Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard/Vivendi Files Suit Against Bnetd Project
Brief history: Blizzard makes a DMCA complaint against Bnetd, resulting in the temporary downing of the Bnetd website and the Bnetd server code no longer being available for download. EFF decides to represent Bnetd, and they exchange a few letters back and forth. On Friday, Blizzard files suit.
The most interesting thing about the legal claim is that they make no claims under the DMCA. You should recall the distinction between regular copyright law (which prohibits making copies of original works of authorship) and the DMCA (which prohibits making, using or distributing devices intended to circumvent anti-copying protection measures on copyrighted works). Even though Blizzard claimed in their letters that the fact that the Bnetd server doesn't implement CD-checking (which is impossible for them, since it's a secret algorithm known only to Blizzard) makes it a DMCA-violating circumvention device, they didn't raise the claim in the complaint they filed with the court.
Blizzard claims:
- that Bnetd copied code from Blizzard and incorporated it into Bnetd (how this was accomplished isn't stated; since Blizzard does not make their source code available, presumably the Bnetd people would have to break into Blizzard headquarters).
- that Bnetd posted screenshots of Blizzard games to their website (this should be deemed fair use by the courts).
- that Bnetd is engaging in an unauthorized "public performance" of Blizzard's copyrighted material by running a Bnetd server. At least, that's how I parse paragraph 28. Perhaps they're instead making a claim about something that was posted on the Bnetd website, but paras. 28 and 30 read together imply that Blizzard is arguing that anyone who makes software to interoperate with other software over the internet is making a public performance. This would allow Microsoft to shut down anyone who made .NET software, for example, because it will invariably involve a lot of transmission of information that Microsoft can claim is copyrighted.
- that Bnetd infringes on Blizzard's trademark (an identifier for goods or services that are sold) for "BATTLE.NET" by calling their software "Bnetd", because, after all, "Bnetd" is essentially identical to "BATTLE.NET" (coming next: the makers of the elm email client sue the makers of pine, emacs sues eine [who sues zwei], Unix sues GNU... chaos). That is, people who use Bnetd may be confused because the name is so similar to Battle.net that they think they are actually using a Blizzard product.
People who are offended at Blizzard attacking its fans and customers may want to consider Warlords Battlecry 1 and 2 instead of Warcraft 3. The original Battlecry is selling for $10 these days and is quite good.
Will they use Orc or Human lawyers?
"Dancing is the vertical expression of a horizontal desire" --Robert Frost
Does not work properly on win2k. Warcraft does.
Good thing I'm not a big RTS fan...
We hate Blizzard on Mondays.
ooohhh... shiny things. i like shiny things.
There's nothing wrong with our system. Yours is illegal and allows consumers to bypass our detection methods. Once we have shut you down in a court of law, the users will have to use our services....
Yep, until they (Blizzard) realize that their system is not up to par, and BNETD is actually doing them a favor....and the user base drops/complains so much they have to change it....
fast forward 1 year..."Damn, it SEEMED like a good idea at the time to get rid of BNETD. Stupid lawyers...."
Sent from your iPad.
if theyr'e not using hte DMCA i don't see where they have any legal legs on which to stand.. i'm not a lawyer but i am the son of one ;) and it seemes like the only "illegal" thing they did was reverse engineer the battle.net protocols and whatnot (i haven't read about thsi in depth) so that they oculd play their own games.. i think the real reason blizzard cares so much is their next Cash Cow aka Warcraft 3 has already had the beta version leaked viciously about the 'net and so they're going after the only group of people they can, trying to stuff their thumbs in the gaping hole in the dyke (heh) while the flood waters keep on pouring out..
i think this is a lose lose situation frankly, they're pissing off their community, ie, the people who keep them in business.. and theyr'e doing it to protect something which is already pubically available (legally or not).. so they're just making the problem worse.. seems like it would have been a much better move to embrace rather than attempt to extinguish
none of this is troll bait btw, and that's just what i think.. $.02
Please ignore this article! Slashdot wholly endorses Blizzard and Vivendi/DMCA. Move along, nothing to see here.
Note to blizzard: time to send more free shit to Slashdot to keep the good reviews up!
BNETD would likely not have come under fire
.
:(
IF A LOT OF KIDDIES DID NOT USE IT TO PLAY THEIR PIRATED VERSIONS OF BLIZZARD GAMES
Especially true now days with the Warcraft 3 beta (which blizzard is trying VERY hard to keep limited. Not succeeding very well, but they are TRYING hard.)
Blizzard allows A LOT of stuff to go on with their games, but. . .
I think that the solution to this BEFORE HAND was that the computer community, huhrump, should have policed their own.
Though granted early court rulings in hacking cases kind of makes vigilantism hard to pull off.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
"i'm not a lawyer but i am the son of one"
IANALBIATSOO
Heh. It even looks funny.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
People who are offended at Blizzard attacking its fans and customers may want to consider Warlords Battlecry 1 and 2 instead of Warcraft 3.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... you mean you actually expect people to put their money where their mouth is? You [i]do[/i] know what website this is, right? This is the same website that on one hand, blasts Disney for owning a Senator to push through absurd copyright laws, and on the other hand drools over the new CGI trailer for Disney Interactive's new project.
That's the reason these companies [b]do[/b] this sort of stuff. [i]Because we'll still buy their crap regardless.[/i] Even here at Slashdot, which is viewed by the rest of the world as a mecca of righteous zealotry, the editors and most of the readers can't keep their principles about them when Hated Enemy Number One (or two, or three...) comes out with a new shiny toy for us.
NO CARRIER
Get the source out there. Another DeCSS-like whack-a-mole is ramping up.
Method of processing duck feet
Seems like Vivendi's lawyers are really screwing up here. The evidence of a direct violation of copyright is non-existant. The only possible violation from their list that might stand up in court would be if bnetd included battle.net code, and I seriously doubt that this is the case.
My guess is that Vivendi's lawyers thought that if they fired off a real lawsuit, even if totally unsubstantiated, the bnetd people would back down. We'll see what happens, but since the EFF is already involved I get the sense that the bnetd folks are intending to fight this. So Vivendi is actually risking legitimizing bnetd in the courts.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
by making the same, tired "Oh, we like Vivendi/RIAA/MPAA/etc today?" wisecracks.
Because, like, no one here has ever commented on the "irony" of thousands of posting not being in agreement.
Regardless of your opinion of Blizzard and their actions, I really don't appreciate the negative, biased tone of this article. Not only do you slam every one of Blizzard's claims, but you go on to suggest purchasing different (non-Win2K compliant) software because of Bungie's behavoir.
A commentary is one thing. A news article is quite another. I think a much better practice would have been to post the news article in a non-biased form first, and then follow up with your opinions in the comments section. At least that way, myself and the rest of the unwashed masses would be able to form our own opinions first, rather than having it shoved down our throats.
Posting in the manner that you did only takes away from Slashdot's credibility as a news source, and makes it look like every other "big-companies-is-bad!" website out there.
that Blizzard cares about this is that bnetd could hurt their profits and possibly cause them to go out of business.... If this did you'de have a lot of Microsoft games to look forward to...
Until you make the security checks manditory on bnetd... too f'ing bad if you are getting sued...
I am a fan of warcraft and owned WC2 and look forward to playing wc3 but with this, I think i'm going to have to pass this time and instead try out other similar games.
Blizzard/vivendi have all the rights to sue entities who they see as encroaching on their rights but this somehow is counterproductive as these are some of their customers and do not even gain monetarily from their endeavors but promote the use of the game.
Return the bells of Balangiga.
I have a thought. Something that might be very useful is to make some adjustments to the DMCA and copyright law that accomodate for the nature of open source. The fact of the matter is that most open source projects are done by an individual or a small group and do not have the money to fight legal battles. This makes them ripe targets for larger corporations to sue them and get their way since these people can't afford the legal fees.
So what I'm thinking is that a statue is added that provides the possibility to get legal fees compensated in the even that an open source developer gets taken to court. This way, if the claim is blatantly unjustified, such as in this case, the developer can bring on top notch legal counsel because the lawyer can be assured that they will get paid.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
from the 14 page pdf fax document, paragraph 36:
"BNETD is a shorthand for BATTLE.NET DAEMON"
anyone using BNETD is well aware that they're using something that isn't Blizzard's. i really would like to see this go to trial though. it's always entertaining to see them law-yers sling BS all over the place.
maybe mcd's should be taking burger king to court for their new line of breakfast sandwitches i went to bk to get one and was almost fooled to thinking i was at a McD's (of course when i spilled the coffee on myself and didn't get blisters, I knew where i was).
Bnetd has already wacked off their site binaries and source code of the server.
I'm the one who started the whole haiku trend!
What complete bullshit.
Do we see Microsoft suing the Samba team over usage of the SMB protocol in non-Microsoft related Operating Systems?
I think not and you'd expect Microsoft to go as low as that (but they just change the protocol a tad bit with every OS they release).
So why the fuck should Blizard/Vivendi sue the Bnetd team over this?
Putting a big company's name in front page just to provoke people hatred is poor journalism.
