good" - then publish the list. If they marketed themselves as a different project, they would probably catch quite a few legitimate users before being found out. Those keys they caught would become "public", and pretty much useless.
Of course, with Blizzard doing nothing to prevent the shills on BNet from masquerading as "official" Blizzard employees to con (gullible) users out of their CD keys, account passwords, etc... it doesn't seem like they are all that concerned about protecting their CD key system, in general.
I'm not sure if there is a solution that will be able to authenticate the key without exposing it at some point for retrieval - unless the comparison code is put in the client, rather than the server (so the key is never sent over the network, encrypted or not) - but that opens it up to be patched around. Passing the CD key (in any form) will allow it to be captured, and for the above scenario to take place.
they dont have a God giving gift to make a profit.
I assume you mean a God-given gift. What does God have to do with any of this anyway? They are a for-profit organization so maybe God didn't give them the right to make a profit but US (and French in the case of Vivendi) Law surely does. Actually, they have an obligation to their shareholders to do what they feel is best for the company and that includes making a profit and protecting their IP.
im not sure why they even brought out the argument that bnetd is pirating software.
They never said that Bnetd is pirating. They said that "Servers that emulate Battle.net facilitate [emphasis added] software piracy of Blizzard products by circumventing Blizzard's authentication code."
On a side note - you're 23 (according to your info page) and it is about time you learned how to write your posts in a somewhat intelligible manner.
The issue for me certainly wasn't pirating software. I puchased two copies of Broodwar so that my son and I could play.. and I have originals of all other games I play.
The issue was ease of access to cheat-free games. The bnetd server I use allows me to chat with friends and games without a bunch of people around with whom I don't want to talk, allows me to create games more easily without fear of someone else that I don't want in the game jumping in -- in general simply allows for a nicer experience. Further, it used to be that games created on Battlenet had *much* slower response times than those on a private server. Don't know if that's still true. (Creators of BnetD did have a *reason* for all that work.)
(Yes, you can create private rooms, but people still use them whether or not you want them to. You can't password a room.)
I paid the money -- all I'm looking for is a better experience. I get that on the private servers.
Sean.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This has been asked a couple of times but I don't think anyone has hit the real answer yet.
It is quite possible to for Blizzard to work with third parties to set up secure authentication systems (or at least, systems as secure as Battle.Net itself).
The real reason this won't happen is that Blizzard isn't about to start expending time and money to help someone emulate Battle.Net.
Blizzard's position is that no one should want to use anything else, particularly because Battle.Net is free. One of the questions in the FAQ talks about this.
I don't see what the problem is? I seen this comming sooner than later.
I think many of the "I'm never buying a bliz game again" talk is LAME. Grow up!
They have worked LONG AND HARD on this game, they merely are trying to protect their ideas because piracy IS of the result, and people who HAD the beta broke copyright.
WTF is the problem here, really? Blizzard has EVERY right! I totally support them!
I put down my copy of Applied Cryptography long enough to check slashdot, and I read this:
Why doesn't Blizzard provide facilities that enable these emulators to authenticate CD keys through Battle.net?
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.
In the name of Bruce Schneier, I smite thee with the Great Sword, ClueBringer !
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
We want you to shut down the entire site because we think that there are some files somewhere within that may, one day -- when the moon is blue and the sun is red -- be able to be used to violate copyright of something we own
But we're not going to tell you what, where why or how -- so unless you're really good at guessing, you really are going to have to shut down the entire site.
Any law that allows free speech to be infringed on the basis of such vague complaints should, itself, be struck down on the basis of it's vagueness. If an accused can't make a reasonable response to an accusation, it should not be considered a real accusation.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Although this is not a tactic I would take if Blizzard were my company, since I strongly disagree with it, I'm not sure that I can really blame Blizzard here. Piracy is a problem, and they are just trying to protect their investment. The problem isn't so much that they're using the tool available to them, but that it is available to them. The DMCA is a bad law, and we would be much better served trying to get overturned than we would be continually pressuring companies that use it to back down. Of course, the best way right now to attempt to get the DMCA overturned may be the bnet people taking Blizzard to court and attempting to fight the law. Unfortunately, I think it may take the Supreme Court to see the illogical nature of the DMCA and overturn it (although I actually have quite a lot of faith that they will).
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
I'm wondering if they are even going to bother trying to defend this or if they have already given up. If the hobbyists consider this an important thing, then I guess it's time that we all coughed up some cash to help protect it.
Honestly I'm beginning to think that the last bastion if influence individuals can have on the system is writing checks to help pay for the legal defense of the various little guys who are getting stomped on. I mean boycotts are of fairly limited value unless you can get together a large group of people and get some media attention. Personally I would love to see them fight this because I think they've got some solid legal ground here. So if the EFF, or some other group is going to start up a defense fund for these guys, let me know, I'll chip in.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I have placed a current CVS pull as well as the latest release version at This Site.
Bnetd isn't the least of Blizzard's problems right now. If you haven't been following the Diablo saga, here's a short history.
Diablo I was quickly prone to excessive hacks because all character information was stored client-side.
