Slashdot Mirror
Legal Analysis Critical of Blizzard v Bnetd
anewsome writes "As reported previously
several times,
Blizzard has sent a cease and desist letter to the ISP of bnetd (which develops an open source
Battle.net emulator). Lawmeme.org (from the Yale Law School) has
published a long piece with lots of background and legal analysis on the
case. Conclusion: Blizzard has an uphill legal battle."
The Real URL for this story is:
http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name= News&file=article&sid=149
--Azaroth (KW)
The article.
The Correct URL
Bnetd didn't reverse engineer any of Blizzard's software to create their server, so what right does Blizzard have to stop any of this? Sure you can make the case that bnetd allows software pirates to play their illegal copies of Blizzard's games more easily, but bnetd should be treated as a completely independent software developer.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a huge fan of open source, bnetd, yada yada, and I agree that the official Bnet has tons of issues (ranging from lag to dealing with people whom I'd at least rather not deal with).
However, to my understanding they're doing this largely as a reaction to the WC3 beta. It was cracked within days of release, using bnetd and other "fake" bnet networks that don't check cd keys. This is allowing many people who shouldn't be playing the beta to play the beta.
"Big deal" you say. And part of me is inclined to agree, as it doesn't hurt Blizzard to have a few extra thousand people playing the beta.
Well, I'm a beta tester, and I can tell you that the "official" beta network is sorely underused. Of the 5000 beta testers there are probably only 30-60 games going at any given time. I know, you might think that is a lot, but it's basically the same people over and over. From the buzz I've heard, a lot of legit beta testers have even been going to the bnetd networks, just because there are more people there (easier to find big 3v3 and 4v4 games, etc.).
So yes, DMCA bad. Making reverse engineering bad. Open source good, bnetd good. But Blizzard still does have a point, and perhaps some sort of compromise needs to be reached...
I think the link should be http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name= News&file=article&sid=149
... for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
Here's the important stuff...
Does BNETD Violate Blizzard Copyrights?
Unlikely, although it must be stated that Vivendi/Blizzard has yet to claim which exclusive rights are infringed by which programs hosted by bnetd, so this analysis is based on speculation as to likely complaints.
In general, copyright infringement consists in copying or distributing another's work without authorization. In this case, the bnetd server is the original work of its various developers (BNETD Project Credits ). The developers have never had access to Battle.net software, so it would be impossible for them to have copied it. As there is no copying there is no infringement. Indeed, Blizzard's FAQ on the case admits as much since it is called the Emulation FAQ . In computer science, emulators are software designed to imitate the same function as another piece of software. They are not copies. If it was a copy, it would not be "imitating" the function of another piece of software, it would be the same software.
In order to create a Battle.net emulator, the bnetd developers engaged in a combination of reverse and value engineering. Their method of reverse engineering did not require any decompiling or disassembly of the code of the client (again, they could not have deassembled or decompiled the Battle.net code since they did not have access to it). It is decompiling of code that frequently gets reverse engineers in copyright trouble -- that is not a problem for bnetd since it was not required. Bnetd was able to reverse engineer by simply looking at the traffic between server (Battle.net) and client (game player). For example, a player would start a game as one type of character on Battle.net in Diablo II (e.g., a Necromancer) capture the packets, then start a game as a different character (e.g., a Barbarian) and capture the packets. By comparing the two packet dumps, one of the bnetd developers would be able to determine which packets identified specific elements of the game. The developer would then make changes to the bnetd server and check his work by performing the same test with client on the bnetd server. Through trial and error, the bnetd server improved.
To my knowledge there is no law that holds that reverse engineering a protocol through packet dumping implicates copyright in any way.
Vivendi might claim that special programs to assist users of bnetd to edit their Windows registry violated copyright. As mentioned above, the Windows registry consists of configuration files that can be modified by the user using regedit.exe which is part of every version of Windows. It is not at all clear how provision of a program to make editing certain portions of the registry easier would violate an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Moreover, it is not clear whether a user who alters the registry is violating copyright. They may be violating the EULA (more below), but that is not a violation of copyright.
Does BNETD Violate Section 1201 of the DMCA?
Unlikely, but the statute in question is quite complicated and the law has not yet been clarified by the courts. It must also be made clear that simply because something may facilitate piracy does not mean it violates section 1201 of the DMCA.
The first issue is whether or not the CD-Key authorization mechanism is an access control device under section 1201(a). Section 1201(a) states that a device controls access to a work, "if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work." One significant question is access to what work? Bnetd does not facilitate unauthorized access to Battle.net, it is a substitute. Bnetd does not facilitate access to the single player version of the game. Bnetd does not faciliate access to the LAN multiplayer aspects of the game. Bnetd does not facilitate access to Internet multiplayer, since that is accomplished through LAN emulators such as Kali. At worst, bnetd facilitates access to Internet multiplayer using the client's Battle.net interface. It is questionable whether access to a particular interface counts as "access to the work." It is questionable whether enabling certain functionality is "access to the work." Even granting that the interface or functionality is a work that can be improperly accessed, does accessing it require tha application of information, or a process or a treatment to gain such access? For every Blizzard game prior to the Warcraft III beta, clearly not. Bnetd servers don't send any "access" information to a client, they simply do not bar a client from accessing them.