I'll bet no Vivendi exec has even eard about bnetd.
Skimming down the list of purported violations, one gets the impression that Blizzard/Vivendi has no intention of being clever or strategic with this whole Bnet business. Without the shiny shield of the DMCA the Blizzard suit takes on the patina of a run-of-the-mill "he stole my popsicle" lawsuit.
.NET software... But the Battle.net name trademark crap just sounds like filler material.
Obviously they didn't steal code. They reverse engineered, which is prohibited by the EULA, but isn't a copyright issue.
Same deal with screenshots... They weren't making money off of them. The EULA gives guidelines for how screenshots may be used, but since they didn't mention violation of EULA, Bnetd should be able to put up a fair use defense.
They may have an argument with the "public performance" issue, but it is difficult to understand what they mean. The difference between Blizzard and Microsoft is that MS wants you to make
Blizzard is throwing its weight around, trying to squash Bnetd with its vast bulk. Like a swarm of Protoss carriers... Lets hope Bnetd's lawyers bothered to develop "Lockdown."
The angel in the oatmeal.
Warlords Battlecry I Review
Warlords Battlecry II Review
IGN PC seemed suitably impressed.
Warlords Battlecry I Review
Warlords Battlecry II Review
So does Gamespot...
[o]_O
Their encouraging pirating of the RIAA's intellectual property after all, aren't they?
Say no to software patents.
In Blade II (a really REALLY shitty movie, BTW)
one of the familiars, when asked if he's
human, says "Just barely. I'm a lawyer."
dinner: it's what's for beer
I threw my WC2 CD and manual in the trash bin along with the 34AOL CDs - i kinda liked WC3 beta but thats about it - no more Blizzard no more Warcraft - a pity - M$ gotta watch out- i will be throwing their windows CDs too - no wait a min i dont have their CDs.
guys@Blizzard - get a life.
... Godly Plate of the whale and the lawyers sword of truth .
I like replies better than Karma, even if they are flames, because that tells me I got someone thinking.
Bnetd gets threatened with a lawsuit by Vivendi regarding DMCA violations, but the lawsuit doesn't mention the DMCA.
Perhaps the media companies know that the DMCA goes too far, and will not bring an actual high-profile lawsuit out of fear the entire thing will be overturned on appeal? After all, as long as the law is still on the books, it can still be used as a threat, even if it will never get tested in a court of law.
Yaknow, I was thinking, which does not occur very often, that perhaps Blizzard is doing this as an extremely veiled attempt to actually de-legitimize the sort of copyright intellectuamal property DMCA crapola. What is needed in the fight against the stupid ass lawsuits regarding this crap are high profile cases that receive rulings in favor of the defendants -- this would act as precedent for future proceedings.
Or not.
The Blizard letter states (emphasis added)
That is. Blizzard technically claimed in their letter that Bnetd violated EITHER traditional copyright OR new anti-circumvention, but didn't actually say which one it was.Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
1. DMCA
2. ????
3. Profit
Too bad us humans can't figure out how spending money on writing "copy-protection" schemes which are still cracked by the same pirates who would violate copyright anyways will actually result in increased profits...
If you think about it, going into court with one comlpaint gives extra scrutiny to it, however going in with 10 complaints, some of which are 30% justifiable will make the lawyers for blizzard look a bit more 'victimized'.
Having said that, some of the claims are silly, but the fact that you can play using stolen versions of the game isn't right. I would also like to propose a solution for blizzard.
Provide in a library (object form), the authentication system, ask that bnetd incorporate this into their builds. Now you might say, but the admins can yank out the authentication scheme! But heck most of these people are not coders and it would certainly reduce the number of illegal servers. Sure , you'll get some who can code enough to yank it out and recompile, but you'll always have cheaters.
Of course, if the main goal of the project is to be able to play blizzard games which have been stolen then it ought to be shut down, but I don't think that is the point anyhow.
On second though, maybe my idea sucks, but at least it's an idea - sometime people/companies/groups should try to communicate differences and resolve them out of court. Not to mention the fact that with all its money, Vivendi will mire the group into such a long protracted battle that they (vivendi) will most likely win.
Sad, but true.
The lawsuit reads like a press release, using phrases like 'Blizzard is one of the preeminent entertainment software companies in the world'.
Don't tell anyone, but the source for bnetd is available with many linux distributions... I might have a look at some of Blizzards absurd claims myself.
In other news, the coming of Dungeon Siege numbers the days for DiabloII. Dungeon Siege is much prettier and more immersing while offering the same kind of hack and slash gameplay, character advancement and 'finding nifty items' that was first pioneered in games like Rogue.
Bleh!
I do not think that you will find Slashdot to be objective in areas that its readership have strong opinions on. Slashdot is more like an editorial, not an unbiased news source.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
If Blizzard can prove the first count, I'd be on their side. Companies should make open source software by choice, NOT by force. Ripping off someone's code and reusing it in your own is a violation of almost every software license, open or otherwise.
But I wonder what really happened? What code is Blizzard claiming was snagged?
Get a colo at HavenCo. Move the project's site and cvs (if they use cvs) to that box. Problem fixed. Suck it down Blizzard.
On Item 24:
The existence of a unique bug that mirrors battle.net in bnetd's client-side login indicating that the source code was blatantly copied:
During reverse-engineering, if you observe something happening with the program on every login, would you not implement it? How would the bnetd coders know it was a bug? How does this prove the *code* was copied, not the functionality?
on 38, and 39:
bnetd has been around for years. Isn't a provision for keeping a trademark timely defense of the trademark?How can Blizzard claim they were unaware of bnetd's infringing name when they sent the original developer a cease-and-desist notice that they never backed up? They have been aware of bnetd for the past 5+ years. The fact that they have not defended their trademark for this long (and if this is a trademark issue), they should lose the trademark.
on 45:
bnetd only devalues the battle.net trademark because it is a superior product to battle.net. Blizzard's servers are unstable cheater-havens. bnetd is used, in my experience, mostly by tight-knit groups of friends that choose to play without the lag and without the disrespectful people that are so common on battle.net.
As for copyright infringement, I don't think Blizzard is going after them for screenshots. What they are claiming is that bnetd allows gamers to access the copyrighted content in battle.net games, that they couldn't otherwise access.
Didn't Sony lose to Connectix, trying the same thing?
And, isn't it fallacious, considering that these same users *can* access the copyrighted content without bnetd, through use of the games' touted single player aspects?
There are NO human lawyers.
Although I have heard WC3 will have a lawyer
equivalent unit called the Vampire....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
New skins for Starcraft - I think we can all agree that no race is as evil as the human/lawyer, so we'll start with the humans:
... vulture. Lays contract eggs.
Marine = PR rep. in a suit.
Flame Thrower = Vivendi PR rep. red tie.
Ghost = PR rep in reporters clothes.
Medic = No such animal in the legal world.
Next tree:
Vulture =
Siege tank = Lawyer at a desk - black suit, shoots giant pens that splatter ink.
Goliath = Big lawyer, throws briefcase.
Wraith = Tinker bell sponsored by Disney.
Battlecruiser = Flown by Jack Valenti.
The nuke = A paperstorm.
Who wants the defense?
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
Wot, the lack of DMCA usage is supposed to make us feel better for poor, poor Blizzard? They're still a company of slime and filth.
;)
* Bnetd copied code. More likely, they successfully reverse engineered via testing/watching packets. The wonderful people at Blizzard yanked some code out of this and pasted it into something official.
* Bnetd posted screenshots. Yeah, cause we know - this is a crime. Crikey, we might as well shut down every gaming site.
* Bnetd is engaging in an unauthorized "public performance". I'm failing to see how playing a game is a public performance. Sure, any person with a copy of, say, WC II can join in. But there - anyone with a copy of, say, WC II. (Hosers who did bad things with the WC III beta aside.)
* That Bnetd infringes on Blizzard's trademark. This is about the only thing I see them having a 'real' reason to go after. I mentioned Bnetd to some people the other night. They started complaining about how Blizzard should really get around to upgrading it, because it's slow/etc. Bnetd *would* and *is* too easily confused with Battle.net.
I won't be buying any more Blizzard products, but only because I don't find much of interest in their games.
This sort of lawsuit won't hurt them at all, though, because the readers here are the, "Oh, that's horrible, now turn around so you don't see this.." types.
You know, the anti-Intel types with pentiums in their boxes.. The anti-MS types who use it for games.. The anti-Tsarbucks who can't live without their mocha crappacino.. And even the rare anti-Linux nut who can't live without Tux Racer or what have you.
This is why I am asking everyone to Boycott Blizzard.
http://boycottblizzard.org/
Actually, there's a patch that lets it work in win2k. Highly unofficial, but it works.
Find it here:
Patch Link
I liked this game so much I mail-ordered it from some offshore corporation or something. Screw Blizzard, this is MUCH better. Because it has no less then THREE different elf races, hehe.
Ok, lets get some facts straight...
I was on the irc channel that was working their asses off developing the warcraft3beta work arounds for bnetd, and let me tell you, none of them are affiliated with bnetd.
