Slashdot Mirror
EFF Takes Bnetd Case
An anonymous reader sent in: "As reported three previous times, Blizzard is attempting to squash the Battle.net emulator and open source bnetd project. The EFF has taken the case. Read the press release. LawMeme also has a satiric fable."
Ethically, I believe that software developed under an open source license has the right not to be attacked by corporations because it exposes how their closed source software works.
To quote a couple paragraphs from the Penny Arcade news item:
Obviously you can use Bnetd to facilitate quote bad things, let's say the piracy, but I hardly believe that is the focus of the project. Indeed, when discussing the issue with lawyers representing Blizzard, the Bnetd man made it clear that they would like nothing more than to roll in a function to do legitimate CD-Key checks, the way that Battle.net itself does. It's not something they can even implement without Blizzard's help. It goes without saying that the attorneys in question were not there to try and improve Bnetd, and as a result, they ain't trying to hear that. The blood of any breathing geek is enticed by the prospect of running their own Battle.net. What if they could? What if a sanctioned, but not supported product were delivered - one that diligently performed the anti-piracy measures assigned to it, ran their official ads, all while removing load from their main body of equipment? I'm trying to figure out who loses here.
Though Battle.net is a matchmaking service, it's silly to call that its only function. I've always thought of it as performing a sort of de facto authentication, a la Half-Life. This watchdog element is (I'm sure they believe) crucial to sustaining their business, and Blizzard has absolutely every right to try and protect their stuff via whatever methods they want to. Whatever else is going on here, I don't think that it's okay to make something that emasculates their security mechanism. I don't mean that in a legal sense, this violates statutes W, A, N, and G or what have you, I mean it in a personal one.
--
I support Blizzard and their attempt to protect their property, income sources, etc. What reason do they have to play nice and let bnetd do whatever they want? They certainly lose ad revenue if they do that, and they -potentially- lose more sales due to piracy.
If I had a product and was reliant upon providing a means for people to meet up for games, and used that as a revenue source, to feed my programmers and staff, and some joe schmoe comes along with a service that bypasses all that, and makes it easier for pirates to hop on, I'd be mighty pissed, and rightly so.
BilldaCat
Incorrect.
As a paying customer, I demand value and satisfaction from my Blizzard software like Warcraft and Diablo2.
Since the Blizzard server is:
- SLOOOOW
- Unreliable
- Hacked all to hell
- VERY buggy
I choose to have the ability to play my ALREADY PURCHASED SOFTWARE on a server of my choice. Just because Blizzard would prefer I didnt doesnt mean jack.
Your argument that Bnetd is punishing Blizzard for creating value is totally incorrect.
It punishes Blizzard for NOT creating value on the server side.
I rewarded them for their client side software. What I choose to connect to is *MY CHOICE*.
And its entirely legal too..
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Its a concern, certainly.
Bnetd doesnt HAVE to cause that problem. Blizzard can provide a very simple network request scheme to allow the Bnetd server to challeneg the cd-key.
Blizzard does NOT want that.
As such, it is a simple case of a software manufacturer who does NOT maintain their software (server-side) driving their customers to find alternatives.
As to playing the beta thru Bnetd violates the point of having an open beta?
It still exposes bugs on the client side, and BOY does Blizzard ever have PLENTY of those in EVERY release.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
For years now, Blizzard has always argued that battle.net is not at all part of the games you buy (lets not argue if it is or not that is not the point) but actually a "free" (usually people argue about what free here means) service that they provide and thus not part of their games. Now, suddenly they claim that they have put the copy protection mechanisms, not in their games but in this "not part of the game but free service". Seems strange to have a copy protection not being part of what it is supposed to protect. Just an interesting observation.
The real point of contention is whether what they're doing is legal (or moral, though that's not relevant for the court case).
The judicial systems of the United Kingdom and United States (except Louisiana state law) are built on the common law. The common law has a concept of "jury nullification," which specifies that a jury may find the defendant not liable on grounds that the law is unjust. Want more info? Ask Google.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You see, to play blizzard games online you need to use battle.net.
...I have moral qualms about stealing form blizzard, they deserve to get money for their software.
Bnetd proves that you don't need battle.net to play Blizzard games.
Except for the fact that it allow people who have pirated blizzard's games to play them online, which they would not be able to do with only battle.net.
So fucking what? They can also play pirated games offline where there are no controls at all. Shall we outlaw offline play of Blizzard games because there is no CD Key checking?
Bnetd has many completely legal and ethical uses. It allows people who have bought the game to play it even if Blizzard decides to close up shop (which seems only a few months off, way things are going) or even if Blizzard's ISP is having technical difficulties. It also allows people to play in a controlled environment free of cheaters, something Blizzard has failed to provide.
It's also not strictly true that you can't play with illegitimate CD Keys on Battle.net. Keys are valid until Blizzard invalidates them. You could tell your friend your valid CD Key, and as long as neither of you are online at the same time, both of you can share the CD Key and play on Battle.net. So much for stopping piracy. Battle.net does not in fact, prevent piracy of Blizzard games. In fact, one could say that, like Bnetd, the primary purpose of Battle.net is not to prevent piracy, but to provide an online arena where players can meet each other and play. That it can have some effect on piracy is a secondary function. Bnetd tried to add this secondary function, but Blizzard refused to cooperate. So it was left out.
I have moral qualms about stealing form blizzard, they deserve to get money for their software.
What exactly has Bnetd stolen from Blizzard? Be specific. Name an item that Blizzard once possessed that they no longer possess because of Bnetd. If no one has lost anything, no theft has taken place.
It's one thing to pirate music. The RIAA is an evil organization and I have no moral qualms about stealing from them.
This is not morality, this is what some people derisively call situational ethics. Your "morals" amount to "I'll do what I please." Following your ethical compass, it's OK to pirate Blizzard's software if you think it or the company sucks. I'll think I'll pass on your theory of ethics.
Edith Keeler Must Die
What prevents you from playing the game anyway?
Single player mode still works, IPX, UDP and any other form of other network play still works.
Sure it's inconvenient to host a LAN party instead of each person sitting in his respective home but inconvenience is hardly a form of copy protection.
Besides it's entirely possible to hack a VPN to forward IPX or rebroadcast UDP. Does that suddenly make VPNs a violation of the DMCA?