This is made clear by the definition of circumvention in 1201(a)(3)(B), which "means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." Bnetd does not descramble, decrypt, remove or deactivate anything. It does not avoid, bypass or impair, it ignores. Ignoring is not circumventing. Indeed, section 1201(c)(3) states that, "nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure." The reason for this is to prevent copyright holders from forcing copy protection measures onto computer and consumer electronics manufacturers. An example would be a music publisher who releases a CD that has watermarking in the music. The watermark states, "do not rip into MP3 format." There is no obligation for CD manufacturers to build in a system that can detect and obey that watermark.
Moreover, even bnetd did circumvent an access anti-circumvention measure, it would still be legal to distribute it so long as:
* It was not primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumvention. A very good case can be made that the primary purpose of producing bnetd was to provide an alternative to the drawbacks and limitations of Battle.net (About the BNETD Project). One quote from a Review of Diablo II on MacGamer.com will provide some idea of the frustrations many feel with regard to Battle.net: "Provided that Battlenet doesn't make you want to pry your eyes out with a grapefruit spoon, you will find that you can go online and play your character in the Diablo Battlenet Realms." Even Blizzard's Senior Director, Bill Roper, admits that Battle.net's stability left something to be desired in an interview with Eurogamer , "There was certainly a period of time in the history of Battle.net where the team was constantly playing catch-up. They work on stability, they work on how many people could be online, they work on access and bandwidth issues, they get all those things fixed, and then we get another 25,000 people online concurrently and all [the] new stuff will break."
* It has more than limited commercially significant purpose. Again, a very good case can be made that bnetd does have significant commercial purposes. Bnetd currently supports a number of features that Battle.net does not, such as the ability to connect with IRC, create custom ladder games and tournaments, and send broadcast messages.
* Is not marketed for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. Although, as an open source project, bnetd has little control over how some individuals may promote it -- the bnetd and Warforge developers have never promoted piracy of Blizzard's games. Indeed, the developers of bnetd are some of Blizzard's biggest supporters and fans.
The next issue is whether bnetd violates section 1201(b) which prohibits distribution of devices which "effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under" the Copyright Act. To qualify as technological protection measure under section 1201(b), a device must in the ordinary course of its operation, prevent, restrict, or otherwise limit the exercise of a right of a copyright owner." The only right at issue would seem to be the right to copy. But it is difficult to claim that bnetd undermines this as one must already have a copy of a Blizzard game (legitimate or illegitimate) in order to use bnetd. In other words, any copying occurs prior to use of bnetd. It may be that the availability of bnetd encourages some to make illicit copies who wouldn't have without bnetd, but that is not a violation of the DMCA.
It is also strange to claim that the CD-Key system prevents copying since a valid CD-Key is not necessary to connect to Battle.net and download the latest patches for a warez copy of the game. Using a warez copy one logs into Battle.net. Prior to CD-Key validation, Blizzard conveniently provides the latest patches for the warez copy. Patches are also available via public ftp (http://ftp.blizzard.com/pub/war3/patches/beta/ ). It is hard to claim that the CD-Key system effectively prevents copying when Blizzard itself updates warez copies of its games to the latest version. Most bnetd servers are set up by owners of legitimate copies and the server ensures that those joining have the same version of the game. If Blizzard were truly concerned about piracy they would at least try to make it more difficult to get the latest patches.
Furthermore, under section 1201(f)(2):
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure
It seems pretty clear that even if bnetd is a circumvention device, then it clearly falls under the exemption of 1201(f)(2), since any circumvention is only for the purpose of achieving interoperability between bnetd and the Blizzard game. Such interoperability does not constitute infringement, since it does not violate sections 106-118 or 602.
unfinished: (adj.)
I'm making an assumption here, but I don't think the guys running the bnetd project don't have piles of money to take this thing to court. The ISP isn't going to burn tons of cash for these guys, and ignore Blizzard.
It's unfortunate that a company with deep pockets and a shaky legal footing can shut down projects it doesn't agree with. I used to play DII like a fiend, but got sick of the cheating/tradehacks/etc., so I don't have anything to gain from this project. I do, however, think it's a real shame that a nice project like this is getting squeezed. I hope the bnetd team can weather the storm.
I also wonder if maybe Blizzard's time and energies might be put to better use by focusing on things like Realm stability, and getting rid of the cheaters that are bringing the realms down, looking for the next duping method.