In fact, they weren't using bnetd to begin with i believe... they went through several choices (including closed source fsgs) before going with opensource bnetd. BTW there was a possible nondoctored shot of fsgs working with warcraft3, before bnetd was fixed to work for it.
Anyway, from the bnetd sourceforge page, it seemed pretty obvious to everything that they were not going to officially support warcraft3 until it was retail anyway, though they were starting to work on it.
It was the channel i was on that did actually pull it off, and again, they were not related to bnetd... and since it was open source, well... no one stopped them. It was reverse engineered, no code was stolen. The coolest part was the original bypass of the password, which was done by using a crack into the exe, by passing the whole password check (client didn't send, server didn't ask, all was good, but no passwords in this case). It was actually quite amazing that it was done in such a short period of time, about a week and some bit after the original beta was released.
So what am i getting at? Well, bnetd didn't put in the war3b code that we all know and love now. And blizzard didn't complain till after the war3b code was working. So exactly why is it that after all this time, its still bnetd under fire? The code was open source for god-sakes... anyone could have played with it.
And i'm pretty damn sure sourceforge has enough documentation to rule out the usage of ripped code from blizzard.
As far as i'm concerned, this is a silly lawsuit, as you can't buy war3 at all at this point, and blizzard didn't care until war3.
If you are serious about helping out. Try donating to either bnetd directly or make a donation to the EFF, which can hopefully be earmarked for the bnetd folks. This is how open source projects get defended, the same way they are created in the first place, the Community.
This looks like a classic example of SLAP - they have no case but hope to scare everybody into submission by filing frivolous lawsuits.
Fire up bnetd on the lan and away we go - switch from network troubleshooting to good'ole hack & slash.
BTW, I will not buy WC3 or any other Blizzard product unless bnetd.org wins this lawsuit. Next they'll try to make Kali Illegal...yes, their FAQ claims that it is against the license agreement to tunnel IPX in TCP...
Jeff
So, I think that the offical release of BNetd should not have allowed any copies of Warcraft III to use it. Then if Blizzard had problems with Warcraft III demos being leaked, then they could not have blamed it on BNetd.
The "official" BNetD does not support Warcraft III. The software that's giving Blizzard/Vivendi a hernia is a hacked version of same, produced by the Warforge project. The original BNetD developers were an easier target, however (IIRC) and so B/V decided to go after those.
I don't think the BNetD guys should be touchable even if they did the Warforge work themselves, but it does go to show how fucked up are B/V's priorities in this whole case.
iSKUNK!
This isn't really about WarcraftIII or Battle.net as it currently exists at all... it's about Blizzard's future revenue model. they're trying to set a presedent for when they release World of Warcraft. They need to be the only place to play their games online so that they can push their pay-for-play MMORP sucessfully. If anyone can put up a server to play Blizzard games on, what is the incentive to pay Blizzard to play the game?
Insert witty
Blizzard has to protect themselves. If they didn't sue to shut down BNetD, then other places could pop up doing the same things they did. If Blizzard didn't take a legal stand and say 'no', then they'd in effect be saying 'yes'. Then they couldn't defend themselves down the road.
It sucks for BnetD, and it sucks for the people that like it, but I don't see that Blizzard had a choice. If one of the problems that BnetD gets around is legal copies of games, then they are in effect damaging Blizzard's copy protection scheme. If they didn't file suit, it's possible that somebody who found a way around Blizzard's copy protection scheme couldn't be prosecuted.
"Derp de derp."
Next they will have to shut down DiabloII.Net since they post screen shots. Also, any magazine that plans on doing a review of the game better think twice before printing screen shots.
-- Will program for bandwidth
If I'm not mistaken, Kali supports Starcraft, a Bnet multiplayer game, along with Diablo II. It may even support War3 when it comes out. It would be bad if that was attacked by lawyers also. In the mean time, I suggest that Blizzard get some sort of good physical copy protection for War3 and allow people to make all the servers they want.
...but bnetd does neither. It's a server - not a client-side mod.
It doesn't logically follow. Am I missing something?
Also, Blizzard (Vivendi?) absolutely has a choice. Nobody's forcing them to bring a lawsuit against independent developers donating time to a project that benefits those purchasing Blizzard software. I don't buy the 'shareholders will flay them if they don't do this' argument some have made -- first, bnetd hasn't been demonstrated to cause more harm than good to the company (think of it as good customer relations as well, which you can't really put a concrete value on), and second their CD-KEY scheme could be handled differently by not binding it to the game server but to a separate Blizzard authentication server.
Um... Bnetd allows burned copies to be played. I don't think anyone who legitimately buys Blizzard games "ie, the people who keep them in business.. " play on those servers. They're not pissing off their community, their pissing off the people who are too cheap to pay the $50 to become part of their community.
I liked Diablo II, but I don't like what their lawyers are doing. I figured I would spend $50 or so buying the game. Instead I'm going to give that to the EFF and spend more time outside hiking and camping this summer instead of playing, and I'll send them a letter pointing out that they've lost a customer.
Ah, but a timely lawsuit will make bnetd cower in fear. They wouldn't dare start supporting the warcraft3 beta now, and they probably won't support warcraft 3 if they are still in the legal process.
Maybe this is just what blizzard wanted in the frist place. Use a timely lawsuit to preent the prolification of the beta. Or maybe they think they can actually win, but even I don't think they are that naive.
What if they've allready won?
"WHEREFORE, Blizzard prays that this Court enter judgment in its favor on every claim for relief set forth above and award it relief...."
Okay, so first Blizzard calls on the DMCA for help...then they call on copyright violation law...now they're calling on THE LORD?
Who's next?
w|f
I get the feeling that the EFF is really rather busy dealing with Senator Hollings' bill (which was killed in the Senate, but persists in the House, I think). I think BNETD is something the EFF is doing because there are some free-speech/fair-use issues, but it's definitely not topping the list of priorities. I would encourage everyone who can to click the link in my sig and send even 10 bucks their way. It might help the EFF to remain focused on defending something that just got much more serious.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
"The coolest part was the original bypass of the password, which was done by using a crack into the exe, by passing the whole password check "
well, duh. its they way people have been bypassing checks in games since about a week after the first computer game was published.
Not cool, Obvious.
I only have so much money I'm gong to spend on games. There are a lot of games coming out between now, and end of year. Unless Blizzard drops this suit, I will be spending the money I was going to buy WC3 with on another game.
I sent a letter to them saying as much, I suggest anybody who doesn't like this do the same. Corporation respond to these type of things far faster then politicians.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Did Bnetd developers ever talk with Blizzard about coding a server?
Did they(Bnetd) understand copyright implications?
hhmmm..
I haven't seen what patches were distributed on the site that Vivendi/Blizzard is attacking, but there are two separate items available on the 'net.
The first is the bnetd daemon itself. This is the code that has been created by reverse engineering the protocols, since the server code has never been published.
The second is the patch that allows a user with their newest authentication tricks (that require the server to authenticate itself) to bypass said checks and use the the bnetd servers.
Vivendi/Blizzard claim that the code that matches their client code is part of the server - Unless this is some very low level link formatting (in which case similar functions will result in similar code) this seems to be unlikely - even if the client-side patch is somewhere in the bnetd tree.
The only real substance to the complaint appears to be that the 'client code' has been used - but this should only apply to the game patch, not to the bnetd daemon/server itself. And last I knew, the bnetd website itself did NOT include that patch.
I can see that Vivendi could have some case against a patch that replaced an entire file - though that argument would be invalidated if the patch was distributed as a binary patch to the games own code.
I may be wrong about what was on the website - or on Sourceforge - or could it be that Vivendi is not above trying to manufacture evidence?
Liquor
Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
There's a lot of people stomping their feet and going "Oooh Blizzard now you've done it, grrrr, you've lost a customer!!!" Exactly how many sales do you think Blizzard stands to lose if it becomes extremely easy to pirate their software? Blizzard's CD key system is quite effective at encouraging people to purchase their games. The loss of a few hundred customers pissed that the company would ever sue intellectual property thieves is nothing compared to what they'll lose if BNETD is around when Warcraft III and WoW come out. Sure they'd like to keep everyone happy. It's just not going to happen. Lesser of the two evils.
To bring this remotely back on topic, if any of these D2 mods became popular would Blizzard force their shutdown? Just because Blizzard knows about them now and doesn't do anything doesn't mean they aren't going to do anything in the future.
Bleh!
I've had my Ford(tm) serviced at a Ford(tm) franchise since I got it, because that's part of the warranty terms.
But why stop there? After all, the engine control computer contains copyrightable data. Why should a third party be allowed to make a Tune-A-Ford computer that accesses that data to tune the engine? That's FORD(tm)'s data! And the name is their trademark! You shouldn't be allowed to use the Ford(tm) name to refer to devices that talk to Ford(tm) engine control computers, because that might confuse people.
