Blizzard/Vivendi Files Suit Against Bnetd Project

Blizzard's crack legal team, who has earlier tried to rush Bnetd's base, is now busy raining down ice shards on it. Blizzard has filed a lawsuit against Bnetd, listing a variety of causes of action, but read on because the important thing here is that Blizzard is not alleging a DMCA violation, only "traditional" copyright and trademark law violations.

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.

Comments

What race will Vivendi use to attack tho?

[SaxMaster]

Will they use Orc or Human lawyers?

Re:What race will Vivendi use to attack tho?

[PopeAlien]

Definately Human lawyers. For one thing they are dropping the orcs from the game, and for another, Whats worse than human lawyers?

Re:What race will Vivendi use to attack tho?

[mikeee]

Human, of course. There are some things Orc lawyers won't do...

Re:What race will Vivendi use to attack tho?

[ZaMoose]

Silly Saxmaster, as anyone can tell you, their lawyers are neither. They're Undead.

Re:What race will Vivendi use to attack tho?

[qslack]

Human lawyers? Isn't that an oxymoron, like "fresh frozen?"

Re:What race will Vivendi use to attack tho?

[anpe]

Orc Lawyer : Ddrg gtg adfrj l kfrlziferf
Bnetd Lawyer : Objection your honor this question is a nonsense
Judge: Please reformulate your question
Orc Lawyer : **BAFF**
Judge (without teeth): Obfecfion oveffuled

Re:What race will Vivendi use to attack tho?

[Daniel]

as anyone can tell you, their lawyers are neither. They're Undead.

Ah, but do they have Slate on the team?

Daniel

Re:What race will Vivendi use to attack tho?

[Yet Another Smith]

Well, Layers are not humans, although I don't think they're technically orcs either. They use trolls pretty extensively though...

Re:What race will Vivendi use to attack tho?

[Peter Harris]

I think they must be using Orcs as their PR team anyway.
Saruman didn't have much luck there, so Valenti must also have left the path of reason.

Re:What race will Vivendi use to attack tho?

[Peter Harris]

Valenti? Wtf was I thinking? The path of reason is fairly narrow and slippery on /. too.

Must be a Monday.

[llamalicious]

We hate Blizzard on Mondays.
ooohhh... shiny things. i like shiny things.

from Blizzard's perspective...

[Em Emalb]

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...."

Re:from Blizzard's perspective...

[DraKKon]

as an exeToys employee... sounds like the eToy/eToys bullsh.t.. fscking stupid lawyers..

fast forward 1 year..."Damn, it SEEMED like a good idea at the time to try and get rid of etoy. Stupid lawyers...."

That was one of MANY stupid mistakes by the head assmonkeys of eToys. And yes, they still owe me 5 grand in pay. Over a YEAR since I was let go.. (along with 700 other people..)

Oh yea.. ext3 sucks ass.

Well. . . .

[Com2Kid]

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. :(

Re:Well. . . .

[SuiteSisterMary]

Agreed. Blizzard damn well new about bnetd a long time ago. They didn't do anything about it because, in their eyes, it wasn't doing anything wrong. Blizzard has always been fairly good about letting people use their product. Hell, Warcraft 2 and StarCraft are some of the few LAN games that have copy protection, yet also have explicit provisions made for one person to buy it and play with a few of his buddies. Christ, I've seen War3 beta ISOs on MUSIC ftp sites.

Re:Well. . . .

[daoine]

IF A LOT OF KIDDIES DID NOT USE IT TO PLAY THEIR PIRATED VERSIONS OF BLIZZARD GAMES

Thank you.

I'm not particularly thrilled that Blizzard is attacking bnetd with the cadre of ninja attack lawyers, but what are their other options? They have found a 'single source' which happens to contain an enormous number users who pirated games. They have every right to go after those who did pirate software.

And, like Metallica did through Napster, they're going for the one thing that all said pirates have in common. Thousands of people doing the same wrong thing doesn't make it necessarily right. It should make people re-examine the definition of wrong and right, but it doesn't make it right by default.

I'm not so angry at Blizzard as I am the people who are encouraging them to do this. If Blizzard believed that 95% of all players on bnetd actually owned a legit copy, do you think they'd be going after them? Doubtful -- it would destroy their customer base. The people they are going after aren't their customers to begin with...

Re:Well. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

So what your saying is that Microsoft can ALSO be sued.. because their software is used to play pirated games?

Re:Well. . . .

[Lonath]

Pockets in clothing would likely not have come under fire

IF A LOT OF KIDDIES DID NOT USE THEM TO STEAL CANDY BARS FROM STORES

Especially true now days with the new GoopyGoop bar (which Hershey's is trying VERY hard to keep limited. Not succeeding very well, but they are TRYING hard.)

Hershey's allows A LOT of to happen to their candy bars but. . . .

I think that the solution to this BEFORE HAND was that the parental community, huhrump, should have policed their own.

I totally agree with you on this. That's why I support the Consumer Banning Pockets and Defeating Thieves Act (CBPDTA) which will outlaw purchase-circumvention devices like pockets.

Once this law is passed pockets in clothing will be made illegal because it's clear (even though I know nothing about clothing) that their main purpose is to help people steal things and these pockets really have no legitimate purpose besides that that I can see.

It will be illegal to take new clothing without pockets and sew pockets onto it (even if you think that the clothing industry is selling "crippled" wares and you want to "fix" it to do the things you can do today with clothing), and doing this will be punishable by up to 10 years in prison and 1 million dollars in fines.

It will also be illegal to tell people how to make pockets, as this would be trafficking in Purchase Circumvention Devices.

Also, it will be illegal to wear clothing with pockets in public after a certain grace period where grandfathered clothing with pockets is allowed out while the pockets are removed from everything.

Regardless of whether or not you have become used to pockets in your clothing, you won't have them in the future. The courts and Congress have spoken, and this legal issue is settled: There Will Be No More Pockets In Clothing. Get Over It.

All of this whining about "fair use" and the "right to carry things around without using my hands" is just the bleating of a few leftie college professors and this entire generation of thieves that have grown up thinking that they don't have to pay for anything. Fortunately, it ends here, and you agitators and terrorists who want to keep your little bombs and guns and candy bars in your pockets will just have to move along with the rest of us, or get trampled in the stampede to the future.

Of course, you thieves don't think about more than your own little petty desires and needs. Consumers will benefit because clothing will be cheaper since the manufacturers won't have to put those difficult-to-make pockets on their clothes. Consumers will also benefit more because stores will sell more things since they won't have to worry about shoplifting as much.

The clothing industry will be whining about how the loss of pockets will cause people to start buying their clothing from overseas sweatshops where 8 year-olds work for 3 cents a day instead of buying domestically made clothing with no pockets, but they will just have to adjust to the new legal climate.

Re:Well. . . .

[Ayon Rantz]

I don't know how much of a modification to bnetd or the Warcraft 3 Beta that involves, does anyone?

I believe it's about the same as the amount of damage a bulldozer would sufer if it was to run over Arthur Dent.

Re:Well. . . .

[MindStalker]

Actually I'd say 95% of them did, untill Warcraft 3. The interesting part about all this, was that someone else took BNets software and changed it to run Warcraft 3. Bnet itself hasn't touched that part of the code. Anyways the cats outta the bag, even if BNET is completly shut down the software is still out there and being moddified by other people. This suit will bring blizzard absolutly nothing. Another point, is that had they released the beta publically very few people would have even heard of BNET I know I didn't untill recently. And very few people would have been playing the cracked final game. Now thousands will, so I say blizzard shot themselves in the foot bigtime and is trying to sue the bullet factory.

Re:Well. . . .

[Com2Kid]

Bags are not allowed in my collages book store, for precisly this reason.

And nobody complains.

Blizzard already allows A TON of freedom with their product, and indeed it is not like they are charging a monthly fee for playing their games online, and their newer games have direct IP address connection built in to them, in all actuality blizzard is working VERY hard to ensure that their customers are treated fairly.

But in this case it is a few good users with pockets that are just sitting there empty and a whole cadamaran of morons with pocket stuffed full of candy.