Between Vivendi and Jack Valenti, it seems that things with names that begin with the letter V are out to get us...
That may be true, but more people use it to play thier properly licensed Blizzard games than to play those illegal versions.
Just because it turns out that something can be used illegally doesn't mean it can only be used illegally, or is primarily used illegally.
Do you Gentoo!?
If they allowed bnetd to pass-through authentication to battle.net, they might have a better point. They've specifically ruled that out. (Presumably because their crypto is lousy.)
And it isn't the bnetd group that even enabled Warcraft III support.
is getting someone to support it against Blizard.
;) Nice graphics and all, but the gameplay is piss poor.
Unless the EFF or a major player steps in, its not like anything is going to happen. With so many copies of bnetd out there, its not like it is a major issue, but hey.
By the way, don't bother with wc3, the game sucks dick for bus fare and then walks
Anyone else feel that support@bliz sounds like a bot if you mention bnetd? Try sending the peeps a legit question and somewhere mention bnetd and see if you get a response to your question or the canned Piracy FAQ response.
lamerize "bnetd" and then send more emails to support . . .
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
If i BUY Blizzard , i should be able to play it ANY way i want .. it's mine .. i purchased it.
..... No ... they are not legal until a judge says they are.
... without a court order .. they are just .......... some trash that a company makes to intimidate u.
.. thinking that you have to obay corperate babble as if it were law
Is every one here really thinking that all those funny EULA statements are really legal
So companies can put whatever they want in a EULA , and it does not mean u have to follow them or even look at them
How far have we gone
* Carthago Delenda Est *
I don't think you can say Blizzard faces an "uphill battle" even if they are on dubious legal ground, they have the funding, and the bnetd people will have a hard time coming up with funding to pay for a long legal battle, especially since there is no profit motive for anyone on the bnetd team to stick a neck out and fight this thing. I can think of another company that is also on EXTREMELY dubious legal ground, but managed to win. They are called Microsoft, and they, with thier superiour funding just trenched in until the political climate suited them better. I hate to compare Microsoft to Blizzard but in this case they are sort of in the same position - dubious legal ground, but superior funding and legal resources. :-(
- Geddes
This is one of the most anticipated titles in years. I've been looking foward to WC3 since WC2, considering what a jump WC2 was over WC1.
All these people playing the beta versions cracked are still going to buy the game? Who knows.
I feel that Blizzard, by providing great games for years, has earned the right to not have people floating around cracked copies of their games. We all wants WC3. I'm willing to wait.
If that means harassing some people with questionable lawsuits to stall for their software, so be it. I feel that we worry too much on Slashdot about legalisms and not enough about common decency.
If you love Blizzard games, show some respect and let them launch their games as they desire. They haven't disappointed yet.
Realize that the early demos of Star Craft were seen as WC in space and were hated. Blizzard rewrote the game in the next year and put out a game that people loved.
Had Warez kiddies put out those early Star Craft demos, then when the game was released it might have bombed because people had played a crappy game with the same name a year earlier.
Ripping off a company that puts out products you love is poor form.
Alex
Paste, from here
Ok not many of you may know, but I am the host and admin for the bnetd.org
server. I am also an ISP and the one who hosts the server here at no cost to
anyone. I also have been known from time to time to help with development and
ideas on the bnetd server, but I am not even close to one of the main
developers. I have also been know from time to time to hack on the web pages for
the site as well.
I have talked with the lawyers at EFF. They are interested in taking on the
case, both for us as a small local/rural ISP and to help defend the developers
as well. So for now the web site is sort of closed down to keep Vivendi/Blizzard
lawyers from suing us as a small ISP and to help prevent them from suing each of
the developers. They could still sue both of us, and say that they will at least
sue the developers and owners of the website (which I guess would techincally be
me personally).
I and I believe most of the developers plan on fighting this as much as we can
given the support that we are able to get from EFF and others. It remains to be
seen what kind of legal advice we get in the next few days and up comming week
as to when the site will return. The site was taken down in its current form by
concensus amoung all the developers that could be reached at the given time that
action was required. I, as an ISP, did not force anyone to do anything. As an
ISP I plan to fight this as much as I can, as a developer (the little developing
that I have done) plan to fight this as well.
I plan to fight this and return the site back to its "normal state" (whatever
that may be), it is just a question of when and how long at this point.
Vivendi/Blizzard's main complaint, as was voice to me in an hour long call with
them yelling and threating me, the ISP to hurry and take it down "why do you
need to wait and figure all this out?" was that the bnetd program/server does
not impliment the online CD-KEY checking and thus allowed pirate copies to play
online, and that the true battle.net server have this code as an anti-piracy
protection. Since bnetd doesn't have this feature, it was circumventing the
piracy/copy protection and thus was in violation of the DMCA. It was at this
point that Vivendi/Blizzard just wanted me, the ISP, to shut the whole site
down, not remove the offending files but shut the whole site down or risk having
them sue me along with the "owners" of bnetd.org. They were very unhappy that I
want to talk with a lawyer to see what my options were, and said if they didn't
hear back from me by the next day one way or they other they would start
proceedings to sue me and the "owners" of bnetd.org who were refusing to respond
to their messages. Now who they were contacting as the "owner" of bnetd.org is
beyond me, and the lawyers were unable to tell me who they tried to contact and
said "its beside the point anyway", which happens to seem to be their favorite
phrase.