Further, if I tune my Ford(tm) myself, and screw it up so that it spews smoke, that makes Ford(tm) look bad. It damages their image and brand. I really shouldn't be allowed to do that. And isn't it likely that if I'm tuning my own Ford(tm), it's probably stolen? I mean, it's not that Ford(tm) garages are open at inconvenient times, or take hours to tune Fords(tm), or sometimes lose bits of your Ford(tm), or are understaffed, or are full of morons screaming "N E 1 WANT TRADE SOJ??????" over and over and over again until you just want to rip their lungs out. No siree. Thieves, that's who tunes their own Ford(tm).
Nor should I be allowed to host a website that tells people how to tune their Fords(tm) (especially if it mentions the word "Ford"). That's just downright subversive. And don't get me started on the criminality of trying to reverse engineer the engine control computer.
In fact, nobody except Ford(tm) franchises should be allowed to even open the bonnets on Fords(tm), because then they might fit shoddy third party parts, and that would cut off Ford(tm)'s revenue stream. And non-Ford(tm) petrol might not be ideal, and if it's not ideal, it's evil. Not to mention that some of those oil companies might be tempted to make trademark infringing claims like "Works with Fords(tm)"
We really need to ban this sort of maverick behaviour, and protect Ford(tm)'s intellectual propery and branding. It's really to protect us in the long term from, from the evil of competition, because that will guarantee Ford(tm)'s revenue stream, and then they can keep developing new Ford(tm) approved features to sell us on their new line of Fords(tm). Well, lease, really. I mean, if they actually sold Fords(tm), then we'd be able to do what we wanted to with them. Yeah, better if they sell the Ford(tm) hardware, but license the use of it. That sounds fair, right?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Well the whole thing with this, was that they didn't think it would be that easy. Since there was an entire section of encrypted data sent from the server to the client.
All they did was make sure the client didn't look for it, and that the server didn't send it, and it continued into the login fine. They didn't think the game would even work without the encrypted data.
Blizzard is only protecting their investment. They developed the protocol and the software and the system and the clients and everything involoved. All of their newer products include support for BATTLE.NET and they used it as a value-added feature of those games (what value it is to you is, of course, debateable). Weather or not they charge for their services is not important. What is important is that by having a central multiplayer server it helps them, in their own minds, curb piracy to a limited extent. They've basically limited pirates to only being able to play by themselves and on lans.
Remember, they don't see their customers as honest people. They see a few honest people and a scourge of pirates, hocking their warez. To them, BnetD is an outright attemt from the pirates as a way of compensating for the lack of BATTLE.NET support in the pirated version of the game. Obviously, the developers of BnetD would disagree with this assessment, but lets see which arguement holds water.
Blizzards argument: People are _using_ bnetd to play pirated copies of our released games and pirated copies of a game still in development. While bnetd _can_ be used to host honest servers, the majority of bnetd servers seem to allow pirates and hooligans to steal and exploit our software.
BnetD argument: BATTLE.NET sucks. It sucks so hard that we took it upon ourselves to develop our own server software to play with. We were also curious as to how the BATTLE.NET protocol worked. We are honest owners of the games we play and expect that everyone else will do the same now that we've given it away. We cannot implement the CD-KEY check because you won't tell us how.
Facts:
- Blizzard is under NO OBLIGATION to make "open" the BATTLE.NET protocol.
- the BnetD had NO RIGHT to reverse-engineer the BATTLE.NET protocol. Even if they did, it's a moot point because:
- the BnetD provides a way to circumvent the copy control measures of the BATTLE.NET portion of Blizzard's games (the "copy control measures" being the cd-key check).
At any rate, Blizzard should look to what Sierra/Valve did with the Half-Life keyserver. I think that Blizzard sees BATTLE.NET as a way for people to play a game with persistant characters. What they don't seem to understand is that there are thousands of people out there who are willing to run free and legitamite servers - to help improve overall performance. They should have a central key-server that people must authenticate against before being able to connect to a 3rd party server (and this doesn't have to expose their algorythim as they claim).
While I don't think they should, I do think that Blizzard has the right to ask for the BnetD project to be terminated. I think they should also drop the ".NET" from BATTLE.NET because a network is a connection of multiple server computers that provides services to multiple clients. BALTTLE.NET is only one server (internally there may be dozens, but externally there are only the Blizzard owned/controlled servers).
In any event...
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
I'm not claming the art, but I introduced the Slashdot community to the idea. It started with a couple of "Friday troll haikus" (the idea came from a local 2600 group mailinglist) which hardly had any effect at all. Then, recently, a karma whore apparently saw and posted a haiku modded up to 5, now, they are everywhere!
I demand credit! The whole slashdot community owes me!
MOD ME UP, SCOTTY!!! Don't make me sue!
Try reading their original DMCA threat, followed by the actual suit they filed. Notice that they have now taken a completely different direction than originally indicated. That shows you that their original threat was completely empty and so insubstantial that they weren't even willing to pursue it themselves. It's laughable.
Now, read the suit they have filed. It is almost completely without legal merit. Blizzard is abusing the U.S. legal system in a tactical manner, to some end or another, without actually having a case. They are wasting the courts' time with nonsense. If you want to defend them, then put together a good lawsuit for them. (Please note that "THEY MADE ME LOSE MONEY!!!!! WAAAAAH" does not qualify as such.) If you write up a good reason that bnetd is illegal, send it to Blizzard/Vivendi, because it looks like they have no clue!
While I think that efforts like BNetD that create a free component for a proprietary game should be legal, I don't think they are a good idea. Why not clone both the server and the game and make it all free software?
Did anyone read items 31-35? Blizzard intends to proove that BNETD was intended for direct financial gain. it is OPEN SOURCE which makes it FREE OF FINANCIAL COSTS. I dont know why anyone would want to sue someone else for emulation of thier service. next month AOL will be suing trillian since they cant keep kicking aim users off forever. for protocol reversing and use! claims that they copied a nonpublic protocol or something else ridiculously stupid in a futile attempt to stop trillian from taking thier ad revenue away.
This suit's so ridiculous it would actually have a chance of defeating the DMCA and we wouldn't want that would we?
If you wanted to make a car analogy out of this, you should have commented on the legality of creating a tool that produces master Ford(tm)keys, which enable you to start any Ford(tm) car and drive it right off the lot. Of course Ford would know that you, me and everyone else would ONLY ever use these keys in case we lost our REAL keys to the cars we legally purchased, because NO ONE would ever concieve of using this tool to steal cars without paying for them. People are so honest, after all.
In a surprising turn for the online community directions provider MapQuest sues Maps.com for giving the same directions to disneyworld.
MapQuest CEO states "It's a blatant and obvious ripoff of our map generating code. How else could they know to take the various highways and interstates. We refuse to let competition like this infringe on our copyright of how to get to Disneyland"
in other news Microsoft sues Oracle for their use of relations and constraints in their leading database tools stating that "We use those in our Access and SQL Server products and this is a flagrant attack on our copyright. I don't see how anybody could be so disrespectful on a personal or professional level as to have sunk this low"
I have never been one to donate money to anything, but I just joined the EFF with a nice donation and wish I could give even more. This BNETD thing was the last straw. Please support the EFF, and write to Blizzard telling them why they should not pursue this avenue.
Blizzard Entertainment
P.O. Box 18979
Irvine, CA 92623
1. - Blizzard is under NO OBLIGATION to make "open" the BATTLE.NET protocol.
While this in itself is true, no one ever claimed they were under any "obligation". They, however, made their own protocol open by not patenting it. Sorry, buddy, they did it without being "obligated". 2. - the BnetD had NO RIGHT to reverse-engineer the BATTLE.NET protocol
Vivendi's favorite document, the DMCA, grants anyone the right to legally reverse engineer things for the purpose of interoperability. So what are you basing your statement on, exactly? 3. - the BnetD provides a way to circumvent the copy control measures of the BATTLE.NET portion of Blizzard's games
Well, you can't actually pirate Blizzard's games with bnetd, so what exactly is your point? To pirate a game, you will need:
A. The internet (to download an ISO image)
B. A CD-Burner (to burn a copy)
THEN, you could play it even without bnetd. It seems that the contribution to piracy is very much larger for A. and B. than it is for bnetd. So are you advocating the outlawing of those two items as well?
Let me ask you a question, since you seem to think that since Blizzard developed the protocol, it is untouchable by anyone else. Are you using Internet Explorer right now? They did not invent HTTP, Gopher, or FTP, and yet, ALL THREE PROTOCOLS ARE ACCESSIBLE directly from that particular browser. So, if the NCSA came and sued over the use of its protocols tomorrow, would you support them? If Microsoft sues the makers of Samba, will you support MS? What about telnet? TCP/IP? AppleTalk?
As for Blizzard having the "RIGHT" to shut down bnetd... this right is not granted anywhere in the U.S. law. The right to reverse engineer is. So don't talk to me about rights.
Is there a precedence for labeling a multiuser online activity a "Public Performance"? I'm assuming that most folks would connect to a bnetd server from the 'privacy' of their own homes... does this mean that online activities are seen as existing within a public forum? Even in a peer to peer(pardon the buzz) environment?