Diablo II was released under the premise that character data was unhackable under a secure server. However, packet sending programs became capable of producing duplicates of godly items, and more recently hack into item properties, and bring characters up to essentially infinite skill levels. Essentially, Diablo I all over again (a big reason for this IMO is that Blizzard does not disallow the selling of game items and characters on ebay, as do the makers of Ultima Online and EverQuest).
After the most recent wave of hacks (typically a new hack is produced, and its use becomes so widespread that Blizzard has to patch it to get it's servers running again), Blizzard announced that it had deleted accounts found sending bogus packets.
Up to WarCraft III all Blizzard products have been free to play on Battle.Net. If they can't be more proactive in securing their servers, the prospects for World of WarCraft, their monthly payment MMORPG under development, does not instill one with confidence.
Blizzard can decide how they want to administer
their property.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. It's not their property, it's mine. They still hold the copyright, but that doesn't mean I can't use my single copy pretty much any damn way I please.
The EULA may say something else, but probably isn't enforcable.
Both are reverse-engineered implementations of a proprietary server protocol.
// TODO: fix sig
What does this posting by Blizzard mean? It means that within a day they had already recieved enough protests to put this FAQ up.
What does this mean for us? Keep up the fight! Send in more emails letting them know that their explanation still does not make up for their despicable actions! Tell them that you will continue to spread the word, and push for a total boycott of Blizzard products until they relent and learn to behave like decent members of a free society.
You aren't a lawyer for certain, since you're trying to argue logic 8). Now, as a disclaimer, I'm playing Diablo's advocate here, and I disagree with the stance Blizzard is taking, but the Adobe case means only that you have the right to take your CD and manual and give or sell them wholesale to someone else (presuming you don't keep a copy and you uninstall the game when you transfer it). It does not mean that you have the right to play it as you please while you own it, any more than you have the right to do with a book's contents while you own the book (excluding things that fall under fair use, and playing Blizzard games on a non-Battle.Net server doesn't count as fair use in the eyes of the law).
They're using the DMCA because it's the easiest path, but even without the DMCA they could reasonably press the case the their EULA forbids the use of non-licensed servers, so such use violates the license agreement and terminates your right to use the program at all.
Virg
Hmmm....seems like Blizzard didn't make any move to shut down bnetd until they discovered people playing the Warcraft III beta on it. So it stands to reason that they'll happily allow continued development of bnetd after the Warcraft III beta ends.
Right? Right...
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
This is the only mirror I've found to work. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
If battle.net is free, this point is mute.....
I don't think this is about Piracy. I believe it is about competition for the on-line revenue stream. I'm betting that Blizzard etc sees Battle.net as a major money maker. If they can force the free competition to be shut down, then they control the Warcraft III monopoly and save their revenue stream.
You're right, they wouldn't stand a chance if they went to court, assuming you mean bnetd.
Most people are missing the key fact here of the timing of Blizzard shutting them down. Blizzard didn't do it when they first heard about it, for reasons that many have stated here already. There are many legit reasons why you'd want to run a Starcraft/Diablo server. Blizzard's problem with bnetd only started when functionality to allow Warcraft 3 to run was added. War3 is not a product. (yet) There are absolutely zero non-copyright infringing uses for bnetd to be War3 compatible right now. People who joined the beta signed up to help blizzard test the game in exchange for being able to play ahead of time (for free!). They don't have the right to be able to play on their own servers because they agreed to play on b.net, nor do they have the right to give it to anyone they want. These were conditions of being able to be in the beta in the first place.
It's only normal to assume the worst of a large corporation and in many cases I would agree, but in this case (as I understand it) I do not. How else do you explain the other projects which allow for b.net emulation (fsgs etc) that exist and have for quite some time without problems from Blizzard and are not being shut down by Blizzard.
If what I believe to be true regarding this matter is in fact true, I have no problem with Blizzard doing this, DMCA notwithstanding.
Why doesn't Blizzard provide facilities that enable these emulators to authenticate CD keys through Battle.net?
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.
Now, I don't know how many people have tried this, but in at least SEVEN seperate instances, friends of mine (and me) have used Half-Life CDKeys to authenticate Starcraft and vice-versa. In fact, we've never seen a key for one that DOESN'T work on the other. Why not slap Valve with some DMCA threats, eh? Apparently they cracked your "proprietary CD-key algorithms" years ago...
Mod Total = -1 informative
Co-founder of GerbilMechs
Here are reasons why bnetd was needed:
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*
They have to spend money to send out these legal demands that the emulated Bnet servers be shut down. And if they actually take the developers to court, thats even more money spent on closing down these servers. But after they do all that, what does Blizzard gain? Are people going to suddenly go out and buy all this software after their pirated versions stop working? Most pirates wouldn't buy software if it wasn't copyable. It's not worth the money, or they don't have the money which is why they don't buy it.