If you want to support this fight, I suggest you email Blizzard and Vivendi
letting them know how displeased you are that they didn't even contact us first
or try to work anything out, but rather just hammered us with legal threats and
the DMCA. I also suggest that you get an EFF membership to help them fight cases
like this. If you want to donate to a defense fund for our court costs I would
assume that you could contact EFF and they could work something out.
If you have any other questions let me know. I will try to answer them as best I
can.
Tim Jung
System Admin
Internet Gateway Inc.
Bloodsuckers, all.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Maybe I am missing something but this isn't a EULA issue. They aren't going after you for violation of the EULA. They are going after BNetD because, in their opinion, they are developing a device for the circumvention of copyright protection under the DCMA.
Awwww crap... I agree. :(
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
Conclusion: Blizzard has an uphill legal battle
How so? No matter how much you want to estow the virtues of open source yada yada, blizzard will probably win.. hell they probably won't even have to go to court to win.. the bnetd guys will probably appologize and settle out of court just to keep from losing millions of dollars trying to fight this.
Conclusion: Money talks. Period.
This would be the most interesting point if it could be contested in Court. The claim made here is that by ignoring the CD-Key authentication request BNET is NOT subject to the circumvation clause?
One has to wonder, to bypass is to ignore is it not? Doesn't the "emulator" specifically just change the system to not expect a response? How is that "ignoring" ? To me that is an active bypass.
While I like the idea of emulators, this article twists words as well as any lawyer would. Amazing I did not see an argument over *is*
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
If I were Blizzard, here's what I would have done:
"Hi this is Blah Blah Blah from Blizzard, apparently people are using Bnetd to play pirated versions of Warcraft III. Is there any way that you guys could remove WC3 support from Bnetd? - I would hate this to have to be a legal issue. Tell you what, I'll give a free copy of WC3 for the dev team if you get it done quickly."
While I can't predict what their response would have been, I'm guessing it would have been better than the current shithole that Blizzard has dug itself into...
-dbc
Even if Blizzard did allow pass-through authentication to battle.net and even if the bnetd people did implement it one of the problems here is the Open Source nature of bnetd. It would be a trivial task for a lot of people to remove this authentication from bnetd so the problem still remains.
Also implementing high level crypto for real time strategy games that you want to provide access to for free on servers would at the very least greatly increase the computing horsepower required by those servers (thats assuming that sort of real time high powered encryption is even possible). Blizzard wants to provide a free service to anyone who wants to play their games online, but they can only continue to do that while it is economically viable. Anything that increases the cost of this service will also have a knock on effect on its quality.
Finally if you check the licence agreement that comes with your Blizzard games you will see:
you are not entitled to:
(iv) host or provide matchmaking services for the Program or emulate or redirect the communication protocols used by the Licensor in the network feature of the Program, though protocol emulation, tunneling, modifying or adding components to the Progran, use of a utility program or any other techniques now known or hereafter deceloped, for any purpose including, but not limited to network play over the Internet, network play utilising commercial or non-commercial gaming networks or as part of content aggregation networks withoug the Licensor prior written consent.
Unless all the people involved in the bnetd project have never purchaesd and played a Blizzard game they are violating this licence agreement.
But the really sad thing is that if Blizzard feel that the public beta is lending itself to piracy in such a manner that it is affecting sales then that will be the end of their public betas. I also find it really depressing that Blizzard have been unable to find a group of 5000 people to test, whom they have trusted with their beta versions and who have no doubt signed all sorts of non-disclosure agreements, but who are willing to abide by that and not release the games to warez sites. Regardless of what happens to the bnetd project I really hope that the people who released the warez versions of the WC3 beta feel the full strength of Blizzards laywers brought to bear on them.
Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece
they're doing this largely as a reaction to the WC3 beta. It was cracked within days of release, using bnetd
Yes, this is their logic. And it is essentially flawed.
bnetd does not allow you to play Wc3 beta, a hacked copy does.
So what you have is Blizzard pissing all over the bnetd authors, when (if their reasoning was sound) they should be going after the guys who were doing the bnetd WC3 hack. (Which, if they'd done that, I'm sure everybody here would have supported.)
Incidentally, I sent a letter to them, explaining this point, and all the others in their FAQ (which I EXPLICITLY stated I had read) and all I got back was their form letter telling me to read the FAQ.
They lost me as a customer because of this.