If this definition sticks in federal court, does that mean your online presence enjoys ALL freedoms and rights that your physical body is entitled to as a citizen?
Sounds like a largish can o' worms for a smallish software company to be opening
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
I know the EFF had good intentions when responing to Vivendi's lawyers claims. They obviously were trying to nip this in the bud and get the bnetd folks out of a law suit. However, pointing out the weaknesses in Vivendi's DMCA claims have now created a Traditionl copyright case. Wouldn't it have been great if they actually went with the DMCA claims and bnetd was triumphant? Although, I guess if bnetd by some reason had lost the case, would have given more power to the DMCA. Still it seems that Blizzard does not have a leg to stand (just a big pile of $$$$) on with their latest claims.
You're pretty clueless. Keygening? Why bother?
When I bought DiabloII, I found it didn't work. The problem was traced back, thanks to Linux, to the "copyright protection" on the cd, which caused read errors about 50% of the time. On some of my drives (I own 7) the error rate was more like 100% of the time. None of them worked properly, or even usably...
I bought, and returned for a full refund, this game half a dozen times. I thought there had been a bad production run. I was wrong. It was the stupid anti-copying bullshit. Which, eventually, was circumvented by copying the game twice -- once with clonecd (to play it), and once without (to install it). (Yes, that's right. The anti-copying bullshit required me to make two copies of the game before I could even install it, let alone use it.)
Moral of the story: Go to store. Buy game. Record cd-code. Return game for full refund. Claim Anti-piracy "copyprotection" prevents you from using the game.
bnetd: Have you ever heard of lag? Or those evil folks who use cheats to deliberately sabotage your game?
'Cheers.
You would do well to go read the guy's post above about Pockets being outlawed. It is not a ridiculous comparison; both involve the use of a tool which has legal as well as illegal purposes. And, as I explained in my own post (which you did not respond to) - bnetd does not allow you to pirate the game. Go ahead - download bnetd, then use it to pirate something. It doesn't do that. You would have already had to pirate the game, and then you could enable multiplayer with bnetd. Not steal, but rather enable one of the game's many features AFTER you used a different tool (or two) to steal it.
Now think really carefully. If I were to steal a game off of the internet, and then I used someone else's tool to allow me to enable one of my stolen game's features, (because it unintentionally just happens to do that) - who is the thief? The guy who made the tool? I don't think so. Thieves are thieves. Manufacturers of lockpicks, knives, saws, and hammers are not thieves.
Here is another example: some Blizzard games (such as Diablo II) use a copy protection method known as SafeDisc. A combination of software and hardware can now be used to effectively copy Safedisc, producing perfect, pirated backups. However, no one is advocating outlawing either the hardware or the software. Why not? I can certainly see why Blizzard is not suing the manufacturers of CD-R's or the developers of CD Burn Software, but my question is: do you support this, from an ideological perspective? If not, please explain why the Internet and CD Burners (which can be used to STEAL things) are OK, but bnetd (which can NOT be used to steal things) is not.
Actually, war 1 and 2 do not work properly in w2k last I checked. Unless you want to buy the online version quite a few mice do not work at all.
It appears that what they're alleging is that their compiled key checking code was de-compiled somehow and incorporated "as is" into the BNETD code. This is why commercial efforts at reverse engineering use a "two box" paradigm -- one team disassembles the product and writes a complete description, the other team takes the complete description and writes a functionally equivalent product. This is the only known way to head off the charge of "duplicating" code. If the BNETD project cannot document that they followed a "two box" paradigm, the Vivendi lawyers have a good chance of winning, whether the BNET programmers actually did lift code or not. This is an area where the benefit of the doubt usually goes to the copyright holder.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
This might just force them to stop recycling their six-year-old battle.net code and try something new.
All they have to do to battle.net to add a new Blizzard game right now is add a new client type and maybe a byte or two different in a client check.
Damn their insistance on using 6112/udp for a game port AND a server port.
-Q
No users were harmed in the posting of this message.
Because the Internet and CD Burners perform functions that are not elsewhere duplicated "legally", whereas the functionality of Bnetd emulates a service already supplied, with the single exception that it facilitates theft. There is no other reasonable useage for Bnetd that Blizzard does not already offer. Try looking at it from both sides of the argument.
Blizzard tolerates, ignores, and sometimes outright takes:
Abuse,cracking of serialnumber schemes, anti piracy mesures, copies of games as long as:
More people purchased than stole
People owned up to purchasing after theft
People offered CONSTRUCTIVE feadback on how to make battle.net better
Cheating, and other nefarius activities
and what did they ask in return
One a little dignity to NOT steal battle.net API's etc.
Report bugs
and to treat them with a little respect
what happened? all but the most sticky point: if your' going to mimic our product we're flattered but please when we ask you to help you ensure as little theft through cracking schemes was viable to help, and not tell them to go jump off a cliff.
That's what happened with bnetd they tolerated as long as it was nice enough to work with blizzard, blizzard tolerated it, then they wanted to help improve it's code and well...they have to defend the copyrights here or not do it at all. I honestly hope blizzard settles out of court but if not...
and to save people time: flaming grits, clusters, copyleft,linux,bsd,wine, GPL.
I am a troll mark me -4:troll
So, you are saying that I can create a website that is like Slashdot.org and call it SlashDork.org and say that it's an ALTERNATIVE TO and BETTER than Slashdot.org and you guys won't sue me for it?
SlashDork.org will basically be parsing Slashdot.org's contents and posting onto their site. The look of the pages are similar but the code behind the pages are different.
For those who don't understand:
Slashdot.org = Battle.net
Slashdot.org's content = Blizzard games
Slashdork.org = BNetD
Basically, you are officially giving permission to other sites to take your contents without your permission.
Now if you can give me a legitimate as to why my example does not work than you're free to write me at arms_master@hotmail.com.
Think of it as a matter of degree. Take a sledgehammer, for instance. Theoretically, I could kill people with a sledgehammer, it's been done, it will be done again, but it is obvious to anyone that a sledgehammer has many uses and that killing people is not what it was designed for. Similarly, CD burners and the internet CAN easily be used to steal, just as a sledgehammer can be used to kill, however they have many other legal, useful functions. The argument of degree is where guns come in. It is a given that the primary purpose of a gun involves bodily harm, either the infliction of it, or the prevention of it through self-defense. Now, some guns are legal, some are not. A citizen can own a handgun, because although it grants him the ability to kill, it also grants him the ability to defend his home and family. A citizen may not, however, own a rocket launcher. Although it technically performs the same function as another object that is legal, the scale on which it operates makes it obvious that its potential for harm (in the form of collateral damage) far outweighs the need of an average person to possess a high explosive device. In addition, there is nothing *legal* you can do with a rocket launcher that you cannot do otherwise with a much less dangerous weapon, or more controlled alternative. However, were rocket launchers legal to purchase and easy to obtain, the danger to the general public would increase immesurably. In short, by outlawing privately owned rocket launchers but allowing small handguns, we have drastically reduced the ability of criminals to do illegal things, but not castrated the honest public. Bnetd is a reverse rocket launcher - instead of operating on far too large a scale to be reasonable and safe, bnetd operates on such a specific, targeted scale as to make it obvious that illegal activites are what would quickly become the primary purpose of the object, ala private bazookas and landmines. It is a matter of applying common sense to the issue. *********** Note that my argument is invalid if you are a gun-crazed nut who thinks that every man, woman and child should be able to go to a street corner and purchase landmines and assault rifles - in which case, your line of thinking is too alien for me to attempt to reason with.
you know nothing of the economics, the philosophy, and the history.
And if you wash your ring, I'll delicately place a midget in there.
The only known way to deal with this is the "two box" paradigm -- one team disassembles the code and writes a functional description, the other team writes code based upon that description. This is an area where the courts tend to favor the copyright holder. Remember, civil court is not "beyond reasonable doubt" -- Blizzard doesn't have to prove beyond all doubt that the BNETD project ripped off code, they just have to provide reasonable evidence that such happened. If there is no refuting evidence (such as numbered/dated log books and reverse engineering documents), the court will rule in favor of Blizzard.
The rest of the complaint is so much piffle. I think it's there to keep the other side's lawyers busy -- even if it's piffle, you have to refute each count in court, and the more allegations, the more it'll cost to do so. But this issue of reverse engineering vs. translation is the one that will get the BNETD people in trouble long after the other issues are completely forgotten.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
First of all, I don't mind paying for games if they weren't $50 when they come out. Second, How in god's name is it that I can get pirated games faster when they come out through the internet than through legal channels such as online stores or retail outlets. I don't even consider myself a \/\/areZ d00d.
Why can't I just download the legal version of the fucking software from this new invention called the internet I've heard about??? I SHOULD pay less money for it because no packaging or distribution is required!
Mr.Obvious
Blizzard could easily create a public key prox that takes a key request, passes to their main key server, and returns a yes or no on the validity of the key. Probably without much programming work on their part at all.
As for lag - well, any lag added onto the Battlet.net(TM) network would be indistinguishable from it's current state of slowness.