I think that recent events and legislation passed should have made it MORE then obvious that you cannot always directly apply 100% real life physical world law to the internet and that special rules and laws ARE needed for the internet.

In fact just a few years ago weren't a good deal of /. users asking for that kind of legislation? Ok so we didn't get what we originally planned upon, but at least we can stick to our guns and not make horrid metaphors between the real world and electronic actions.

Re:Well. . . .

[Phanatic1a]

I used to bring my bag into my university bookstore all the time. Yes, they had a policy against it. The very first time they gave me static about it, I informed them that not only was I already forking over $22,000/year to attend the school and did not appreciate the implication that I was a thief, but that if I were not allowed to retain my property as I browsed, I would gladly forego spending additional thousands at the bookstore and instead purchase all my textbooks online.

I received no further static. 'course, books aren't as shiny as WC3, so I don't expect many people to follow this policy with Blizzard.

Re:Well. . . .

[Seanasy]

but what are their other options?

How about prosecuting the people who actually made illegal copies of the software. The "it's too hard hard for them to do the right thing so let's let them do the abusive thing" just doesn't float. Napster did nothing illegal. Neither has bnetd. If your business model isn't working out, it's your problem. The courts shouldn't be bailing you out.

Re:Well. . . .

[blowhole]

Sheesh, haven't you ever had a customer-service job? They're just worker bees doing their job!

Re:Well. . . .

[EllisDees]

Once I buy their product, just as with any other piece of property that I own, I am free to do whatever I like with that product. If I want to write a replacement for their proprietary server, they have no right at all to keep me from doing so. I am not distributing their software, I am distributing *my own software* that just happens to interoperate with theirs. This is exactly the same as if I bought a Ford truck and Ford tried to tell me that I could only have it serviced at an 'authorized service center'. Well, fuck you Ford (in theory), and Fuck You Blizzard (in reality)!

Re:Well. . . .

[barawn]

Really? What about when they ban trenchcoat-wearing people from a store, because a couple of people in a trenchcoat stole books? How is this different? Bags might be justifiable in your mind, but justification is in the eye of the beholder, and may change over time. If it ever comes to a time where the situation I described above is considered normal, I'll jump country. That's why it's a bad idea to consider it "OK" to ban anyone from anyplace because of anything except their actions - and YES, that includes things like allowing people to take bags into stores. The road of giving up freedom for safety is a very very slippery slope.

You're asking people to give up a right that you have no legal right to ask them to give up - carrying something which they legally own. Yah, there's a reason for it, and some people might voluntarily do it, but you can't force it upon people - honestly, you can't.

Going into a store like any other person is not a "privilege" - it's a right, because you have a right to live and be treated like other people. If you're being singled out because of anything except your actions, it's discrimination. Claiming it's not is just blinding yourself. Stores can't just arbitrarily ban people from stores, nor can they kick people out if they're not doing anything suspicious or illegal - if anyone ever tries to do this to you, it's a very good thing to remind them of this.

I do wonder if anyone has pressed a store to try to call the police when they've been told not to come in for carrying a bag - if the person is polite, and non-aggressive, the cop will most likely side with the customer (if not the cop, a judge will :) ).

The library thing is totally different - they're providing a free service, which is a privilege. I'm pretty sure you could probably argue the "not allowing drinks" thing as well - after all, all you'd have to say is "well, if I spill it on a book, I'll pay for it to be replaced."

And while you may feel safe, I will always prefer to feel free over feeling safe. "Those who give up freedom for safety deserve neither."

Re:Well. . . .

[Rayonic]

> The people they are going after aren't their customers to begin with...

The Warcraft 3 beta is for sale??

Yet another case of percieved damages working against good PR.

Re:Well. . . .

[Com2Kid]

Agreed, you have the right to do WHATEVER YOU WANT to your software ON YOUR COMPUTER.

And indeed many things are allowed on your own PRIVATE property that you cannot do OFF of your private property. A person can have their 11 year old son drive around in a tractor if they want too, no problem. They can make their own lock-picking tools and practice with them day and night, hey no issues. Hell they can setup a practice range and teach their offspring how to shoot a man dead from 100 paces. Nobody gives a fuck.

But there is some stuff that you don't do in the real world.

The sale of various theft equipment in real life is quite illegal. Sure it has LEGITIMATE uses, and indeed the lesser equipment (which is in capable SKILLED hands just as capable as the more automated tools are) is legal for public sale, but if you want the automated stuff you'll have to build it yourself and NOT sell it or distribute it in any form to the public at large.

Which is quite all-right and ensures that 'idle crimes' do not rise too high if not in numbers then at least in sophistication.

Now imagine if Ford offered FREE service on all their vehicles. Period.

Now imagine that Ford had some method by which to ensure that vehicles worked on were not stolen.

Imagine were the STOLEN vehicles would be serviced at? That is right, the unauthorized service centers. Sure some (or even quite a lot) of people with LEGAL vehicles might go to the unauthorized service centers, hell maybe at times it is just more convenient, but the BEST way for Ford to (help) stop the theft of vehicles is to shutdown the unauthorized service centers.

Vehicles that can only be driven until they break down are of hardly any use, and in the case of software, well hell if ya can't play it online to begin with. . . . Who steals a car just to drive it around in circles out in their back yard?

Re:Well. . . .

[daoine]

Wait, are they going after those who pirate software, or a thing that a certain subset of software pirates have in common?

*Bing*

Welcome to today's legal system. The Napster case set precedent -- those who obviously facilitate copyright violations can be held accountable. It doesn't matter whether you think Napster was innocent or guilty, that was the ruling.

Based on that, if Blizzard feels that there are copyright violations a la bnetd, they MUST go after them, or risk losing the right to sue entirely.

Re:Well. . . .

[EllisDees]

The sale of various theft equipment in real life is quite illegal.

This depends on what state you are in, and what the tools are. That's completely beside the point.

Imagine were the STOLEN vehicles would be serviced at? That is right, the unauthorized service centers. Sure some (or even quite a lot) of people with LEGAL vehicles might go to the unauthorized service centers, hell maybe at times it is just more convenient, but the BEST way for Ford to (help) stop the theft of vehicles is to shutdown the unauthorized service centers.

The point you are missing is that Ford has exactly zero legal right to shut down those service centers. Zilch. I am allowed to operate my competing service regardless of what kind of cars happen to drive in and Ford can whine about it all they like - at the end of the day, my shop hasn't broken a single law. Even if my shop were providing the keys to start those stolen cars, I have not stolen a single car or encouraged anyone else to do so.

This program does nothing to help spread pirate copies of games around. All it does is implement some of the same protocols as Blizzard's proprietary server.

Re:Well. . . .

[cobar]

It's a business, your rights don't extend there. Your rights are protected on your own and government property, but as soon as you step on private property like the bookstore (which may still apply even if it's a public university) they have the right to demand that you change your behavior if you wish to use their services. This is no different than a restaurant that requires formal attire and prohibits smoking.

They may not have the right to make your surrender your property, but they can just as well kick you out of the store until you drop your bag off at home. Don't like the rules, don't go there.

No bags, no trenchcoats... No Service.

Re:Well. . . .

[Lonath]

Ok, but this is the same argument that will be used to outlaw computers. Millions of people use computers to steal things. Some don't. I don't, although I did when I was a kid a long time ago. Even if a lot of people are using something to do something bad, it doesn't justify getting rid of it if it has a real use outside of the theft purpose.

Re:Well. . . .

[handorf]

But it's not true in all cases. They can't kick you out because of your skin or religion, can they? Sure, it's a private business, but try to keep all people of a certan descent out of your store and see how long you last before you're in front of a nice judge.

I think the legal lines begin to blur around where a private enterprise can start deny individuals service.

Re:Well. . . .

[Lonath]

The problem is that there's no way to separate stopping thieves from stopping me from programming. In truth, all I want is computers so I can sit there and program things that amuse me. Not things that steal things from other people. Not things that hurt other people, and it won't be possible to separate these two things. So, they will be taking away pockets when all I want is something to carry around my change in.