So after Blizzard spends all their money on their legal department shutting down these servers the end result is:
1. Pirates stop playing Blizzards games.
2. The people who would buy Blizzards games to run them on the emulated server will no longer buy them.
3. People angered by Blizzards actions stop buying their games.
4. A small percentage of the pirates may possibly buy the game.
This means that the loss of sales from 2. plus the loss of sales from 3. plus the gain of sales from 4. have to be greater than the total legal fees Blizzard has spent. That has to be a lot of sales to make up for Blizzards actions.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
when I could play Warcraft II via tcp/ip or plain old AppleTalk. Sob.
Pooty tweet
I'm sure there are non-piracy pundits out there
who will write off Bnetd as having a real legitimate
use and say it is just a tool designed to facilitate
piracy. This is false.
As I stated in the last article regarding this issue,
I know the original creator of Bnetd well. He did
not create it to facilitate piracy, but rather he
started the project because Battle.net at the time
was even more unreliable than it seems to be now.
Also, Bnetd enables people to have their own private ladders. I guess a third reason is that
he was bored during finals week one term.
Sure, there are people who are going to use this
for piracy purposes. On the other hand, people just log into Battle.net with stolen/barrowed/cracked CD keys keys anyway.
Additionally, people who are playing the WarCraft
3 Beta right now are most likely people who are
going to buy it when it appears in the store.
I doubt any serious player is going to really want
to play a buggy beta that won't be updated.
Also, I don't believe it is right to shut down
something if it facilitates pirates, so long as
that is NOT the purpose of the software. CD
Burners facilitate piracy more than Bnetd ever
does.
As was suggested previously, things would be much
simpler if Blizzard released their own version of
a private Battle.net server for personal use.
It could include the oh so secret CD key checker.
Hell, it could even include ad banners that somehow
send their clickthrough data to Blizzard periodically. I think this would make a large
number of people who use Bnetd right now happy.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst
Look in his "gallery of DMCA abuses".
-John
I fear everyone here is completely missing the mark!
It's all about the ad-revenues. You see, Blizzard sells ads on and if they allow people to run their own servers, then it eats into their advertizing cash cow.
Their talk of piracy and the DMCA is all just a white-wash to pacify the good little sheeple into thinking they might be justified in their actions.
As Frank Herbert said, "Wealth is a tool of freedom, but the pursuit of wealth is the way to slavery."
Of course people who pirate a game are breaking the law.
But people who buy the game can legally use it with bnet if they want to, and if Blizzard doesn't like it, that's tough.
Now, if bnetd was designed to make piracy easier, you might have a case for contributary infringement, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
So where's the beef?
Three gamers toss their computers on to their dining room table with a hub in the middle. They want to play [Insert Blizzard Game Here], but they want to play multiplayer. This is called a LAN party. (Miniature, but still valid.)
Tell me why these three gamers have to rely on Battle.net just to play their game? The whole idea of having a LAN party (that is, bringing your computer to the party) is because LANs are generally faster than accessing via the internet. Of course, it's also for social reasons, but they're irrelevant to this discussion.
Without bnetd, these players are forced to play their game through Blizzard's Battle.Net server, with all the downfalls that come with playing over the internet.
If they have to do that, they might as well have just stayed home.
And while you keep mentioning that Battle.net is "free of charge", you obviously don't "get it". It's not free. You help offset the cost of that server when you bought your game.
If you don't want to use Battle.net for your network games, that should be your choice, and not Blizzard's.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
sorry, but games that require me to register to a server to play online is BS. This is why ID games always outsell the copycats from Activision and Blizzard. Not I dont want to use Heat.net or battle.net. and I wont... voting with my wallet.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Prior to this action by Blizzard, I had no reason to use bnetd servers. Now I have one.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Why don't the servers ask for a CD key?
Simple: because you must already have a CD key to play the damn game!
You don't need a (valid) key to play any of the other multiplayer modes. Just battle.net. Since the games are not connecting to battle.net, they can get by just fine without the (valid) key.
Note: I use the term (valid), as you need a key to install the game, but the check for valid keys is different (more restrictive) for battle.net than for a regular multi-player game.
Once again, the inanimate tool (bnetd) is being blamed for the actions of a minority of its users (software pirates). This is as stupid as laws that banned spoons and plastic baggies because of their potential use in the drug trade.
Nothing justifies pirating software (free or commercial) -- but Blizzard's action does not do anything to stop piracy. Mirrors of bnetd will pop up world wide, on public and private systems, beyond any ability of Blizzard to control. If anything, people will feel even more justified about pirating Blizzard's games because the company has proven itself to be a nasty corporation. All Blizzard has done is upset legitimate users who don't want to use Battle.net.
What's wrong with Battle.net? Cheaters, lag, trolls, lag, spewers, lag, downtime -- did I mention "lag?" I don't use Battle.net; we play over TCP/IP on the LAN. I'm not certain bnetd was absolutely necessary for playing off-Battle.net -- but I don't see how it really hurt Blizzard. And has Blizzard ever considered that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? The bnetd guys loved Blizzard games, and have been slapped in the face for it.