This is made clear by the definition of circumvention in 1201(a)(3)(B), which "means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." Bnetd does not descramble, decrypt, remove or deactivate anything. It does not avoid, bypass or impair, it ignores. Ignoring is not circumventing.
Now, tell me, how is ignoring the key not avoiding or bypassing it? He even mentions that they had to go and modify the DLL that comes with WC3 to enable it to skip the CD check. Isn't that deactivating it, or removing it? Most of the article seems solid, but when it comes down to compliance with the DMCA (I'm not saying the DMCA is good, I'm just going off what's law right now), it seems to fail, badly.
Generally, 'legal analysis' implies that there is some...well, legal analysis. This article from Yale has none. It is just a statement of portions of the DMCA and the author's opinion on how the courts should find.
Phrases such as "to my knowledge" have no place in a 'legal analysis'. It either is, or it isn't. If you don't know for sure, you look it up and quote the source.
My favorite portion of the 'analysis' was at the end:
This 'analyst' conveniently omits a reference to 1201(f)(1) (which requires the circumventor have a legally obtained copy of the circumvented program). Additionally, 1201(f)(2) clearly states that the circumvention program falls under the exception if it is necessary to achieve such interoperability.
This does not mean that it falls under the exception if it can be used for interoperability, it means that there must be no other means.
Out of curiosity, what makes you think bnetd would be any better than battle.net at handling tens of thousands of users?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
This is about the umptieth story about "IP vs. warez" this week, and it's only Wednesday.
Is there any hope for a solution here? Any hope for a compromise? Or is it going to be a constant yammering match between thousands of lawyers waving motions and C&D letters in the air on one side and thousands of |337 \/\/4R3zzzz d00dz waving keygen programs and blank CDRs in the air on the other?
Surely by now we've realized that the "all content must be stricty controlled and monitored 24-hours a day by DRM/DMCA/SSSCA/*AA position is no more or no less untenable than the "I'll NEVER EVER EVER pay for anything, especially a web site, or anything digital, and I will vigorously rip/copy/distribute every CDROM/DVD/download/movie/song/album/game I can find for the express purpose of celebrating the fact that I didn't have to pay for it, and then laugh as company after company (read: employer after employer) files chapter 11 because everything they have invested in has become totally worthless with a few clicks.... and everything sux anyway, except Everquest."
Is there any position a business can take that will allow them to avoid being cast as a "greed-driven corporate machine?" Just how much do they have to give away, and at what point can they say, "ok, here's your trainload of free stuff, now *this* we'd really like you to buy?"
SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE BILLS. Businesses that sell things *employ* people too.
I agree that businesses by and large have not lived up to their end of the responsibility bargain. Business is given huge latitude and opportunity, and they should exchange good products and jobs for that. That's the responsible thing to do.
There must be a balance here, and if/when a new agreed-upon balance requires that some products be paid for, the responsible thing for customers to do is to meet their side of the bargain and pay for the product. It is no more fair for customers to play bait-and-switch than it is for a business.
New products are developed, usually at some non-trivial level of risk, on the implied promise that if they are of sufficient quality (usually the result of VERY hard work), then customers will buy the product, allowing the business to earn back their costs plus a profit.
But there WILL BE NO NEW PRODUCTS if businesses hear "HA HA!! I'm going use it anyway and not pay!! nyyahhh nyahhh nyahhhhhhhh!!!" often enough. There will be no way to make even a moderate business model work.
I think there are sufficient ideas among developers to find a better balance. Instead of spending time repeating "all copy protection can be defeated" over and over, how about a little time spent helping find that balance?
Just a thought or two.
Just because some lawyer doesn't know what an emulator is doesn't mean you should go around repeating him. It's a piece of interoperable software man, there's no emulation involved. The one byte crack is certainly circumvention, but that's not bnet, that's Warforge, and as for ignoring the CD-KEY, what else could they possibly do? They dont have the algorithm to authenticate it. Personally I'm against the whole thing. The only reason bnet is/was a successful open source project is because it is largely trivial. If they sat down and tried to write their own game the project would have blown appart (or stagnated significantly like the Freecraft project - which anyone who has actually used the game and not just read the Sourceforge stats will tell you is the case).
How we know is more important than what we know.
I don't have a 4800X4000 res screen.
I realize it's a bug, but damn it has been
affecting slashdot for MONTHS now. Fix it!
Mod me down, but don't mod me as offtopic.
It's not offtopic because it's affecting
this story.
I love going down to the elementary school, watching all the kids jump and shout, but they dont know I'm using blanks.
www.kali.net allows IPX LAN games over the internet. It works. That's how my friends and I played WarCraft I and II. That's how we played StarCraft for a while after Blizzard's BattleNet server went to crap and before we discovered bnetd. There is no BattleNet authentication performed there. bnetd is NOT the only way for pirates to play, it is just an easier way. Just as it is an easier way for legitimate players to play.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
Suppose you have a software package, and the CD KEY is used to allow you to install the software. Presumably, it takes some encrypted form and mutates it into a useful version. Alternately, such a code might be used to alter program logic to affect software behavior -- whatever. The point here is that the CD KEY is a protection mechanism at the client end.