Re:Well. . . .

[Lonath]

So again, should clothing makers make sure their clothing can't be used to steal stuff? It isn't possible to do that if it's open source. So, you reach the situation where a thing that has a legitimate use gets destroyed because it can be used to do something illegal.

Re:Well. . . .

[Lonath]

But you have a situation where something with legitimate uses (like private games) is being destroyed because it has illegal uses that can't be separated from the legal uses. Even making it check CD keys wouldn't work since it's open source anyway, or at best it could be cracked by people who want it cracked. I guess free is a relative term. They do track you and they could use that data against you someday like your video store records can be used against you. That's why I'm not looking forward to a DRM world where everything you see and hear gets approved and recorded someplace for future use.

Re:Well. . . .

[Rakarra]

"Thousands of people doing the same wrong thing doesn't make it necessarily right."

Gee...and I thought we were living in a democracy (well, at least in the U.S.) when the actions of the majority (which is up for argument) do in fact make said "wrong thing" right.

First, we have to define our terms. There is a difference between something that is right, and something that is legal. Using bnetd to host your own games for titles you have bought is certainly "right" (morally). Whether it is legal or not is up in the air. The actions of the majority do not decide what is legal (in fact, I'd say the majority can't decide what is right either), the law decides what is legal. The actions of the majority can get the law changed, and that is what is necessary to make an action legal.

Re:Well. . . .

[TheFrood]

They have every right to go after those who did pirate software.

Indeed they do, and I would support them if they were actually "go[ing] after those who did pirate software." But they're not. They're going after the makers of a utility that could be useful to people who pirate software.

When someone breaks into your house with a crowbar, do you sue the crowbar manufacturer?

TheFrood

Re:Well. . . .

[barawn]

No - the no-bags rule applies to everybody with bags. Those who tend to carry bags are inconvenienced more than those who tend to not carry bags (actually, I'm one of the latter).

See, the problem is that the "if you don't like the store's policies, don't shop there" is a very slippery slope. You could've made the same justification in the 1950s for the stores that said "No Blacks Allowed," or the stores that had Whites Only and Blacks Only sections - if you don't like there, don't go there. But if you're trying to justify that behavior, I'd be surprised.

I will accept health concerns for a valid reason for restricting freedoms - smoking, pets, and needed clothing (no shirt, no service, etc.) but nothing else. For me I draw a VERY strict line as to what is OK, and what is impinging on a freedom they shouldn't be touching.

It's touchy, of course, because people tend to "like" laissez-faire capitalism. But unfortunately, that kind of thought process will only work if the people in charge of the businesses are rational thinking human beings who only care about maximizing their profits - which, studies show, is not the case. So you've gotta have some controls, and one of the most important controls, in my opinion, is to cut down on the ego of the stores in saying who they will and won't allow in.

If the stores are worried about theft, put more security cameras up, or do better with security tags. There are other solutions than restricting personal freedoms.

And, yes, I do agree this is offtopic - somewhat. The bnetd issue vs. Blizzard honestly is a very good example of when business thinks it has the right to create its own country, with its own ethics - it doesn't. You can't put up an agreement in front of people, say "Sign This!" and then laugh as you point out they just signed their rights away. It doesn't work like that. There are some rights you CAN'T have someone sign away. (And, in addition, there are people who can't sign contracts - hence the completely ridiculous nature of shrink-wrap licenses)

Re:Well. . . .

[barawn]

And you don't think that if there was a major example of forbidding anyone entrance to a store based on any appearances that laws wouldn't pop up?

You're right that it's perfectly legal to do that - but it's immoral. If you try to claim that it's not, I'll argue with you till the day I die. The laws of the country just haven't caught up there yet. (It should also be noted that again, police will probably side with the customer if the customer is polite and points out that he's not doing anything illegal, and honestly, if the store wants to check his bag on the way out, go ahead and let them - just say that the managers were the ones who started harassing him - which would be true).

Look, the whole reason I posted the response was because people were trying to say it's "OK". It's not OK. It's legal. At best, it's "morally ambiguous" - it's a very very slippery slope, and one that is really best steered far clear from.

Re:Well. . . .

[Com2Kid]

I would rather leave my bag at the front desk / entrance / or where ever when I enter a store with valuable goods in it then be watched by security cameras all over the place. *COUGH* britan *COUGH*.

Of course the third PERFERABLE alternative and the one that I am fighting for here, is that I would MUCH RATHER just beat the assholes who steal in the first place quite senseless.

(ignoring all misdeeds commited earlier then, err, say, uh, hmm. Ok well beat the snot out of people who steal software made by socialy responsable companies, how does that sound instead? Heh)

Re:Well. . . .

[AME]

You could've made the same justification in the 1950s for the stores that said "No Blacks Allowed,"

Has it really come to this? Have we actually reached the point where we can compare not being allowed to carry backpacks into a book store with racial discrimination and keep a straight face? Surely, we must live in utopia and don't even know it.

Re:Well. . . .

[Blue23]

Come off it. This is a double standard. If someone came into your house, and was doing soemthing you didn't like, you'd tell them to stop. If they said "I never signed anything, you can't take my rights away", would you settle for it?

A store owner is doing the same thing, also in a place he owns. He has more public coming through, so he or she is probably a lot more lenient. But if they don't like something, they are perfectly justified in asking you to leave, or in refusing service. There are some things they are not allowed to discriminate on (like race or gender), but plenty of others things they dislike (such as possibly bags) are not a "protected" right.

When you can apply the same rules to you as to others, you're talking about something fair.

=Blue(23)

Re:Well. . . .

[barawn]

Yes. Judging people before having any information about them is "pre-judging" - it's prejudice. Which is "worse"? I'll agree with you that racial discrimination is much worse, but it's the same thing. They're both prejudice, and to some extent, they're both wrong.

There's a fine line, and I'd much rather stay far away from that line than cross over it. Back in the 1950s, we treated blacks like second-class citizens. Now we're treating "suspect people" - people that walk, talk, and "look like" criminals - as thieves. Is this much much less severe? Yes. But only if it stays where it is is it okay (and only BARELY).

I'm not saying that carrying a bag ranks anywhere near racial discrimination. It's in the same category, though. Some discrimination has to exist for basic health reasons (smoking, no shirt no shoes no service) but beyond that, it's a curtosy to adhere to their policies, and if you don't want to, you don't have to.

Re:Well. . . .

[barawn]

A person's home is not a public place, or a place of business. A store owner can actually own a business, but it's a place of business. Implicitly he's saying "when I'm open, the public is allowed to enter." He can make it a "members only" club, so long as anyone can become a member.

Prejudice is prejudice - it's a slippery slope, and it shouldn't be tolerated. Stores get privileges afforded to them by the police, government, etc. and in order to be worthy of those privileges, they have to uphold the ideals of the country they live in, which is no discrimination. When the government allows me to conduct business in my home (which, um, they don't, without a permit) then I'll allow people in.

Re:Well. . . .

[Com2Kid]

This is NOT about Blizzard losing money, if you KNEW the company at all then you would know that they value the integrity of their products far more then many other companies do.

This is about a leaked beta, which Blizzard LOSING money over testing so thoroughly.

This is about Blizzard being pissed off that somebody LIED to them.

This is about TRUST between a Community and a Company.

Yah that is right, there are actual other PEOPLE on the other side of that Blizzard Entertainment name, not just some corporate suits. And these /people/ get upset when they are deceived or lied too.

If you see the Warcraft3 files online, then for crying out loud, send the person off a quick message nicely explaining how that Blizzard is a group of nice people who care about their customers and that they are not just some corporate drones who are trying to leech money from people and that would the person please remove their pirated file from share.

Now of course the message would need to be a bit longer, more explanatory, and in a friendly tone of voice then that, but all in all a message like that WOULD work.

There was actually a (short) period of time during which the pirates (or at least the crackers) and the small / independent software manufacturers had come to an agreement and people were not pirating (at least nearly as much) software from companies that believes software was to be made an actual Art form. But unfortunately the n00bs came and screwed this allll up and now we are back into the present situation of pirate everything in sight.