I own many legitimate, registered copies of Blizzard games; I have purchaed one copies of every Blizzard game since Warcraft I -- sometimes buying multiple copies because we play over the home LAN. I have *never* used bnetd; in fact, I wasn't even aware of its existence until the controversy erupted.
Blizzard is within its rights to "protect" its intellectual property -- i.e., the law lets them do something useless and stupid. I have the right to react with my money -- and I will not be buying any copies of Warcraft III if Blizzard does not amend its poor decisions.
There are plenty of fun, interesting games coming out; I think my family can survive quite happily without Warcraft III.
All about me
If Blizzard phased out a product, then bnetd.org would fall under the DMCA's protection against obsolesence. That would be something we would be looking for because then when Blizzard brought suit against bnetd.org, the people responsible for bnetd could ask EFF to write up the legal documents to ask the judge to throw out the case on those grounds.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
If they don't want Starcraft or Diablo played on non Battle.net servers (unless, of course, you're running over UDP or TCP), who are we to complain?
We're the people who bought the product. It's our copy of the game. We own it.
If you buy a new car, and after the sale the dealer tells you that you may not drive it on public roads, but can only do donuts in his parking lot, what would you tell that dealer?
If you buy a toaster, and Sunbeam sends you a letter telling you that due to a exclusive licensing arrangements only Wonder bread may be toasted in it, what will you tell Sunbeam?
This is a major problem with the DMCA. No one would tolerate these kinds of restrictions on any other product. If an automotive analog to the DMCA were passed, the outcry would be deafening.
Edith Keeler Must Die
> Really, though, it's not clear that crypto is even required. Choose a random ~64-bit number for each CD key, encode it using base 64 or the like and store it in a database. When a request comes in, look it up in the database. If the number is there, cool. If not, drop the connection.
This works really fine in closed source situation, but as soon as the general public gets a hold of the generation function or the cd-key database (for completely random keys) your copy protection is gone.
Just having a simple oracle where bnetd sends the cd key to a Blizzard server to have it checked won't do much good either, since this is open to abuse from malicious server operators who steal cd keys from their users.
Indeed, the only valid way to check CD keys in a secure way is through crypto.
1. Blizzard generates a database of millions of keys.
2. Those keys get encoded (with Base64 or whatever) and each CD gets one on its case.
3. Customer installs the product with the key. Since the product was shrinkwrapped until he bought it, we have a secure key path and really don't need PKI as you pointed out.
4. When the customer connects to an inofficial bnetd Server, the bnetd Server gets some random package of data from the Blizzard Server, and passes it on to the game client. The game client encrypts the data with the cd key and sends it back to the bnetd server, which sends it back to Blizzard. Blizzard then checks the result and either gives a valid or invalid signal to the bnetd server.
5. Customer either gets in (with a valid cd key) or not.
I don't normally reply to ACs, but in this case I have to raise a few points.
> It doesn't sound like Battlenet is free to me. It sounds like you're
> required to buy an official CD to use it. I also suspect that it requires
> an internet connection of some sort to play it. It also sounds like players
> may have limited control over opponents (I don't know, I've never played this game).
First, they advertise Battle.Net as "free for authorized users", not free in general. Second, adding in the connection to the 'Net is just dumb. You need a computer to play it as well, but you'd be a fool to consider that part of the cost of the game. Third, why should any player have control over opponents?
> If I and five friends have a LAN party and we want to play this game
> without connecting to the internet we cannot do so without bnetd (or can
> we? I assume that the game is not playable over raw ethernet without a server of some sort).
Bad assumption, at least for Diablo. You can play in local network mode, using one of the machines as the "server" for controlling the game.
> No one has proven that EULAs are binding contracts that can
> limit fair use (which most EULAs intend to do).
Um, yes, most EULAs are enforceable in court. There are parts of many of them that have been called into question, but the legal concept of an EULA is still enforceable.
> If my spouse and I both want to play this game on separate computers
> in the house, why should we have to buy two copies? We don't have to buy
> two copies of a book in order for us both to read it at the same time.
Bad analogy. You have to buy two copies to run it on two machines because that's what the license says. And you wouldn't have to buy two copies if you and your wife both wanted to use it at the same time, just if you wanted to use it independently at the same time. To extend the analogy, try reading that book sitting across the room from her, or try reading different pages at the same time, and I think you'll find it's more difficult.
> But there is already a law against this and if my friends and I are
> found we can be prosecuted or sued according to it. But the fact that this
> process is difficult or uncomfortable does not justify stifling freedom any
> more than someone expressing a negative opinion about me automatically
> entitles me to have my lawyer harrass them into shutting up by threatening
> them with libel and/or suing them for emotional distress.
Another bad analogy. By your reasoning, because there's already a law against burglary which I can enforce against you if you steal my computer, I'm not allowed to install locks on my door to make it easier to enforce my right to keep my machine. And actually, if someone says something negative about you, you do have the right to sue them for libel. The case will only proceed, however, if you can prove that what they said is untrue.
Virg
I'm surprised nobody has suggested it already: Hosting and development could just move to Freenet, which would protect the identities of the developers and make it quite impossible for Blizzard to shut the project pages down, and for US courts to prosecute any US developer.