"Bah!" - Dogbert
The comparison you've made is unfortunately without merit. Bnetd is a server emulator. It can not be used to facilitate harm to the general public. The outlawing of heavy weaponry is justified because the majority of society wants it that way and feels protected by it. Bnetd can only be seen theoretically to harm one company; laws are not made to protect single corporations; rather, it is their own responsibility to insure their financial success.
There are no specific laws outlawing "dangerous tools" as this would be too vague. This is all of course not considering the fact that you continue to state, over and over again, that bnetd has no purpose other than facilitating piracy. This is ignorant and incorrect. Its purpose was to allow small groups of people to simulate the entire experience of Battle.net without logging into Blizzard's servers, which are drastically overused and full of stupid kids. Please stop pretending that it is somehow useless, as this is what it was meant to be used for.
If they're claiming that Bnetd stole code, they may employ a particularly nasty trick to convince the judge that the code is in fact stolen from blizzard...
All they have to do, is take the bnetd source code (which I'm sure they have safely tucked away somewhere as "evidence"), make minor cosmetic changes to it, and integrate it into a special copy of one of their games for the purpose of presenting during the trial. When they pull out the code... surprise surprise, it looks damn near identical down to some of the most basic levels.
This would definitely suck, as there's no way for the Bnetd people to prove otherwise. It's Blizzard's word against theirs, and we all know the court system will believe a corporation over a bunch of college-age computer junkies.
-Z
Do we see Microsoft suing the Samba team over usage of the SMB protocol in non-Microsoft related Operating Systems?
For one thing, the latest license on the SMB patents requires that any software implemented under the license be NOT free to redistribute.
For another thing, Nintendo could sue them both for violating the trademark on SMB, short for Super Mario Bros.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Stop trying to evade the issue. The DMV is a government service, doofus, and therefore not even remotely applicable to the discussion we are having. As for giving away something for free which someone else sells for money - hmmm. I believe you'll find plenty of free products out on the 'net that nearly exactly simulate the operations of Microsoft's products. A little program called Wine springs to mind. Clean room implementation; fully protected by copyright law and the principles of capitalism. Connectix VGS - the Playstation emulator - held up in a court of law as FAIR COMPETITION to Sony's console. The law is completely on my side, and your crazy goverment service emulator isn't going to change that, slappy.
I think this is going to be laughed out of court. Well, it may not be quite that bad but basically Blizzard is saying that the bnetd people infringed on their copyright because the bnetd server does what it needs to do to be compatible with the battlenet server. (Well no duh!) If we applied the same standards I would guess that StarOffice is in deep trouble because of what it does to be able to load Word documents.
I believe that the lawsuit also says that the bnetd people used some graphics taken from Blizzard. If this is true then that could be a copyright infringement but I doubt that it caused Blizzard any significant damage and defiantly isn't a show stopper.
So I think the score will be: bnetd 1, Blizzard 0.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Please explain how bnetd produces CD-Keys. I'm dying to know.
Ok, maybe I'm wrong, but I see no point for Blizzard to continue pursuing this. First of all, it's stupid to begin with. It is a GOOD thing for Blizzard, bringing them more business. "Hey, I want to play the Blizzard game ______, but their servers SUCK!" "That's ok, use Bnetd" ... and so on. But other than that, they are going to alienate tons of their users.. and for what? Is Bnetd stealing business? No.. Is Bnetd stealing advertising revenue? No.. Blizzard.net doesn't use advertising. So why? If someone can give me a good answer for this, I'd love to hear it.
The real reason Blizzard wants bnetd to go away: http://www.battle.net/advertising/
>WHEREFORE, Blizzard prays that
now they're calling on THE LORD?
The word "pray" is probably just legalese. It does come from the same Latin root that developed into the Italian word for "please".
Will I retire or break 10K?
(ie. Diablo... ie. Dia-BLOW)
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Vivendi doesn't really expect to win this suit. All it does is let them keep bnetd.org off the air for a few more months or years. Classic abuse of the legal system.
Sure, I'm biased toward free software. But doesn't everyone have their biases? This is ridiculous.
Starcraft has sucked since 5 minutes into the second mission. They've whored the lame action/strategy genre for long enough. Let's just ask the Bnetd author to take it down and apply his networking knowledge to another game project, perhaps an open-source adventure-type-thing we could all enjoy.
More and more companies are screwing us five ways from friday, why don't we just drop the ball and go play elsewhere ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I have little time for more of this, but please explain yourself a bit better. How is bnetd "stealing" anything from Blizzard? They simply implemented the same protocol. I don't understand how this compares to what you are saying. (because it doesn't.)
How long ago was this? I can remember haikus from a few different people as far back as 2 years ago...
Wait... the whole slashdot community? Owes you what, exactly? Are you actually demanding karma for being a troll, because karma whores "stole" your trolling technique and turned it into a way to whore for karma?
- that it's rights are being violated, they may STOP these open betas that we love so much. Or at least start requiring overly restrictive EULAAs. Or maybe people here just don't care because they pirate everything they want anyway?
stop doing betas... They just don't get anything out of it anymore.Anyway, I can understand how pissed off Blizzard must be. They took the time and spent the money to create an open beta, hoping to improve the product before it was released. Instead, everyone took it and played on BnetD, and Blizzard wasn't able to stress test their software as much as they wanted. There were reports even on slashdot about people having trouble finding games to play on battle.net. As I'm writing this, I'm convincing myself that they really should
Thanks for royally screwing those of us who don't break EULAs compulsively.
What Blizzard does, and what Blizzard should be able to get away with under the law, are two entirely different things.
As all of your arguments fail to come from any actual, legal standpoint, I think I will cease to argue with you now. Please get out the big book of U.S. law and find the section where it says that products are illegal if they cut into another company's business. Oh wait, it's not there. As for people modifying it and extending it, that is their fault and not the original authors'. You really should try to understand the law; it is clear that you actually believe that Blizzard has some sort of right to make money which supercedes individual rights. You will notice that this is a fallacy. Educate yourself before making any more such ridiculous claims.
I don't understand what part of the legal standpoint "Dont steal code" you don't get. Blizzard claims Bnetd stole code. If they managed to totally reproduce Battle.net and didnt steal any code from Blizzard at all, then as much as I don't like the idea it's a legal program. If what Blizzard claims is true and they actually had to swipe code to make Bnetd work, then its theft. End of story. Get a job, thief.
cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.bnetd.sourceforge.net:/cv sroot/bnetd login
cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.bnetd.sourceforge.net:/cv sroot/bnetd co bnetd
OK, thats without the Warcraft 3 changes but who cares for that?
Couldn't have said it better (or even nearly as well) myself.
When will people learn that actions have consequences and there is no "silver bullet" for protecting property, intellectual or otherwise.
The first step in stopping illegal copying is actually CATCHING the illegal copiers!! Kids learn pretty quick what they can and can't get away with.
eg:
Your honor, I have here a list of 164,325 people who stole my software along with proof for each. I've called them all and notified them they are in violation of my copyright, but I need some kind of injuctive relief. What are my rights here?
(Don't forget to not mention the fact "the software" is an FTP utility, and is now the only one widely available since the delisting of all previously existing FTP utils and their subsequent disappearance from store shelves.)
I agree that most of the lawsuit points detailed above are dubious at best, but I think that Blizzard has a legitimate case on this one. Fair use does not include using copyrighted materials to promote a competing product or service. Since Bnetd is a competing service (the fact that they don't make any money on it is irrelevant, since they still would draw users away from Blizzard's BATTLE.NET), Blizzard does have a legal leg to stand on on this point.
That said, I don't think they _should_ be suing. As has been pointed out by many users, if they could make a pleasant alliance with Bnetd instead of attacking them, they have much to gain. Unfortunately, they didn't ask my opinion, so I'll have to voice it by not buying their products.
-Joe
(ie. please contribute something to the conversation that a lame attempt at a knee-jerk reaction against Blizzard)
Considering, you know, that every FPS has "ripped off" Wolf3D.
Or that every RTS has "ripped off" Dune II.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Yes, to accept the far-fetched notion of corporate cooperation you'd have to believe that the media industry cooperated to lobby for the thing in the first place. Which'd be almost unimaginable, right? After all, everybody knows it was just one company who pushed the thing through Congress.
Or you'd have to accept the notion that the media companies pool their resources through "Associations" that work to lobby and further the industry's interests in Congress. Ridiculous.
But we all know that enormous media corporations rarely coordinate their efforts (even tacitly). I mean, it's like that whole misguided Federal case over price-fixing in the music industry. Why would multi-billion dollar corporations work together to further their interests?
Now, you might point out that laws like the DMCA represent required millions of dollars in political investments from the various corporations involved, but why not throw it all down the toilet at the first opportunity to shut some two-bit open source game project down?
Yes, I'm laying it on a little thick. But the fact remains: call it conspiracy if you want to conjure images of grassy knolls and tinfoil hats. This isn't conspiracy, it's just business. Good business.
I Loved Devil 2.