Which sucks.

I repeat, this is not about money, this is about integrity and that is the SOLE reason that I support Blizzard in any of this. Blizzard are a kick ass group of people who rock, a lot. They work hard, they make good products, and they CARE about their work. Anybody who cares about the integrity of what they create damn well deserves some respect.

Re:Well. . . .

[AME]

This is wrong on so many points, one doesn't know where to begin.

What,exactly, should a store full of highly pilferable items should do to prevent loss? You be the store manager for a moment.

If you say anything other than to ignore it and let it happen, then I will respond by saying that your solution is just as "discriminatory" by your own definition. Any solution (surveilance, searching customers' belongings as they leave the store, electronic tags, etc.) involve the same presumption of guilt, and they are more difficult and expensive to implement.

Having a policy of not carrying backpacks into a book store is not in any way like racial discrimination. It's more like a dress code in all ways except that it makes more sense than a dress code.

Rules about what can and cannot be done in a private establishment are never discriminatory if those rules apply to anyone and everyone who wishes to patronize the establishment. The fact that you (and many others, apparently) think that this is discrimination is a testament to how far removed we are from real discrimination. We don't even know the meaning of the word.

Re:Well. . . .

[WNight]

Sheep. Really, if you'll put up with any semi-justified intusion on your freedoms without at least making a small stand you're going to wake up and find those freedoms gone.

When I'm turned away from a store because I'm carrying a bag I always ask to speak to the manager, when they come I explain how their rules are discriminatory (Do you ever see them banning purses? But small items can be just as valuable...) and how I refuse to shop at a store with a policy like that. I then show them the cash I was carrying, and tell them which item I was planning on buying.

They always offer to get the item for me, but I tell them I won't buy it from them anymore unless they change the no-bag rule. Some don't care, but some do. I've changed the policy of a local bookstore by doing this. It's their choice to implement the policy, but I feel they deserve to be informed of the consequences, and those are less sales.

I'd like to see some shoplifting punishment that would work to reform. IMHO if you're caught you should pay for, or return the item, then pay a few times its value (or do equivalent community service) and then stand outside the store for a day or two with a sandwich-board sign saying "I'm a criminal - I tried to shoplift from STORENAME and I got caught." The peer pressure would provide a strong incentive to reform. Perhaps having to stand in the area you live would help, to deter people who shoplifted in distant suburbs.

Re:Well. . . .

[barawn]

Most small stores do ignore loss - because it's minor, and they can watch people in the store. When's the last time you saw a small store with electronic tags, or surveillance cameras? I have never seen a store like that. I know when my father owned a store, theft/loss was minor, and the easiest way to prevent it was to walk up and down the aisles asking if you could help people. It's only large stores, which are stupidly designed, don't have enough people working at them, and are therefore much more prone to theft which have to impinge on civil liberties.

Surveillance, however, is not discriminatory: not unless my EYES are discriminatory! It does NOT presume guilt, it does NOT infringe on any civil liberties at all - you're in a public place. Since someone can walk down an aisle and look at you, a camera can look at you as well. The fact that surveillance is more difficult to implement is not my problem - it is not an option to discriminate simply to save money.

The other thing I'm confused about here is how is a dress code not discrimination? It is discrimination. It's saying "I'm sorry, you don't look like I want you to look like, go away." If you think I think it's okay for restaurants to have dress codes, you're very wrong - it's insane for restaurants to be able to have dress codes, but our society still has some remnants of the nobles/peasants mindset, and so those restaurants remain. The restaurants you're thinking about are typically 'upscale' restaurants, extremely expensive, and cater to the 'upper crust' in society, right? Well, go fig, that's exactly the kind of discrimination I'm talking about.

OK. You think a dress code's okay. Then let me give you an example. A guy who doesn't make a lot of money comes into a bit of money - not a lot, but he wants to take his wife out to a very nice restaurant. Unfortunately, they only have enough money to pay for the meal at the restaurant, not enough to buy a good enough outfit to pass the restaurant's "dress code". They go there, and they're turned away because they don't meet the "dress code". This is fair? Like hell. The restaurant is saying "I'm sorry, this restaurant is only for people of 'means'." This is EXACTLY the kind of discrimination that minorities have been fighting for years. How is this any different from restaurants who used to turn away blacks? A person who's black can't become 'not black' just to enter the restaurant, and a person who's poor can't become 'not poor' just to enter the restaurant.

Anytime you say "No X allowed" without a VERY good reason (and the ONLY reason I agree with is health reasons, and even then, certain things overrule it) you're discriminating.

The first sentence in your last statement is true, though - rules about what can and cannot be done are never discriminatory if they apply to everyone. What you did not say was "rules about who can or cannot be admitted are never discriminatory if they apply to everyone" which is what we've been discussing. Actions are different than appearances.

Just as food for thought, what about the people who need to carry medical equipment around in bags? Why should they have to explain themselves to shop in certain stores? They don't have a choice about carrying the bag, but they should have a choice about whether or not to shop there, and that's the key.

Also keep in mind that a private business does not have the right to do whatever it wants. People have rights. Businesses do not have the same rights.

Re:Well. . . .

[barawn]

You are not on someone 'else's' property. You are on a business's property, and a business does not have the same rights that people do.

Police don't just do what the law says - a lot of times they do what the law means. For instance, there is no way in the world that the police would remove someone from a store just because they're black - if they did, not only would the person sue the store, they'd sue the police department too (and they'd win, as well).

I'm actually talking from personal experience here, though. Police do make moral judgements - they're people. Go ask a store owner to call a cop to get some guy to leave who's not doing anything bad. The cop will come and say "I'm sorry, if he's not doing anything illegal, I can't ask him to leave."

See my other post for my opinions on dress codes. Dress codes are even worse discrimination than anything else, because it's not even done in the name of safety or security - it's just done in the name of social discrimination. The grocery store thing I've touched on about ten times already in ten different posts - health concerns are the one place where I can understand restricting civil liberties, because the public health risk is just too great.

And you're wrong about one thing - you said that "there are quite a few places that do that [disallowing customers based on appearance] and no one cares" - I do. That's one, and it's more than no one. And I think you'll find that there are a hell of a lot more people than just me who think that way.

Re:Well. . . .

[WNight]

Blizzard isn't trying to create new laws here, just abuse the existing ones.

It's established practice in all other industries that replacement parts and seperate utilities (example: tires, squeeges, gasoline, wipers, etc) can be made by any company that can figure out how.

It's also established practice that once you buy something the creator/distributor/seller have no control over it.

So why does Blizzard and the software industry rate totally new standards?

It's clear that once you buy software the creator loses all control over how you use it, EULAs aren't binding, and you're allowed to create addons. Any claims to the contrary are without any legal justification and are attempting to stifle competition through spurious lawsuits. Blizzard doesn't have a leg to stand on, however they have bags of money to prop themselves up on, so they'll abuse the legal system to get their own way.

Re:Well. . . .

[WNight]

Sure, Blizzard used to be fairly friendly. And now they feel wronged. But does that excuse them striking out at innocents? bnetd has many uses that aren't related to piracy.

You'd understand if I felt upset if someone stole something from me, but would that excuse me lashing out at you, perhaps stealing a similar item from you, or falsely reporting you for the crime because I know you could pay to replace my item and the judge would likely order this?

Re:Well. . . .

[SuiteSisterMary]

What else can they do? An analogy might be that I don't care that you keep a sword over the mantle of the fireplace in our house, until you take it down and swing it at me. Blizzard didn't care about bnetd, UNTIL it was specifically used to play the closed beta of Warcraft 3.

Re:Well. . . .

[barawn]

OK, I think I'm going to drop whether or not businesses have the right thing - I keep trying to stress that I'm not necessarily indicating legality here, I'm trying to stress what I think is right. But I do want to stress that businesses are not people - they don't have the same legal standing as a person, and they don't have the same rights as a person - I doubt you'll argue on that point. They don't have the same legal rights, and they don't have the same fundamental rights, either.