Excuse this for being flamebait.
Warcraft III monopoly? Mute point?
Are you by any chance retarded?
(As a side note, all of the play by e-mail players of Diplomacy are supposed to have their own copies of the board game - as dictated by Avalon Hill, and now Hasbro, in order to not be infringing on the game's copyright. Otherwise the game is basically considered pirated. Same situation Blizzard is in, just a different medium.)
So, if I buy a car or a toaster I am not buying a copy of a car or a toaster - it is physical property that I now own. If I buy a CD, though, I have the right, under fair use, to share the music with my friends, but that is the sticking point here: Art can be shared - but not for profit. However, a game is a product that can be distributed as the maker sees fit.
There is no true need to rely on the DMCA for this argument, it comes down to a license: you bought the product, you agreed to the license. Don't buy it and don't play it if you disagree with said license.
This isn't brain surgery.
Might have something to do with the fact that Red Hat hasn't been going around stomping on the community like the jackbooted corporate DMCA wielding thugs at Blizzard.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
You can view the letter in its entirety here at Blizzard Takes Action to Protect.
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. 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. 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. 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. No, Blizzard - you have. The pirates are always going to be there, regardless of what you do to legitimate owners of the 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).-- Will program for bandwidth
> 4. When the customer connects to an inofficial bnetd Server, the bnetd Server gets some random package of data from the Blizzard Server, and passes it on to the game client. The game client encrypts the data with the cd key and sends it back to the bnetd server, which sends it back to Blizzard. Blizzard then checks the result and either gives a valid or invalid signal to the bnetd server.
> 5. Customer either gets in (with a valid cd key) or not.
6. Hacked BnetD package starts and runs the game even if the invalid signal comes back.
But more importantly,
7. Because the user isn't logged into a Battle.Net server, Blizzard has no way of knowing whether CD key number 123456789XYZ is in use when a new request for that key comes in. Therefore, the one CD key that came off of a purchased CD and was ditributed on Usenet starts thousands of games at once, effectively nullifying the need for a CD key.
Oops.
Virg
When you paid for your copy of the game you paid to play the game (no pun intended) by Blizzard's rules.
It seems to me that the main problem here is that Blizzard brought the DMCA into it. If they had taken some other angle, maybe even politely asked the developers to remove Warcraft III support (I realize that might not be realistic but it probably would have been better than the PR nightmare Blizzard is dealing with now). By taking the "cease & desist first, ask questions later" approach, they come off looking like a megacorp. trying to screw everybody.
-dbc
Could these out of work bnetd developers go to work on the Magic the Gathering Online server please?
Speak truth to power.
Why is Blizzard trying to outlaw compilers?
Compilers facilitate software piracy of Blizzard products by allowing people to make programs. Blizzard products are intellectual property, and we are well within our legal rights to protect our products from software piracy.
How do programs help reduce piracy?
Blizzard uses one main method to combat piracy: executable programs. As part of using a computer it authenticate the user's files and prevents people from doing anything without a valid program.
Why doesn't Blizzard provide facilities that enable compilers to authenticate programs through Battle.net?
In order for us to keep our proprietary programs secure, we cannot allow outside compilers to generate valid programs.
What about when you aren't selling something?
The primary purposes of the Warcraft III Beta are to get play-balance feedback and to test our Battle.net servers. Our servers aren't tested if even one person plays the Beta on a rogue server, or wastes their time runnings any other program such as Tetris. Additionally, the Warcraft III Beta is not intended to be make us money; when testing ends, we need the ability to prevent people from wasting their time running a Beta. Compilers eliminate our ability to prevent pirates from doing anything except playing Blizzard retail games.
What about the people who are not pirating your software but just want to make programs alternative to playing your games?
Unfortunately, software pirates have spoiled this situation everyone. Pirates are evil. You don't want to be part of the Axis-Of-Evil, do you? We are constantly working to improve our games, and we sincerely hope that one day, no one will see any reason to seek alternatives to playing Blizzard games.
Your games sell millions of copies. Why do you care if a few people make other programs?
The sales success of a product should not exclude it from laws intended to protect intellectual property. Software piracy needs to be combated at all levels, and at Blizzard we intend to do our part to fight all other programs.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Actually I will lobby my congresscritters to repeal the broken law that all of these anti-consumer actions have been taken under. Why fight the product of a bad law on a thousand front when we can get the law changed or repealed.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Ideally, the closed, proprietary version of the server software would "phone home" to validate keys. If they only distributed binaries, it would be more difficult to hack out the authentication routines.
Once they sell the game, it ceases to be their property and becomes your property. I don't want some corporation saying what I can do with a socket wrench because they're the ones who made it. Similarily, Blizzard can't tell me how and where I can play their games after I buy them.
EULAs are shifty legally, and most likely unenforceable. I also consider them to be just plain wrong. Once I buy it, it becomes my property, end of story.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
You're Blizzard. What do you do?
