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.
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!
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
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.
you are correct.
/. when it's not just 2 or 3 conflicting articles, but whole flocks of them. Now run along.
but I hit the cap long ago, so I only whore because it makes me happy.
Besides, I like to rag on
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?
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?
This is why I am asking everyone to Boycott Blizzard.
http://boycottblizzard.org/
"I'm the one who started the whole haiku trend!"
Then you should sue everybody stealing your idea, because obviously, the thousands of years worth of prior art from the Japanese means absolutely nothing...
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
This seems to be a matter of extraordinary bad faith by VUG - if I followed this correctly :
VUG : You are in violation of the DMCA take down your site.
BNETD : Ok - the site is down - we have checked our compliance with the DMCA and will reinstate the site in 10 days unless you sue under the DMCA to prevent that.
VUG Files lawsuit claiming violation of some other part of the copyright code.
This suit's so ridiculous it would actually have a chance of defeating the DMCA and we wouldn't want that would we?