As for the trespassing thing, it's simply not true in a business's case: they allow generic people on their property. They can't, and shouldn't, be able to choose who can and who can't be there. Country clubs, for instance, can't choose who can and who can't be there. They can restrict it to people who pay dues - well, yes - but they can't restrict who can pay dues.

Legally, you're right - to a point. As far as I can tell, the law agrees with you, but courts in general haven't - you can search on the Web and find literally hundreds of examples of people who have sued companies for being thrown out of a store for no good reason, and they win almost all the time (usually because the company settles or offers something). You can also find hundreds of examples of stories from when police were called, and they laughed in the store manager's face (in my case, when I called, the police were quite polite and said that until he DOES something - like destruction of property, etc. - they can't do anything). Now, it's possible I've got selection bias here, in that I can't find examples of the counter case because companies don't place them online, but I dunno.

You also have to be careful because in your (admittedly quite emotionally hostile at this point) arguments, you're mixing the right of someone to be in a store with the right to do anything in the store. There's a distinct difference. If someone is in the store, acting like everyone else in the store, and you say "throw that person out, because I don't want him here," then everyone else in the store should be thrown out too.

I never said you could do anything you want in places - I don't know why you keep bringing that up. In fact, I kept repeating it over and over. You can't do whatever you want. But if your only difference is looking different than someone else, then if a store treats you different, it's discrimination.

Actions you can restrict, because they impinge on other people's freedoms. Appearances, you can't (well, you can right now, but you shouldn't be able to). Yes, I'm aware there's a fine line between 'actions' and 'appearances', but that's where the careful examination should be on the restrictions, not the freedoms.

And I'm aware they're formalities. They're also insulting. More than insulting. They're a complete aberration of the society we live in.

Time to mirror...

[Deagol]

/sigh

Get the source out there. Another DeCSS-like whack-a-mole is ramping up.

Bad tactics by vivendi

[sterno]

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.

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[Kintanon]

The thing is, there is an almost garauntee that some block of code within Bnetd will resemble some block of code in Blizzards server software in some significant manner, simply because the two programs do the exact same thing. So Blizzard can point to that and say 'See! This whole thing was obviously ripped off from us via illegal hacker tactics and stuff!' and the judge, not knowing any better, is likely to look at the two pieces of paper and agree. The Bnetd lawyers would do well to find an expert witness, preferablly a CS professor from a decent university, who can tesitfy that the two programs have similar code because they perform similar tasks and that doesn't mean one borrowed code from the other.

Kintanon

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[ivan256]

Copyright law allows for independant creation. Blizard can only limit independant creation of similar code if they have a patent of some sort on it (Or I suppose nowadays if it violates the DMCA). All the bnetd group needs to do is prove that bnetd was created independantly of blizzard's battle.net server and they're all set. From what I've seen of their CVS repository, they'll have no trouble proving that.

Of cource blizzard could probably get all these guys on licence violations of their products...

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[Kintanon]

It's definately a stick place for the Bnetd guys to be. We know they didn't do anything wrong, but it's really hard to prove that you never saw Blizzards code and you came up with everything independant of anything Blizzard might have. Hopefully the bnetd group will come out of it ok, or at least swing a deal to sell their (far superior) server software to Blizzard....

Kintanon

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[mark-t]

Consider the following:

As another poster pointed out, bnetd probably wouldn't have come under fire from blizzard if "a lot of kiddies didn't use [bnetd] to play their pirated copies". If we can agree on that point, and if Blizzard actually loses this thing, then this would completely contrast the precedent that Napster set, which basically only came under fire for the same reasons. With two cases, both fundamentally the same, with one ruling for the plaintiff and another against, how can any fair decisions be made in the future?

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[regen]

It isn't quite that easy for vivendi. First the burden of proof lies with vivendi, so they have to prove that code was copied, not just that code looks like a different block of code.

Secondly, if vivendi didn't register the code with the trademark office then the burden of them become much greater.

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[Daniel]

With two cases, both fundamentally the same, with one ruling for the plaintiff and another against, how can any fair decisions be made in the future?

In what way is this fundamentally the same?

* bnetd does not itself pirate software, it merely happens to make it easier to use pirated software for network play;

* bnetd was not, so far as I am aware, promoted or represented as being a way to use illegitimate copies of Blizzard games, and this was not its primary purpose;

* The bnetd team never distributed a version of the software that supported Warcraft III (the software that started this);

* The bnetd team did not (so far as I know) operate a server on which people traded (or, heck, even played) pirated copies of Warcraft III or any other Blizzard game.

As a not-currently-corporate computer programmer, this lawsuit and the line of thinking that "they had it coming anyway" terrify me; they have the potential to illegalize perfectly legitimate activity simply because it doesn't fit into a corporation's business plan.

Daniel

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[wfrp01]

Question: if your code is proprietary, how do you prove that someone ripped off your code? It being so trivial for Blizzard to copy bnetd code, for example, how do they prove that the copying actually happened in the other direction? "We wrote it first! Really! I mean it!"

Unless some disinterested third party documented and signed off on the code base beforehand, this would seem difficult to do.

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[po8]

Seems like Vivendi's lawyers are really screwing up here...

I don't see it. It's very inexpensive for Vivendi to file a suit, and the threat might get bnetd to make substantial concessions. If the threat fails, it's easy enough to withdraw or amend the suit at the 11th hour.

The only possible negative for Vivendi I can see is the bad publicity, but I seriously doubt it's going to impact their sales much. At least negatively: when it comes to publicity, one must always remember Barnum's Adage...

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[Kintanon]

It's a garaunteed victory for Bnetd assuming Blizziards lawyers don't apply the overwhelming spin of 'evil hackers who stole our code' and bamboozle the judge into believing it. It's possible for that to happen even if their entire stance is bullshit. So it shouldn't be discounted out of hand, it should be prepared for.

Kintanon

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[Aexia]

According to the lawsuit, they're claiming there's a bug in the software that also appears in BNETD.

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[EllisDees]

Looking at the complaint, it seems that Blizzard is claiming that the existence of some bug in the bnetd code that is the same as a bug that was in their own BATTLE.NET code means that bnetd somehow copied their code.

Could the bug have just been the result of the same failure in design?

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[Hrothgar The Great]

Don't bet on the license violations being important. There is no court precedent (yet) for upholding a EULA.

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[Eric Green]

But the point is that unless there's evidence of a "firewall" between the reverse engineering team and the implementation team, the courts tend to give the copyright holder the benefit of the doubt here. If there is a bug in the copyright holder's product that also occurs in the reverse engineered product, it is pretty much assumed de' facto that unless proven otherwise, you lifted code from the copyright holder's product.

The rest of the arguments in the complaint are just so much drivel, probably there to keep the other side's lawyers busy. This one (the duplicated bug) is the one that's going to be VERY hard to get around.

There's reasons why engineers (real engineers) carry around those numbered/dated notebooks and log everything they do every day in them (and get them notarized from time to time), and there's a reason why commercial reverse engineering projects use the "two-box" paradigm along with those numbered/dated notebooks, and you just found out what that reason is. Welcome to the real world, where legal CYA is as important as code.

-E

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[DarkEdgeX]

Well shit, you don't even need to be a genius to figure that out. Programming, fundamentally, is all about mathmatics and equations, and when you want to know the answer to 2 + 2, you don't do 4 + -2 to find the answer, you do 2 + 2 (I'm simplifying this, but most people who have even thought about programming should recognize what I'm trying to say). No professor needed, though it might help-- I doubt any Judge could be this dumb as to reach the conclusion that what Blizzard/etc is saying is true.

Of course, I said the same thing about the DeCSS/2600 case, so don't make any bets on my opinion. =)

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[Fencepost]

The thing is, there is an almost garauntee that some block of code within Bnetd will resemble some block of code in Blizzards server software in some significant manner, simply because the two programs do the exact same thing.

I have to wonder how the assorted revisions of Blizzard's battle.net code look. Wouldn't it be interesting if upon review (and digging back to previous versions) it became apparent that some optimizations, etc. were strikingly similar to the bnetd code?