But the lag got so bad, and so many disconnects, I quit playing. I even bought the extension pack, but couldn't play it... [However the lag was bad and disconnects because of people trying to cheat supposedly... though many people blamed Koreans for some odd reason.]
What do you expect? BAFFLE.NUT is not pay per use. Why should Buzzard support it?
BNUTD was a testament to the games quality (high) and the multiplayer capability (poor). If you don't like the quality of something you buy, take it back. Send mail to Buzzard asking for a refund.
Mm
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
change so much.
For example, in talking about legality of things in society it used to be in vogue to say:
"We must outlaw X if, and only if, ALL its uses are bad uses."
Now it seems to be the style to say:
"We must outlaw Z if, and only if, its PRIMARY uses are bad uses."
Small change, big implications...
(What does "No Score +1 Bonus" mean anyway?)
"Public Performance" laws are best expalined in this example. If a band, say 'Fictitous Under-rated Compilation Kids', wants to perform a cover of the song "Run-Around Sue" for the next concert they do at the local firehall then they don't have to buy the rights, no one is going to hear it that matters, there is no hardcopy of the song. It simply goes out into the air and diffuses after hitting the ears of a bunch sweaty kids. If F.U.C.K. decides to make a compilation CD at their friends 'studio' and records the same song, they have violated copyright laws. If the band wishes to use the song in a venue where there are large numbers of people and there is the chance for a cash/profitable prize, i.e. getting signed to a label or some other such thing, they would need to secure rights to performance of the song. Until the copyright becomes 'public domain' any public performance is subject to copyright infringement. Thus Blizzard is attempting to state that there is a premanent/semi-permanent copy of the copyrighted material available to a large number of people, AND that the users of said material stand to profit from the use of this material in some way. I personally don't think that Blizzard/Vivendi has squat of a case in this department. All that they're doing is throwing chaff to the wind. I do however believe that the lawyers they'll have will create such an arduous task for any future defense tactics that bnetd will just buckle...it's not like they're fulled by a multi-million dollar industry.
Once in a while, you just have to stop...and piss in someone's garden.
We learned that in gradeschool, go back to 5th grade, do not collect $200 and do not drop the soap.
Secondly, in somewhat the same words as the movie "Clerks", I can think of another group of thousands upon thousands of people did what for them was morally and legally right, they were called the Nazis. I know that this is an extreme example when arguing about copyright etc., but read on. Following your logic, LilDebbie, whatever is appropriate in context is also appropriate out of context, I can jokingly call my girlfriend "my bitch" and tell my friends to "touch the tip of your dicks to your asses and go fuck yourselves", but should I walk up to any person on the street and say the same thing...no. And if what I do with my friends is morally or legally wrong in general, then does that make it even right in context if a bunch of people do it? No, it doesn't. The Nuremburg Trials stand on the very grounds that there can be a greater wrong as well as a greater right.Once in a while, you just have to stop...and piss in someone's garden.
Thanks for that insightful comment.
P.S.- I bet I'm the first person to use that old line, I'll keep an eye out to see if anyone else says it.
Once in a while, you just have to stop...and piss in someone's garden.
Did anyone consider that maybe Blizzard has a their own "bnetd" in the works that they plan to release?
If I'm not mistaken, Kali supports Starcraft, a Bnet multiplayer game
I believe Kali got a license from Blizzard to route IPX based games over IP before there was a battle.net and back when there was only IPX LAN support. Comparisons to fsgs and bnetd are misguided.
First, listing things and stating Blizzard claims as poor claims is bias, as the article says, Slashdot don't know what they mean and Slashdot don't have all the facts, Blizzard has the right to sue, Battle.net is the Only way to track down piracy, and developers who tries to find loopholes in the copyright/DMCA laws, and saying they can alter your software (reverse engineering) that is still changing the software, Blizzard never allowed or indurse Program alterations, they never provided your stardraft or mods; you the users do it at your own risk.
If you wanted to expand Battle.net, you could of ask Blizzard to allow you to expand it, with CD KEY checking, NOT CHECKING CD KEYS is the PRIME motive for a piracy software user to play on your server, hobbist? Bah, what a joke.
I couldn't have said it better!
It's like at my country club, where we don't allow any Negros except under special circumstances. I mean, it's not that the "no-blacks" rule singles out anyone, it just means that some black people in the past were the type of people that we don't want in our club.
To be fair, the black people who have visited us have generally been very good mannered. It's a shame this sort of Negro wasn't more prevelent back when we made the rule.
And in our defence, the country-club is a private institution. It's not a right, and if people don't like our no-blacks policy, then they can just choose another club to be a part of.
ben.c posting as AC to protect himself from those without a sense of satire.
> We live in a "representative democracy,"
Actually the founding fathers rightly feared Democracy as Mob Rule with a pretty name. What we were supposed to have is a "Republican form of government." Look it up, it is in the Constituition. The difference between a Democracy and a Republic is subtle but important. In a Republic, even the will of the majority is subject to the rule of law.
But we ditched that pesky rule of law vs. rule of men concept around the time of the War of Northern Agression (which was the reason the southern states were trying to get the hell outta dodge) and have been on a slow slide to chaos ever since.
Democrat delenda est
A business should be able to make any rules it wants. If they put up a sign that says "You must hop on one foot while in this business." then dems the rules.... unless they actually want customers. Then they will have to compromise until both parties are willing to do business unless of course the business is a monopoly.
All this guy did was state his displeasure with a silly rule and ask the store if they would rather lose his business or relax the rule. They made the sensible decision, especially considering what a ripoff most college bookstores are!
Now if enough of Blizzard's customers would put the same question to them I suspect they would be just as sensible. After all, their markup is as obscene as any college bookstore. Just ask em, "Ok, I own a copy of bnetd, and don't intend to change. Do you want to sell me products or sue?"
Democrat delenda est
Have third party servers been a problem for UO, and all the others? Seriously, have they?
BlackGriffen
I mean, some software company makes a service, and you people ty to rip it off. They have this srvice, for you, so you can play your games without hassle, but still, you try to f**k them. They don't want people to use illegal versions of their software, I think anyone normal can understand that. I'm glad that Bnetd is getting their ass sued. I don't care if they use the "evil" DMCA or anything else in the law. I don't care on what grounds they sue Bnetd. They made the software, people tried to copy it so people could play games illegaly by bypassing the password mechanisn and cd-key authentification, it's about time this blew up in the face of the Bnetd people.
Get over it.
...because it's shit!
I think it will be only a matter of time until another EverQuest style suicide will occur after someone gets frustrated enough with their Blizzard game "life." If Blizzard want to ensure that the person who is confused between real and virtual-life MUST have played the true Blizzard provided battle.net, then maybe we should let them. I remember from my high school days the D&D and AD&D "related" suicides. I'm glad that Blizzard wants to be the only possiable target in a Blizzard network game "related" death. Why muddy the waters with the possiblity that they logged out of a third-party bnetd server before committing suicide?
That would have almost worked. But it should have read like this:
If you would have said that "almost all of the kids in the candy store with a 'specific type of pocket that encourages stealing candy' and were actually, specifically using the pocket to steal candy"... then I would have listened.
Sorry, but when you simplify the argument to something like that, you have to expect to get some real crap for trying to pull the wool over our eyes. If you stated something like it really is, instead of a crappy oversimplification, well, you realize that you have NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER.
Here's another great one like this:
"I've the glove does not fit, you must acquit."
Yeah, that also works when the gloves aren't frozen, they aren't of the tight fitting driving variety, and the defendent doesn't have to try to put on stiff tight gloves while wearing rubber gloves beneath to not harm state's evidence.
Get a grip, and try to not justify stealing from a company that gives their customers a fair shake until they steal from it. REMEMBER IT WAS THE BNETD PEOPLE THAT ALLOWED PIRACY TO BE ACCEPTABLE, NOT BLIZZARD, DON'T MAKE BLIZZARD OUT TO BE A BUNCH OF BASTARDS.
I have already informed Blizzard that neither I nor anyone I associate with will buy their games. It may not be much, but it is something.
Funny. Whilst the instructions warn me that it doesn't work with W2K, it works fine on my (W2K) box.
That said, sometimes the soundtrack gets a little confused (with some of the sound effects being dropped), and the very occasional crash (i.e. W:BC disappears, sending me back to the desktop, much like with dodgy full-screen software under *NIX).
John_Chalisque
Mine crashes to desktop as it tries to play the opening movie IIRC
Actually, it was a joke; I didn't think anybody would be naive enough to take it seriously, but that's ok.