Actually, this helps ADD to the impact of the letter, I think. It helps drive home the point that it's not JUST about "battle.net" (i.e. whether the games used battle.net or not were not motivating factors in their purchase) but about liking the games - and NOT liking the thuggery and insult to their players that Blizzard has just shown. That way the letter can't be interpreted to just mean he's upset because he has to use battle.net.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
>>As far as the bnetd thing, when you buy a blizzard game, it says free internet play on bnet.. not bnetd..
So, if Windows started being sold with stickers that said "Internet access through MSN" and then started cracking down on ISPs that allowed Windows users to connect to the Internet, you'd agree with it?
WHy not? After all, the box says you can connect to the internet through MSN, not other ISPs which are encouraging piracy by bypassing Windows piracy prevention schemes and depriving Microsoft of revenue by luring away users.
That's essentially what Blizzard is doing.
Wrong. You bought a copy of the game. You don't have the source code, and you don't own the game, Blizzard does. You only own a copy. Ask any copyright lawyer. Another example: You don't own The Matrix on DVD, you own a copy.
>>What's the problem?
Battle.net servers are laggy and full of lamers.
>>There simply isn't a need for bnetd unless you want to play with an illegal version.
Or unless you want to play on a server that isn't full of hackers, cheaters and assorted lamers.
One, you aren't modifying the game to run it on bnet. Two, by your own admission, you do own the copy.
If you want to stick it in a microwave, you're free to. If you want to make modifications to it locally and not distribute them, you're free to do that too. Copyright law only says that you can't distribute copies publically or off to random people. It's called 'Fair Use'.
I don't care what the stupid license agreements say. They're largely unenforceable, and morally wrong anyway. If a license agreement in the front cover of a book isn't legally binding, one on the front cover of a DVD box or inside a game box isn't either.
No company's 'ownership' rights reach inside my own house to things I've bought and control. Such thinking leads the way to an invasive police state, and I will have none of it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
It's right there. You can't try to emulate the protocol, tunnel the connection, or change your DNS server to redirect how you connect. You can't use IPX/IP tunneling to do LAN games with your friends over the Internet without Battle.net, you can't use another server. Do I run bnetd at home? Yes. Why? IPX does not work under Wine, and Battle.net doesn't work with my NAT firewall configuration.
A solution to the problem with music today
How do Quake III Arena and similar games handle it? If you run an internet game, your systems acts as a server. However, the CD key is still verified via ID servers. Or am I misunderstanding the process there?
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Actually I will lobby my congresscritters to repeal the broken law that all of these anti-consumer actions have been taken under.
Fair enough.
But you should really do both. Your congresscritter may not listen to you (hell, if you live in Florida your vote may very well not be counted. In fairness to Florida, the same may be true if you live in Chicago as I do, or any number of other places).
However, your vote with your dollars will always be counted by the beancounters who work for Blizzard, or whomever. Multiply yourself by the other hundreds of thousands who think likewise, and will purchase products from entities they know are actively lobbying against their interests, and you begin to glimps the magnitude of the problem, where your purchases do far more to undermine your position (providing real capital to your opponent) than your letter or phone call to your congressperson does to promote it.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
It may interest you to note that Blizzard, during the time of warcraft 2 and kali actively supported kali, by releasing a build of warcraft that was optimized for kali...
anyone remember war2kali.exe ?
In other words, consider the difference between bnetd and kali: why was kali never considered a threat to blizzard?
It was considered even an ally.
...that's why I said the DMCA route is easier. It requires fewer PR hoops to get to the same conclusion.
Virg
> 7. is easy to take care of though. Just have the bnetd server send a message to the central Blizzard server when a user logs off, and implement some time-out stuff in case a server crashes etc.
No dice. What if my hacked BnetD server authenticates, then tells Blizzard I logged off immediately? Then logged back on. Then off. Then on. And so on until all ten of my local users are on. Sweet, no? Also, add in a number 8, that Blizzard's authentication server would die a DDOS death when every punk who runs a random key generator bombards it until one of those keys comes back valid (and can then be used for 7 above). Since this makes keys fairly worthless, and allowing legitimate, legal servers is impossible without exposing the keys to this sort of tampering, the obvious solution is the one they've taken.
Virg
I find it interesting that they concede it may have been developed for purposes other than piracy. I think that could hurt them legally.
From: "Rob Beatie"
To: aexia@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: One less copy of Warcraft 3 sold
Certain programs have been developed that allow users to bypass Battle.net's CD-key-authentication process. Although these programs might have been made with good intentions, they directly promote software piracy by allowing users who have illegitimately obtained our games to play them as if they'd been legitimately purchased. Furthermore, because these programs allow access without a CD key, they render malicious users unaccountable, thereby eliminating Blizzard's ability to protect legitimate consumers. Therefore, Blizzard has taken an aggressive stance opposing the use of these programs.
Please take a moment to read through our FAQ regarding these issues at http://www.battle.net/support/emulationfaq.shtml if you have any questions or concerns about Blizzard's stance on software piracy. {WR655}
-----Original Message-----
From: aexia@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:31 AM
To: sales@blizzard.com
Subject: One less copy of Warcraft 3 sold
Thanks to your ill-considered invocation of the DMCA, you have one less customer now. I've used alternative server software(bnetd) to play over the Internet because battle.net is laggy and full of cheaters, hackers and other assorted morons. It's simply not a fun place to play.