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[Fencepost]

Could the bug have just been the result of the same failure in design?

Even worse - could it have been the result of very good emulation? I can see the comment now: "Blizzard's doing something funky with this with no good clear reason, but if we see this kind of packet act the same way Battle.net does even if it seems wrong."

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[BasharTeg]

Well, lets see what they actually said, since you have a score of 5 for such amazing insight. You're saying similar code will look similar. Perhaps, but lets see what Blizzard is actually saying.

24. One instance of Defendants' copying is found by examining the BNETD source code, which is available to the public at Sourceforge.com. On information and belief, in order to provide unfettered access to the BNETD servers for illegitimate users of unauthorized copies of Blizzard programs, Defendants reproduced and incorporated into the BNETD server program the code for Blizzard's proprietary client-side key check software that executes certain login functionality including the First CD Key Check, described above, altering it so as not to perform any CD Key check function. Defendants' copying was so blatant that Defendants included the programming bug described above in the BNETD code. The duplication of such a unique bug in the BNETD code shows wholesale, deliberate and willful copying on the Defendants' part.

Okay, so they're stating that this bug in their client side CD key check code is very obvious. They're stating that the bug exists in the BNETD code.
Now, can you explain to us please, in your pseudo-computer science 5 karma hyped perspective, why exactly properly reverse engineered code, which would have to be derived from packet analysis (just like many other video game hax0rs do), would include a code bug that is shared with the original source? A far more likely possibility is that the BNETD people used a disassembler like W32DSM, traced into the code and found the first CD Check, and did a simple literal conversion of the assembly there into some C instructions (thus preserving the bug).

None of this "someone must have broken into their building and stolen the code" bullshit.
The source code is right there in the binary, if you know how to view it.

None of this "similiar code will look the same" bullshit.
If someone reverse engineers a protocol or cdkey checker through _legit_ means, a bug in the original source code would NOT be copied unless it effected the transmitted results. Since the first CD key check is ENTIRELY client side, it was obviously taken from a disassembled copy of their binary EXE.

If you are going to do something like that, you can at _least_ try to "cleanroom" the code. Read what the other programmer is doing, write down on paper the math involved in his key generation and validation. Then rewrite your own version from scratch. Using that method *MIGHT* make it legal. But this kind of stupidity is blantant theft of code, and is terribly obvious to anyone with any knowledge of programming, disassembling, cracking, etc.

I could repeat the claim that if this were copied from Linux, like a certain header file that was copied from FreeBSD way back when (variable names and comments hardly changed!), people would be throwing a fit. But in this instance, the gamers want to play but not pay, so the code theft is not the issue. Blizzard's case isn't entirely about fighting emulation. It's about fighting code theft, and the theft of their game by beating their copyprotection.

I would have supported BNETD too, if it weren't obvious they stole code.

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[toast0]

perhaps this could be used in reverse for bnetd to get all the battlenet code released... after all... in order to see if its the same or not...

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[shannara256]

It's not a bug! It's a feature!

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[NonReal]

I just looked at the latest CVS code of bnetd and there are no cdkey checking routines in the code. The code for the packet handling has 3 cases in which the cdkey is handled (one for each of the authorization packet versions Blizzard has used). In the oldest auth packet (CLIENT_CDKEY), bnetd merely copies the key into the connection structure it keeps. In the newer two packets (CLIENT_CDKEY2, CLIENT_CDKEY3) the cdkey is hashed and so bnetd ignores it all together. The cd key is never checked by the code that I have seen (and I have worked with it extensively).

WarCraft III required slightly more elaborate schemes (both of the login packets are encrypted). But, remember that bnetd did not implement these packets.

Also, based on my experience with the code, none of it feels as if someone had converted it from assembled code removed from a Blizzard game.

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[kenthorvath]

Here's a little secret (don't tell anyone) but reverse engineering is not illegal! Looking at assembly language and understanding it is NOT illegal. And one doesn't even have to agree to a license to install something or to see the code. Not that I'm saying that this is what happened because a packet sniffer can reveal so much more for so much less effort. I say that the burden of proof is on Blizzard...

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[Rimbo]

"I would have supported BNETD too, if it weren't obvious they stole code. "

Ok, if this bug is "very obvious," why wouldn't it then be "very obvious" to someone who was reverse-engineering the software by sniffing packets?

Seems to me that this is not only more obvious than your suggestion that they stole code, but that it is a simpler and (by Occam's Razor) more likely conclusion.

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

They could have reverse engineered as far as having Bug for Bug compatibility. That is to say they looked at the packets generated in a certain situation and made sure their software would generate the same packets, even if was an "unusual" packet, in order to assure full compatibility.

It might even be that the "unusual" packet is not a bug or not easily recognized as one, and the BnetD team just thought that is what the server should reply with.

Tim

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[Wordplay]

Reverse engineering isn't illegal, but code copying is. The whole reason you do a heavily documented double-blind is so that chunks of code will -inevitably- appear the same. With documentation, you can claim coincidence, or that it was a necessity of the algorithm.

If the bnetd guys didn't keep docs (or if they reverse-engineered from a disassembly...that isn't legal, btw, since object code is as protected as source...their credibility is going to be severely impacted. If they did duplicate a bug that's not immediately reflected in the packet handling, I'd say they're pretty well screwed.

Re:Bad tactics by vivendi

[barawn]

OK, here's the best that can be gleaned from the actual document:

The "bug" they're talking about is a bug in the login procedure - the "cd key checking" bit doesn't make any sense, as the server doesn't do any checking. So the only thing that makes sense is they're talking about the procedure that the game uses to login to other games (remember battle.net is a passing server, that is, it doesn't actually 'serve' the games) - apparently the games screw up some portion of the login logic, and bnetd copies that as well.

Unless we're talking about a completely internal bug (which I don't see in the source...) it's gotta be a protocol bug, which would OF COURSE be copied in a clean-room reimplementation of the Battle.net protocol. In fact, if they had done a disassembly of the source, they probably would have recognized the bug and FIXED it.

Look, I tend to believe bnetd in this case - especially because, remember, innocent before proven guilty - and they say that it was done as a cleanroom implementation. Given that Blizzard has already misinterpreted legal statutes, I find it more likely that Blizzard doesn't understand what reverse engineering is. (It obviously doesn't know what "trademarks" are, or it never would've complained about the screenshots, or the 'bnetd' name!)

Must be time for easy karma whoring

[Aexia]

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.

Re:Must be time for easy karma whoring

[llamalicious]

you are correct.
but I hit the cap long ago, so I only whore because it makes me happy.

Besides, I like to rag on /. when it's not just 2 or 3 conflicting articles, but whole flocks of them. Now run along.

Re:Must be time for easy karma whoring

[ZaMoose]

I only whore because it makes me happy.

Wow, if I had a nickel for every time I'd heard that one... *grin*

It makes sense, though. I mean, who wants discontented prostitutes?

Re:Must be time for easy karma whoring

[damiangerous]

I mean, who wants discontented prostitutes?

Lonely masochists?

Re:Must be time for easy karma whoring

[Anonymous DWord]

I mean, who wants discontented prostitutes?

Lonely masochists?

Computer Engineering Students?

-1, Redundant

Shoot themselves in the foot

[cholokoy]

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.

Open source and legal defense...

[sterno]

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.

Re:Open source and legal defense...

[Stonehand]

Judges sometimes award legal fees right now, and I don't think a specific provision for "open source developers" would be remotely justifiable from a legal perspective.

Attaching it to any lawsuit discarded as being frivolous, however, may be more interesting.

talk about stretching it

[mark_lybarger]

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).

bullshit

[AnimeFreak]

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?

Re:bullshit

[Chicane-UK]

Well.. if Microsoft could find any excuse to sue them they would. If the SAMBA team manage to get an active directory compatible system working, I am sure you would see the Microsoft lawyers climbing over each others backs to issue them law suits.

But I agree with you totally.. the only reason they are suing them (and correct me if I am wrong cause I have never played on Battle.NET) is because Battle.NET is a pay-per-play service, and this circumvents the need to pay a monthly subscription.. and hey, I dont see a problem with that.. why pay if someone else can offer the same service for free/less?