Like the rest of the /. majority, I too find the DCMA an example of knee-jerk legislation produced by the uninformed and easily lobbied. But in this, suppose you even agree with it...
According to Tim Jung's post the gripe expressed was that the bnetd.org server does not do CD KEY checking. My point -- it shouldn't have to.
It appears that the design of this product is such that invalid CD KEY prevents people from stealing battle.net server resources. Apparently, that is working; good for Blizzard.
As I understand it, people aren't forging false CD KEYs and inappropriately using battle.net server's resources -- doing so would make the case more plausible. Yet in this case, it would an individual service hijacking player who should be the focus of legal attention.
So what was designed and built by Blizzard is something that actually says "show me your receipt and I'll let you use our systems." Rather than forge CD KEYs to do something illegal like steal Blizzard's service, the user community has provided their own resources, built their own software, and opted not to check for a "receipt" to use those services. Technically, it's not duplicated Blizzard's server then either, since it's a subset.
True, this does let people try an approximation. However, it isn't the actual golden master -- by definition it's build with low confidence, and possibly broken with missing features. Blizzard wasn't passing out free copies of a production game, it passed out something else with the expectations of comments.
About the only real complaint Blizzard has is that they aren't getting as much beta feedback as they could had they expanded the beta base. However, if Blizzard's servers are locked out via a CD KEY except to only a few, then they weren't going after that data because they wouldn't be getting that data anyhow -- so there's no loss, other than potential they forgot to go after. That was a business mistake.
Blizzard's true error then is not designing the software to require something only their servers could provide.
However, I can tell you as a software consumer, if I purchase a product that depends on someone's website being up and around, I get jittery about them going out of business or no longer supporting it and wouldn't make the purchase.
I suspect if Blizzard kindly asked for it, anonymous beta testers would happily provide feedback. Feedback that would make the game much better, improving overall sales. Blizzard actually has a very positive opportunity here, if they can get past the shortsightedness.
If bnetd did not exist, then the hacked copies of WC3b would not be playable - bottom line
--online that is. And if RW-CD burners didn't exist, then WC3b couldn't be burned to them and passed around. And if phones didn't exist, people couldn't call up their friends and tell them how to get the w3cb...
bnetd wasn't created to hack wc3b, and that's not it's primary purpose or use, so your point is moot.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
intersting logic applied - the guys who arent in the wrong are the open source ones and everyone else is in the right
Slasdhot logic at its best
Why didnt you throw in Microsoft for making the OS that runs the product - that would make it complete bullshit
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
All the talk about DMCA and fair use and everything else is a very good thing but i think missing a very important point, what happened to old fashioned right and wrong ?
I mean beacuse the bnetd developers developed an open source product and then someone els modified it then they and the owner of the copyright product they are using to circumvent it is in the wrong and the poor guys from bnetd are in the right.
The fact is blizzard spent the money, many millions of dollars in fact, to develop a product and they have a right to ensure their intellectual property, copyrights and investment are protected. They own the intellectual property to the product and thus they can and will take action to protect it.
The information on this case thus far presented doesnt seem to be asking for anything exceptional, and i dont see them going after the bnetd guys for every cent they have, so why the outcry?
This is a pitfall of open source, that a product you develop MAY be modified in a way that you did not intend and then used for a reason you did not forsee. This is fine and in most cases a good thing BUT like everything we do in life it has consequences and crying about it is not going to solve the issue - sitting down like proffesionals and talking to blizzard would be a good first step (one i suspect they are in the process of doing)
And my final comment is this - all of you out there riding the white horse of Anti DMCA and Anti Big Company - Tell me
is it right to take someone elses property and use it without paying ?
is it right to ignore licenses and other agreements because you 'dont care for them' ?
Is it right to damage a companies profits and endanger jobs for people ? people with families to feed ?
Is it right to defend anyone who comes along and finds a way around 'iritating things' like security?
If you answer yes to these then i thing you have bigger problems that you can ever imagine - youre abetting criminals and its hard to morally accept one form of it and reject another.
i was disgusted with open source over Skylarov and now i dont know what to think - it seems that the concept or right and wrong no longer means anything to so many of you.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Whilst its true that Free Speech is the most popular for Pro bono there is NO way in hell you could ever cast this as a free speech case, its not. The question will hinge on whether the software infringes blizzard copyrights or circumvents legal anti copying or access control measures to facilitate use of a hacked or copied version of the software. Getting around copy protection is not the spirit or the letter of free speech - its violation of copyright or theft of intellectual property (whatever your politcal beliefs the law is the law) if getting around
Theres no free speech angle in it - Blizzard spent the money to develop a product with a reasonable expectation of security, they provide the servers and bandwith for the BattleNet system and they have an expectation that people using this system will have paid for the software. To attempt to prevent piracy (albeit not very succesfully if Diablo and Starcraft are any example) they use a CD key system.