Creating my own server allows me to play in peace, without lag, with my friends. It's not to promote piracy; it's to play the *game*, not a "license", I paid money to buy. It's mine and I'll play it however the hell I want to.
I'm sure you'll sell plenty of copies of Warcraft 3 anyways, but you won't sell one to me until you catch a clue.
Why can't Blizzard change the CD-Key check route so that is always checks the key from Battle.net servers and not from the server you might use to play. This should be fairly easy to implement and would catch some pirates (but not the ones with key generator). You could ofcourse fake DNS entries or forward packets to your own server, but this would be too hard for "normal" people and anyways you can play directly with your friends without Battle.net and CD-Key check.
Best think would be if Blizzard starts to sell official Battle.net servers (or it could come with the game). That would be great and also would fix many problems due to over populated Battle.net servers. And people still would use to official Battle.net server because there you can collect fame, score, be number one in ladder etc..
- Raynet --> .
I looked up Vivendi's quote today on the NYSE, and here's the link: http://www.nyse.com/marketinfo/marketinfo.html?sym =V
For those who just want a quick reference, here's the 52-week spread:
HIGH
69.23
(4/27/01)
LOW
35.65
(TODAY)
And it's still going down.
Good move, Vivendi. No wonder you're trying to get as much cash as possible.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Oh, and I know fair use inside and out - you're wrong. You can't go and photocopy an entire book - that's infringing on the author's rights and, arguably, you're not paying said author.
End all and be all is that eventually there will be iron-clad licenses, if there aren't already, that are completely legal. I don't see an issue with Blizzard saying "don't do this" when they give you numerous protocol options if you want to play in your home (those of you complaining about that) nor do I see an issue with Blizzard wanting you to use their servers. Hell, man, it's all over the packaging ("Play via Battle.net").
I personally think you're just pissy, not becuase you're paranoidicly worried of "an invasive police state."
I'm trying to make a larger point here: I see /.ers complaining every day that the government is intrusive, that business should be left alone, etc. Now we find ourselves at a point where a business is dictating its terms and wants, and there are now so many of you complaining. The answer is very, very simple: Don't buy or play the games until Blizzard changes. Companies will listen to users if the users 1) know what they're talking about; and 2) approach the company en masse.
That said, I think Blizzard could be a little less restrictive about this. However, since I don't have issues with the Battle.net servers, it doesn't really bother me.
In the end, it's all IMHO.
It is obvious from your incoherent rambling that you have not the faintest clue what you are talking about
:-)
Please feel free to try and squash any other cool projects I might not already be interested in / known it exists.
Blizzard claim copyright to their games. Blizzard claims that they use their BattleNet servers as a means of controling access to their games (specifically, to the WarCraft III beta). This makes the BattleNet server an access control device.
I'm not aware of any purpose which bnetd serves which is not geared toward circumventing the use of Blizzard's BattleNet server, but I'm open to educating... And I don't think you could get around this by just saying "bnetd also allows chat..." You might be able to assert that bnetd was designed for StarCraft, and only incidentally acts as a server for WarCraftIII, but then Blizzard could always just reply that it was their intention all along to be able to limit the use of StarCraft on-line using their control of the BattleNet server. You lose either way.
Blizzard has asserted that bnetd has commercial significance to them, insofar as it impacts their commercially oriented BattleNet service. What is the purpose of bnetd beyond circumvention? Is that a commercially significant use? Wanna bet jail time on that?
And "marketing" is not limited to buying SuperBowl ads. If the web page says "use this instead of BattleNet, or if the creators knew it could be used as a replacement to BattleNet, then it's considered marketed for that purpose.
The kicker: these are or's, not and's (see 1201.b.2.B) so if it meets any one of the tests, it meets the definition.
Blizzard is on solid ground here, at least as long as the DMCA remains solid ground. I'd say they'd be within their rights, under the law, to seek criminal charges against the bnetd team. That's not to say that's what should happen, but rather to demonstrate how far out-of-whack the DMCA is.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
So, if Blizzard were really concerned solely about CD identification, they could add an external verification server and release a patch to the game to set up a Q3-like system. 3rd party servers would then just have to implement the public protocol and would never need to see the actual verification code.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
I know quite a few people who pirated Starcraft in the early days when Blizzard allowed up to 5 or so instances of the same CD key to be in use at the same time (to avoid problems with ghosting). When Blizzard reduced this to two or so, they went out and bought the game so they could keep playing online. If bnetd had been available at that time, you can be sure that they would never have bought the game.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Apparently, they'll be suing everyone soon.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
While I do give Blizzard *some* slack regarding their actions leading to bnetd being killed, this will be a costly mistake for them in the long run.
First off, Blizzard needs to realize that not everyone who uses their software is pirating it. By assuming the legitimate users are potential pirates, their actions will probably increase the likelyhood of piracy. (If you're going to be assumed guilty, you may as well commit the crime.)