Re:bullshit

[wiredog]

They might. The latest license for the smb patents has a "do not use with open source" clause in it...

Re:bullshit

[JDBrechtel]

It's not pay-per-play. You pay for the game then Battle.net is free (right now anyways...maybe that's going to change and that's why they want to get rid of bnetd?).

Re:bullshit

[Peyna]

I think their main problem with it is that bnetd makes the game more playable for people with pirated copies, since it doesn't authorize that when the person connects (because they can't, because Blizzard won't tell them the algorithm for it, because then they think that will make it even easier for people to crack; they don't have to give it out if they don't want to anyway.).

The point is, they want to slow down proliferation of pirated copies of their software. If you pirate some of their games, but you can't play them online, you are less likely to use the pirated version; more likely to go out and buy it if you really liked it enough that you want to be able to play online.

Perhaps they could work out some sort of licensing issue with bnetd? That could be complicated though, but then they would be more protected and could require bnetd to check for pirated copies of their software.

Vivendi ?

[anpe]

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.

Re:Vivendi ?

[kindbud]

I'll bet no Vivendi exec has even [h]eard about bnetd.

Then you just go ahead and rush out to buy WC3 and contribute to the Bnetd legal harrassment fund. After all, Vivendi never heard of it, so there's no way any harm could be done.

Re:Vivendi ?

[sulli]

Huh? Vivendi owns Blizzard. So they are ultimately pulling the strings here. It is wholly appropriate to mention the parent company on sites owned by VA Software.

Blizzard throwing weight around

[!splut]

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.

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 .NET software... But the Battle.net name trademark crap just sounds like filler material.

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."

since we can't trust Michael

[Lord Omlette]

Warlords Battlecry I Review
Warlords Battlecry II Review

IGN PC seemed suitably impressed.

Warlords Battlecry I Review
Warlords Battlecry II Review

So does Gamespot...

Pot, Kettle, Black

[BlueUnderwear]

How can a company running a peer-to-peer music "sharing" network file suit about copyright infringments, traditional or not?

Their encouraging pirating of the RIAA's intellectual property after all, aren't they?

Reminds me of Blade II

[Mr. Neutron]

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."

Could this be a trend?

[imadork]

Prof. Felton gets threatened with a lawsuit by the RIAA regarding DMCA violations, but the lawsuit never comes.

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.

Re:Could this be a trend?

[terrymr]

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.

Re:michael, michael, michael

[Rentar]

You [i]do[/i] know what website this is, right?

Additionally it is the Website where you're supposed to use real HTML in your comments.

(Yeah, I saw you already noticed it, but there are thing you have to do (but then you should do them without the +1 bonus)).

"DMCA complaint" can be traditional copyright

[Seth Finkelstein]

Note a "DMCA complaint" isn't at all restricted to only addressing the infamous anti-circumvention provision.

The Blizard letter states (emphasis added)

The aforementioned site either hosts or distributes software which illegally modifies and/or alters Blizzard Entertainment copyrighted software or or bypasses anti-circumvention technology, thereby infringing upon Blizzard Entertainment copyrights.

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)

Re:"DMCA complaint" can be traditional copyright

[terrymr]

The take down notice seems to be invalid as it doesn't provide any specifics of the alleged violation. Misuse of the DMCA in this case could be grounds to toss the whole suit as it's pretty hard to convice a judge that you should be entitled to protection under a law which you just improperly used against the other party.

(bear in mind the DMCA amends the copyright act - it's not a free standing law).

Lawsuit isn't against Bnetd...

[crisco]

The lawsuit isn't against bnetd, it is against Tim Jung and his ISP, Internet Gateway. They are involved because Tim was kind enough to host the project and had the balls to stand up to Blizzard instead of bending to their will.

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.

Re:Lawsuit isn't against Bnetd...

[crisco]

So I finally tracked down the source to bnetd (v0.4.25) and Tim Jung is only listed in the credits as offering hosting for the project. A grep of the source confirms his name appears on none of the copyright headers for any of the files.

Furthermore, EFF issued a press release regarding the lawsuit today. Of note is the following paragraph:

"Blizzard contacted our lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) saying they would consider dropping the case if we help find ways to prevent pirates from using the bnetd server software," noted Tim Jung, Internet Gateway ISP owner of the and defendant in the case. "While we bnetd developers spent many hours last week trying to help Blizzard, they apparently spent many hours preparing to sue me and my small business."

So this lawsuit comes after good faith efforts by the bnetd developers to implement Blizzard's cd key checking code? Could this be a case of one side of the corporation not knowing what the other side is doing? Or the blind arrogance of a corporation?

Re:Lawsuit isn't against Bnetd...

[WNight]

You actually *like* random maps? Ugh. They're such a hack which was obviously implemented to save them from having to make a map. Really, it's hard to see how Diablo took more than six months to make.

The thing I'm most looking forward to in Dungeon Siege is the fact that maps were designed. Someone went through and built them, so they look the way they do intentionally.

I suppose it's not good for running around slaughtering endless monsters, but then, what's the fun in slaying ten thousand identical randomly placed monsters to get the +23 Boots of Walking? Might as well play solitaire or some other random game.

Well, have no fear. It can't be long before someone with the Dungeon Siege editor makes a few square maps and some sort of hack to randomly place them, along with monsters.

Funny though, how the part you like most about Diablo is what I liked the least. When I found the maps were random, all the interest in exploring them was gone.

Re:what's the real problem....

[Stonehand]

And if the admin uses it to harvest CD keys? Blizzard might not want to see any system under which CD keys get sent (other than with the CDs themselves) to anybody but their own servers.

Re:this is enough talk - time for action

[sqlrob]

I threw my WC2 CD and manual in the trash bin

Why? It's not like they're getting any more money out of the copy. Hell, they're losing it if you play on BattleNet.

I'd side with Blizzard...

[TheMonkeyDepartment]

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?

Issues

[grakwell]

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?

Re:Issues

[neo]

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?

You're assuming that the bug was observable. What would you say if the bug had no observable effect and was reproduced in both bnetd's and battle.net?

This isn't something you can speculate, you have to see the code.

Re:Issues

[Zara2]

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?

No they cannot. The currently available WC3Beta does not have a single player mode and MUST be played on-line. There is supposedly a hack for it to play a skirmish vs. the computer but I heard that it is unstable and that the AI does really stupid things (hence the beta.)

Re:Issues

[Puk]

You've hit the nail on the head. It may not be observable -- you have to see the source code.

Blizzard has their Battle.net source. Blizzard has the bnetd (open) source. If they want to prove this, they don't need to resort to "duplicated bugs", they can just compare the two.

I am making no assertions as to whether their claim is true -- I have not seen the Battle.net source and don't know what the bug itself is. But the fact that they have to go about making their claim in this manner makes me think it's either baseless, or they're overly paranoid of having to show their code in court.

In fact, due to the openness of bnetd, I would think it would be tougher for Blizzard to authenticate their code than it would be for bnetd. How does the court know that Blizzard didn't just rip off bnetd's code in order to make them the same? Again, I'm not saying they didn't, I'm just saying they would probably have to prove that is was already there (which is reasonably possible, if you make the assumption they won't go to ridiculous lengths to fake it).

-Puk

Re:Issues

[Junta]

Depends on your observation point. The bug may be present, but not perceivable in network traffic (certain state of server results in internal corruption or crash or whatever). Or maybe an exceptionally rare bug (i.e. a specific 128-byte sequence which should never be seen in gameplay causes server to crash). Chances of something like that being a side effect of watching to protocol or randomly occuring are rare. I suspect though that it is something in the network protocol that Blizzard just wants to blow out of proportion..

Boycott Blizzard

[drivers]

This is why I am asking everyone to Boycott Blizzard.
http://boycottblizzard.org/

Uh, I'm not sure I totally understand this issue..

[yeoua]

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.

Can you say SLAP ?