The BNETD developers designed software that circumventes this by 'ignoring' the cd key and thus it breaks the protection. (note it did this for older blizzard releases - thus blizzard could possibly prove they have a case WITHOUT WC3)
Whether the person who modified the system or not is reponsible the unfortunate fact if that bnetd as the original developer of the product will be the first ones toe get sued as their software allowed modification (a good lawyer can argue that it encouraged it) to circumvent the copy protection system and allow illegal use of the clients IP.
In short i wouldnt waste a cent of my money in a lawsuit if i was bnetd - i would find a way to modify my software to block blizzard products and pray that my software doesnt allow any circumvention of other companies copy protection (i bet it does).
I like bnetd, its interesting software, but it can and has been used to get around the protection on blizzards software and it is very easy to prove, ultimately Blizzard will win and wasting piles of money defending what many will see as the indefensible is plain insane.
PS i read tim's letter on this and i would point out that anyone here who gets worked up about the talk about lawyers being agressive and yelling has never dealt with lawyers before - this is what they get paid for.
Open source does not mean break any and all copyrights - and the downside of collective development is that when something like this happens the courts are going to go after the most identifiable person they can get their hands on - and in most cases that will be the original developer.
Want to avoid this happening to you ? get a lwayer or IP expert to review your license agreement to ensure you are covered. Sure it costs money but then again so does getting sued.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
The war3b only includes online play
check your facts.
Warcraft III will have single player mode. Look at the faq. Now it's possible (I don't have the beta) that single player mode was crippled to only test online play -- do you have the beta?
Kinda obviates your whole rant, no?
But the rant was wrong to start with, if you'd read my post. Just because something can be used to aid unauthorized copying doesn't mean it's illegal. That's why, if you'd bothered to read any of the bnetd maling lists, you'd know that the Blizzard people never once mentioned wc3b. That's because they know this is not a valid reason for shutting down the sight.
So the "bottom line" for you is something that lawyers at blizzard must have forgotten to bring up, eh?
Could it be that they understand the legal issues a bit better than you do? That my previous post was right?
Why don't you learn about the issue at hand before spouting your irrelevent and misinformed two cents.. oh right, this is slashdot.
heh.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
I think the real problem here is Vivendi/Blizzard's knee-jerk reaction to threaten to sue the bnetd folks into oblivion. Why not just pick up the phone and call them? Maybe talk it out, rather then fight it in the courts? This situation reminds me of the old saying, that if all you have is a hammer than every problem starts to look like a nail. Maybe if you have too many lawyers then every situation starts to look like a legal problem... If Vivendi/Blizzard had done even a little thinking beforehand, instead of whipping out the lawyers as their first salvo, they might have avoided the unfortunate publicity this controversy is generating. They might have reached an amicable solution for everyone. Now, that's a remote possibility at best.
As soon as you start by threatening with attorney's there's only two possible outcomes; you scare off your opposition and they concede or you guarantee that the only solution to the problem will come months or years later and that it will come from a judge's bench. In a way, using lawyers is like starting a war with atomic weapons: Great if you can win immediately, not so good if you can't. And purposeless if you could have gotten what you wanted with a few phone calls instead. The corporate world is increasingly using this tactic of threatening first and talking later and I can't help but believe that it will ultimately generate nothing but animosity and ill-will in the for them. When will someone wake up?
Truthfully, if you look at the issue impartially, I think that Vivendi/Blizzard do have some real concerns. They've invested several years and millions of dollars in developing their products and frankly, I doubt they really know what effect bnetd will have on the Blizzard franchise or their ability to make a profit from it. Let's face it, they're scared and rightfully so. Wouldn't you be in their place? It's hard to know what to do with an unknown and easy to desire to rollback the clock so you don't have to deal with yet another unknown variable. Instead of condemning Vivendi/Blizzard, we should convince them to sit down with the community and figure out together what to do with the emulation projects. Hell, there might even be some profit opportunities! Who knows? I can't say much for Vivendi but Blizzard has a reputation of working with their customers (anyone that was around for the WarCraft II days and Kali support will remember) and it's certainly a better approach then a protracted legal battle.
I can't help but think how ironic it is that Vivendi/Blizzard and their customers are about to enter a legal battle over this 'Battle.net' situation. Maybe we should all stop acting like the characters in the games and start acting like reasonable human beings.
Zug zug! And that's all I'm saying on the issue.
I think it is simply ludicrus to say that it should be taken down because it could be used for illegal purposes (like playing the warez game online). I COULD use a fork to kill someone, so should we go and remove all forks everywhere? No.