Next, Blizzard should try to focus more on offering an alternative to bnetd servers for its legitimate users. There is no reason Blizzard can't set up a "pay-to-play" service that would provide access to an uncluttered, high-bandwidth server for a small monthly fee. Blizzard would have no problem getting $9.95/month out of it's more dedicated users in exchange for much-improved online gaming experience. By simply cutting off access to alternate servers without providing legitimate users with an alternative, they are making their games much less desireable.
Finally, Blizzard should be asking its users for input on how battlenet should be improved. If you can give your customers what they want, they'll have no reason to look elsewhere.
Blizzard *does* produce some of the greatest games out there. I, for one, would like to see that continue. But, without the support of it's users, Blizzard will not last long.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Dear Sirs,
For the past 5 years, I have been a customer of your company. I have bought and enjoyed many of your games, from Warcraft 1 to Diablo II. I have always been amazed at the new and inovative ideas and technology that goes into every one of your products. Warcraft III is no exception to this rule. Even without playing it, I can already tell that this game will be one of the greatest RTS games in history. I have been telling all my friends about it and have even gone so far as to upgrade two of my PC's for the sole purpose of running Warcraft III. I thought that it was money well spent....I was wrong.
What right do you have to tell legitimate,PAYING customers how they should use their software?! Have we not already supported you in many ways? Not the least of these being the spending of thousands of dollars world-wide in an effort to show our love and support for your company! To take measures to protect your "Intellectual Property" is all well and good. But to emulate Microsoft corporation by limiting your customers ability to innovate and expand their computers capabilities,I just cannot find a logical excuse for a tactic like this.
When Battle.net was created, I was overjoyed at the thought of being able to play with my cousin that lives in another state. Just the thought of being able,with minimum effort and a few mouse clicks,to play a game with someone over 500 miles away without expensive phone charges was almost too good to be true. Too bad that it was. Within a few weeks of using it, I witnessed persons misusing the Battle.net service,cheating,hacking,spamming, and various other offences. I complained and noticed that some minor steps were taken, but soon after,I witnessed the same *illegal I might add* actions being committed over and over again. So finally,fed up with a service that no longer was putting the customer over it's own profit-needs, I searched for another way to play games like Warcraft II-BNE and Starcraft-BroodWar with my friends. Bnetd was the answer to my prayers. It gave my friends and I a way to create servers that were free of cheaters,hackers,and spammers. My friends and I were overjoyed that a group of average "Joe Smith" kinda guys would donate their time FREELY to create a better gaming environment for all gamers to enjoy. They even went so far as to offer linux versions of their open-sourse software so that linux users were no longer left out in the cold by your company.
But in the end...the almighty dollar beckoned...and YOU ANSWERED THE CALL. Immediately you tooks steps to "protect our Intellectual Property"
and said that you "are well within our legal rights to protect our products from software piracy." In this fact,I do agree with you. However, I do not agree with the manner in which you dealt with the situation. I am sure that if you had even tried to work out an agreement with the creators/maintainers of Bnetd, that they would have been happy to have done all they could to accomodate any changes in their software that you thought would be nessessary to facilitate the full protection of your "Intellectual Property". But instead you , ONCE AGAIN, decided to follow in the footsteps of the power hungry Bill Gates and crush a small group of open-sourse programmers who were truly trying to inovate the sorely-lacking gaming industry by FREELY giving THEIR TIME in the hopes that one day you would finally clean up Battle.net and restore the honor and respect that many users once had in you...but this was not to be.
My (ex) friends, today the gaming industry has lost something....something precious. It has lost compassion for the very core of what keeps games selling and companies like you alive....The Gamers Themselves! You have revealed your true intentions to the world and I will no longer support you in the path that you have chosen to take. I will no longer purchase any software your company has to offer. I will no longer speak kindly about your company to anyone I meet.
I'm sure that others will have compassion for the roots of the gaming industry again someday, and I pray that someone is YOU.
This concludes my feelings on this matter. Thank you for your attention.
Loosing out to lhamas who cant "afford" $50 for your product sucks.
I am uncertain how one would go about "letting loose or releasing" out to lhamas. I suspect you intended to use the phrase "losing out".
Congratulations! You have been participant #37 in my campaign to rid Slashdot of this error.
Proudly correcting Slashdot's most irritating linguistic error since 2002.
I never said BnetD didn't have other, and far more legitimate, purposes.
I never said the "official" BnetD was being used for the WC3 Beta either -- though I can see where my post could be read that way.
It's rather sad that Blizzard is going after the official BnetD people, if in fact they had nothing to do with the WC3 aspects of it -- but, at the end of the day, I supposed Blizzard decided to attack the target that was visible, since the rest are probably rather anonymous.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
Subject: www.bnetd.org
and
Subject: Site UPDATE
The short version:
They had and have nothing to do with the WC3 Beta, the EFF is taking thier case with the ISP and they need donations.
Be sure to check back to the site for when the donations link becomes active.
Wax on, wax off baby!