I think Blizzard or whoever has taken the decision to pursue bothering Bnetd are bloodlusted kamikaze headless idiots. Bloodlusted as they're obviously powerful enough to raise some excellent lawyers to take on a case they couldn't possibly win without such representation and which also adds some weight to kamikaze headless idiots, sine without properly thinking about the effects of their actions, they're attacking Bnetd resulting in hurting themselves a lot more than their REAL problems and the REAL issues they're trying to take care of... They lost a lot of respect, as far as I can tell, I've lost all respect for Blizzard itself. I still have admiration for some of their employees who create their games.. but that won't be enough; everyone says, don't play WarCraft III, don't buy it, buy something else! I'll respect the people who 'actually made the game' in my own way and as much as I can during the circonstances and my new dislike for Blizzard by playing their game, (Also coz it looks good enough to warrant me playing it :) ,but in no way will I buy it. I'll just pirate the darn thing. Heck, I'll play it even before it hits the stores, I'm sure. It will be the first time I will play a Blizzard game without playing it. But this is also the first time Blizzard has been acting like retarded dimwits. Ha! I'll even play on the Bnetd emulation software with friends. The software they're trying to stop without any success. It's not like people won't still be able to get it, or people won't still be able to work on the source code and adapt it for WarCraft III. I think it's highly unfair you persecute the good people from Bnetd. Obviously, it won't change anything; and if they can't see that... ah well, their crusade will only have affected the innocent and made them loose my friend's money _and mine! I'll have fun with WarCraft... you friggin' bastids.
Blizzard wanted people to use their servers for a limited beta test. These guys were okay with that and did NOT support their beta in their released code. Fine right? Well, it's Open Source so someone modified it to play the BETA!! Well, Blizzard is now upset that the Beta is all over the place (big deal) AND that it's now being played on servers they cannot monitor for performance and testing. Instead of politely asking the "community" to please use their servers and oh maybe letting everyone in on the beta they decided to sue the folks who wrote the ORIGINAL CODE! NOT the code that allowed the beta to play but the original stuff that didn't. DUH! They had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS! Cry me a river Blizzard - you're WRONG.
Blizzard will LOSE in court over this if it's fought. ALL these guys did was examine the protocols and write code to handle them. TaDa - LEGAL. They used Blizzard source? Prove it Blizzard. Reverse engineering in this case should've been LEGAL. THEY screwed with the "community" they claim to care about on this one and it has cost them at least one sale MY SALE. And that of everyone I know whom I speak to about this. But you'd better believe I've got copies of this code stored off. Jerks!
BTW who EXACTLY lied to them? The developers didn't support the beta and even if they had so what? Blizzard has no standing on that.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
I think I'm okay with any ruling that the court system hands down on this issue. I'm usually the last person to defend the "big, evil corporation", but most people bought Diablo 2 with full knowledge that in order to play the game online you would have to go through battle.net. Diablo 2 came with a cd key to keep people from pirating the game, and bnetd circumvents that anti-piracy measure. Blizzard has the right to sell their game on their terms and if people don't like that, they shouldn't have bought it. Sony would be up in arms if someone suddenly started a freelance Everquest server, and they charge for their service. Blizzard gives access to their servers for free, good performance or not. I personally have never had any problems on bnet with my cable modem, and people on dial-up shouldn't expect stellar performance anyway, whether you connect at a full 56k or not, you've still got bandwidth fighting against you when you talk about any game on the internet. I never played a game online until I got my broadband hookup because I knew that 80% of the time I was going to get owned just because of bandwidth issues that are inherent to having a 56k or less pipe to work with. If a judge decides that bnetd is okay, great, then the people who pirated the game can play just like the people who threw down their hard earned cash to play it, and bnetd caters to those exact pirates, regardless of who wants to admit it or not. Sure, there are people on bnetd with legitimate copies of the game, but it'd be interesting to see what the ratio is of pirated copy players compared to legit owners of the game.
...when you're not using it? Come on, it'll be fine, really. How about your wife/girlfriend, can she hang out in my bedroom while you're busy with something else? Come on, I promise not to bang her or anything... Give me a break.
I meant my house...how embarassing :).
You're ASSuming that they stole code. How exactly did they steal code from a program they cannot get their hands on - Battle.Net's server code? Until Blizzard proves this their accusations are so much manure. Prove that Blizzard didn't steal that code from BNETD while you're at it.
Emulating a service as the BNETD people have done is legal so long as they didn't steal any code. Considering BNETD has been around since 1999 and is Open Sourced it's actually quite possible that the theft went the other way.
IMO, unless BNETD did actually take code, they're in the clear and I hope they win this one. Thye provide a needed service that Blizzard refuses to do and it's not their problem if lizzard feels it screws up their business model - laws aren't supposed to suppport business models.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Judge:Representing BnetD, Mr. Broflovski. BnetD: Wonder who Blizzard will have. Judge: And for the prosecution, Johnny Cochran. Broflovski: Oh shit. BnetD: Who's Johnny Cockran? Broflovski: He's the guy that got O.J. free BnetD: we're fucked
"Lesser of two evils," huh? Well, I guess it depends on what your definition of the word "of" is. Gotta hand it to Clinton for a) making his interrogators looks like fools to those of us who get the joke and b) making himself look like a fool for those who dont. Now to the point (dtt, fsa!*)...
...if it becomes extremely easy to pirate their software?
...sue intellectual property thieves...
Exactly how many sales do you think Blizzard stands to lose...
Nearly the same percentage of players who played pirated copies of the originals and Starcraft will be playing pirated copies of Warcraft III. Hell, I even have the 'pixie' version of Warcraft2 laying around here somewhere - and not far from it is version I bought.
Ahht - did I wake up on the Planet of the Perpetually Lame all of a sudden? It's already easy to pirate everything (er, in the software realm, I mean). That's not gonna change any time soon and certainly not from a lawsuit like this. I'm pretty sure there will also be a way to run my own battle.net server if Bnetd does get the legal shaft once and for all, too. *cough Warforge cough*
Ahh, legal buzzwords.
Ernlanzmer: Imagine your mind as a plot of land (maybe not your whole mind - just the place where you've processed this issue). Currently there resides a movie set of plastic and paper meche crops - these are the ideas that generalized, legalized, lowest-common-denominator-safe society has placed there. Why do I say this? Because you've referred to the creators of Bnetd as 'intellectual property thieves.' Now, rip all that out, replace the thin layer of tainted soil with nutrient rich dirt and grow some fresh new ideas. Once you've done that, you'll realize that for one - the existence Bnetd isn't going to affect Blizzard's profit margin noticably, if at all; Tim Yung, et al. aren't thieves, but folks who simply want a good game of Warcraft, etc. so they made a way to get it; and finally, that this situation is simple corporate pettiness and isn't even complicated enough to be expanded to murky abstract moral debate (the legal ramifications if Blizzard wins this, however, are). [Plus, I'll even spell your nick correctly - no extra charge! Btw, just general info - you seem like a well spoken person with a good deal of rational thought to add to any conversation, I just disagree with the way you understand the scope of this situation. I tried to make this sound completely non-flamey, but I just couldn't. Sorry, 'dere. =P] Now!, aside from all this - personally, I wouldn't even regard the Bnetd crew as theives even if they did use Blizzard code - but I doubt they did.
Lesser of the two evils.
So, apparently on the Planet of the Perpetually Lame, Hell is where you go when you reverse engineer something to make it more suitable to your tastes. There must not be many tailors on the Planet of the Perpetually Lame, or folks who like to customize old cars. Game modifications are nonexistent and hybridizing plants is illegal due to a clause in the Constitution of the Perpetually Lame about not being able to infringe on the intellectual property... of god.
There's a lot of people stomping their feet and going "Oooh Blizzard now you've done it, grrrr, you've lost a customer!!!"
Most of us who have come to this conclusion aren't going to be so halfassed and childish about it, we're simply not going to buy the game. That said, you bet I'm one of the folks who's not gonna knowingly give them a dime ever again and I've bought every Blizzard PC game since Blackthorne (except for the Diablo titles). Not only have they lost me as a customer, they've also lost my respect and fanship. I thought people were being silly during the whole tech-support info-get fiasco, but this time we "roof-screamers," as you seem to view us, have a legitimate point and Blizzard/Vivendi are the ones being silly and childish. If you're comfortable with upholding this kind of action by large corporations against well-meaning people who play thier games - by all means, keep buying Blizzard titles.
Really-long-sentence alert. The erradication of Bnetd, if successful, will be a good legal footing in the form of precedent for every upcoming game developer who is too selfish and short sighted about the works he or she creates to allow improvement on it by anyone other than themselves. The current shift in logic of Blizzard's claims against Bnetd proves it's not about anything they want to admit - it's about thier own selfishness against letting others taking thier games closer to perfection. I'm sure ya know the line, and try not to sing it, "anything you can do, I can do better." Well, Blizzard is on the short end of that concept. Whatever mental midget at Blizzard released the attack dogs on Bnetd feels threatened in that sense. They're using the guise of "potential copyright infringement" to retaliate. If they really want to go against piracy, why didn't they attack the creators of key generators and program patches? They could use the same means that the MPAA used against DeCSS - put legal pressure on the host of the files.
Oh my god this is so much longer than I intended. Sheesh. I'll sign off now with my usual phrase to end long posts:
But of course, I could be completely wrong (*and in case you're wondering: "damn the typos, full speed ahead"). =]
Vivendi is one bored fucker eh
can't he be sued for sounding like a cross between a car a diet soda drinks dispenser?
THE anonymous coward - not ANY OLD anonymous coward
0wnz(0o)j00