I'm sorry, but that's kind of like saying that somebody who writes a very simple 'insert/read/delete fixed lines into a text file and oh look it's a basic database' has 'ideas and skills, as well as knowledge' that Oracle should take note of before writing them off. It's not their programming skills, or creativity I'm impunging, but experience. And writing a program that lets four people on a LAN have a game is far different from writing a program that allows twenty thousand do the same.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Blizzard really should have known this was coming. All of their games have huge buzz (as opposed to hype) surrounding them, and always with good reason. They knew there was a server out there that emulated their existing server, and they knew people would try to crack the wc3 beta to distribute it.
so.. why the hell did they not do anything about this technically? They could have easily changed part of the protocol, had wc3 use a version two of battle.net. Work _with_ bnetd to make sure it is not emulated within days. Perhaps use public key cryptography to distribute the key to unlock code present on the disk (or even perhaps code itself - they could have sent a single floppy per user as an unlock key if this is not feasable for size restrictions).
Even if they do not use such copy protections in the release, its still the old rule - if you do not allow consumers a way to get something they desire, they will find a way anyways. Being that they don't want this to happen (as it is a beta and not a release, they are testing instead of selling) - they should have taken extra precautions.
If i downloaded a tetris clone, and in the EULA (required for installation) it claimed that by installing this software I:
A. Must driver no faster then 10mph, except in school zones, where i must drive at least 60mph.
B. Must name my first child 'Tim', even if its a girl
B. Can not use the software for more then 30 seconds, and if i find a bug in the software within those 30 seconds i must strip off all my clothes and run around the street five times yelling 'my pants are missing!'
These of course are unreasonable, and illegal in some cases, so i doubt a judge would find this EULA legal.
I think (not sure, IANAL) that EULA will be upheld if they are within reason, do not break other laws and relate to the software's fair use.
-Jon
this is my sig.
Read the guy's post for Christ's sake! You point that bnetd is illegal because it permits people to use a pirated copy of the beta is wrong. If the sole purpose of bnetd was to circumvent copyright protections, then it would be illegal under the DMCA. Since bnetd has significant non-infringing uses, it is not illegal under the DMCA. Just because the Warforge source fork (note: not bnetd) permitted people to play War3b, does not mean that bnetd, or even Warforge, was illegal. If you take nothing from this post, remember this: if a technology has significant non-infringing uses, then it is not illegal, even if it permits copyright infringement. Case in point: VCR's, personal computers, photocopy machines, the printing press, the internet, ftp, peer to peer file sharing (Napster's single-mindedness about music sharing did it in on this point), email, scanners, etc., etc., etc. BlackGriffen
You merely bought the media, the actual content is licenced (buying a piece of paper with a copyrighted work printed on it doesn't mean you've bought the rights to that work)
But buying a piece of paper with a copyrighted work printed on it does grant you fair use rights and first sale rights in your copy of the work, and for computer software, such rights include the right to copy the software into RAM and to make backups. However, if a contract presented before the sale specifies that instead of buying a copy, you are perpetually renting one, then you are not "the owner of a copy," and none of this applies. Also, none of this applies outside the United States.
Will I retire or break 10K?
That's not the point. The point is there Kali did no more to prevent pirate players than bnetd does. In fact, just from how it worked, Kali could NOT do anything to prevent pirate players from playing. At least bnetd CAN, IF Blizzard would provide a method for authenticating the CD-KEY. Of course, people could still disable that part when they download the source code, but it would still be more than Kali could even attempt to do.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
The Warforge fork of bnetd that allowed WC3Beta play was also open source. There were one or two versions of bnetd with crappy and buggy support for WC3Beta which were released without source, but no one knows who made them and they only lasted a few hours before everyone went to Warforge.
Warforge took their stuff down VOLUNTARILY, Blizzard never contacted them. Blizzard has yet to contact the people responsible for playing WC3Beta on non-Battle.net servers.
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Uh, no. Sorry sir, but you are a hypocrite.
Please find out where I said bnetd was illegal.
Please find me saying that bnetds purpose was to circumvent copyright protections.
You are a troll, bad at it, and really should follow your own advice on reading peoples posts. I'm not ignorant, I'm informed. Sad you didn't see the difference. You guys are just pissed because I'm saying their is a logical reason for Blizzard's actions -- while not condoning them.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
This is complete insanity. If Blizzard was really so concerned that their beta on their official server is under-used, making real testing too difficult, they should do what other companies like Microsoft do. Sell the beta openly, for a nominal fee! Make it expire after a certain amount of time, so people still end up having to buy the full version of the game after a few months if they want to keep playing it.
If anyone can order the beta online, for a few bucks to cover postage and handling (and maybe a token amount of profit like $1.00), plenty of people will do so and use it with whatever network it defaults to running on.