[terrymr]

This looks like a classic example of SLAP - they have no case but hope to scare everybody into submission by filing frivolous lawsuits.

Re:Hey kids

[SirSlud]

Can you please explain what part of a 'Warcraft III beta plays like this' article constitudes signalling support for the DMCA? Even, support for Vivendi, politically?

If slashdot, which relies on serving the hundreds upon hundreds of political alignments in its audience, refrained from being 'hypocritical', as you see it, there wouldn't be anything to write about. Nobody's hands are clean, so there's no point in trying to take /. down a notch.

In other words, you're going to be impotant if you dont play with those who's hands are a little dirty; it's the ultimate intent that should dictate who you support, and here I think /. is still miles ahead of most major media outlets, who seem to like the anti-DMCA thing as a nice side story to the whole tech industry; good fodder for quirky 'russian programmer arrested' articles.

BNetD does NOT support WC3

[Straker Skunk]

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.

sorta makes sence when you think about it...

[Rashan]

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?

Re:sorta makes sence when you think about it...

[geekoid]

"what is the incentive to pay Blizzard to play the game?"

Higher bandwidth, Better customer service, you know, things you do to compete.

I thank God the car wasn't invented in the last 5 years.

Consider this...

[NanoGator]

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.

Re:Consider this...

[NanoGator]

Let me be clear that I don't fully understand how the law operates. So I don't want you to feel like I'm debating this with you just to be right, I'm trying to learn about this myself.

Is copyright the issue here? Or is it a case of BnetD's reverse engineering of Warcraft or other Blizzard games is causing monetary damage to Blizzard. I think the latter is more likely to be a winning case for Blizzard, at least in a 'cease and desist' kind of way. If Blizzard made a case that BattleNet is a source of income (ad revenue?) then diverting people away from it could be a problem.

I don't think they've claimed this, but they might. If it's a case of copyright, then I'm not sure how they could sue for this and not use the DMCA. I'll leave that for other people to debate, I haven't read much of the article yet.

I do believe, though, that Blizzard had to act. If they had waited and more and more of these copycat programs showed up, then Blizzard'd have an uphill battle.

Just like in the case of the Neighbor's FAQ you pointed out, the longer it takes to do something about it, the less legal rights they have. Why? Let's say that your neighbor built a profitable lemonade stand on your property and you failed to do anything about it. Over time, his business would grow and grow. If you waited, you could find just the right time to make it the most expensive for him to have to either shut down or move. I think the laws are designed to prevent that kind of crap from going on. That's why Blizzard would have to act.

If somebody creates a program like BnetD, then Blizzard does nothing to stop it, how does the next guy know it's okay for him to do that? Blizzard could wait until so many people are doing it that they could rake in all kinds of $$$ if it went to court. That's why the law won't let it happen.

At least that's my point of view, please feel free to correct me as I'd like to understand this better.

Re:Consider this...

[NanoGator]

"So what? Blizzard has no legal right to do what they're trying to pull."

That's up to the courts to decide. Obviously they have some legal angle on it or it'd be thrown out.

"For example, if I give out $10 to every passerby in Manhattan and ask them to give me $20 tomorrow at the same place if they accept, it may well be that those people are going to break their agreement."

Actually if they agree to that, then you can pursue it in court. You gave them a loan and they didn't pay it back. Judge Judy'd be happy to help you there.

"...if they don't pay me back, I'll kill them..."

Your analogy is seriously flawed. It doesn't even come close to representing what's really going on between Blizzard and BnetD. A better analogy would be along the lines of "Somebody keeps pickpocketing me, so I filed a restraining order on them.".

I think the reason you didn't use that analogy is that it doesn't show Blizzard with devil-like horns on it's head.

Re:Consider this...

[NanoGator]

Assuming the facts are exactly as you presented them, I agree with you.

'They claim "false designation of origin". Don't know where this is coming from, don't remember seeing anything about it before.'

That reads to me like at some point they mislead people into thinking it was Blizzard created or endorsed. Since I'm not familiar with BnetD, I cannot verify if I am right or not.

As for whether or not Blizzard has any legal recourse, they still might. Getting back to my original point, it sounds like their service bypasses Blizzards 'check the serial # on the game' copy protection scheme. I'm not sure how they could file charges on a company about that, or even if they can. If that is the case, then I can certainly understand and sympathize with Blizzard for taking the actions they are.

Do I think they're being harsh? From what I know, yeah. I hate operating without a complete picture, however.

I'm curious what correspondences went on between Blizzard and BnetD following the lawsuit. That might shed some light on it.

Screenshots

[rossz]

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.

Re:SOLUTION

[Alioth]

Still doesn't stop you from being sued. Blizzard have moved from a DMCA "takedown" to simply sueing the bnetd developers in court. This can happen regardless of where the server is located.

The other problem is that HavenCo's colo is horrendously expensive. I doubt the bnetd developers really want to be spending that much money. A better solution would be to rename bnetd to something else to deflect the trademark violation charge - let's say, stratgamed or similar - then mirror far and wide.

Re:Legitimate Use: WC2-BNE

[barawn]

I wonder if tunneling Ethernet under TCP is also against their license agreement (yes, you can do this, and it's cool. :) )

I also wonder if they'll constantly update their license agreement to keep up with new technologies. What about tunneling IPX over avian carrier? It may produce long latencies, but it might still be viable gaming. :)

Morons. Why don't they just work WITH the people to create a vibrant, alive community rather than trying to kill off any innovation outside of their own company (illegally, mind you).

Not to mention the fact that their license agreement can bite me. I hope people do realize eventually that there are some rights you can't get people to sign away - like their right to do reasonable things with things they BUY. Grr.

I agree with you on the WC3 issue as well. I really want to play WC3. But I won't buy it, not with the crap that they're pulling.

Re:Uh, I'm not sure I totally understand this issu

[meggito]

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?

Not the EFF's main focus...

[Anthony Boyd]

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.

Money

[geekoid]

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.

Re:hmm..

[AntiNorm]

the only "illegal" thing they did was reverse engineer the battle.net protocols

How is reverse engineering illegal? The law has historically viewed reverse engineering as legal, as long as patents and such are respected. If your trade secret (battle.net protocol = trade secret) gets reverse engineered, you're pretty much SOL. As for EULAs preventing reverse engineering, they're about as legally valid as a used piece of toilet paper.

Wrong target?

[Liquor]

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?

Game editing

[crisco]

But then it came to my mind that Dungeon Siege doesn't offer one essential thing: generated maps. Those are one of the major factors in Diablo's almost unlimited replay value.

Ah, but GPG is releasing the Siege Editor and assorted tools to enable us to create content for the game. Granted, 90% of projects won't get finished and won't be worth playing but I can imagine a few gems being done that rival the original in quality. Counterstrike is the ultimate example but think of the mod communities for the various FPS games. The mod community is where your replay value with DS lies.

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.

Hey, why stop with software?

[Rogerborg]

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?

Well, SOMEONE is missing the point...

[Hrothgar The Great]

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!

Of course they woulndt file a DMCA suit...

[Second_Derivative]

This suit's so ridiculous it would actually have a chance of defeating the DMCA and we wouldn't want that would we?

Join the EFF.

[ByTor-2112]

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

You made incorrect statements

[Hrothgar The Great]

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.

Re: No

[Hrothgar The Great]

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.

The smoking gun: Duplicating a bug

[Eric Green]

They state that there is a bug in their key checking code as included with their software -- and that bnetd duplicates their software to such extent that it duplicates even the bug. To quote from the complaint: "Defendents' copying was so blatant that that Defendants included the programming bug described above in the BNETD code."

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

Re:The smoking gun: Duplicating a bug

[mvdwege]

I'm still not seeing why this is a good argument.

If the Blizzard clients depend on this bug being in Blizzards server code, wouldn't it make sense that the bnetd folks tried to duplicate the bug?

And given that a bug is a very clearly defined behaviour, wouldn't the code ipso facto look the same? I mean, how many ways are there to duplicate a well defined bug?

Mart

Re:The smoking gun: Duplicating a bug

[Eric Green]

The analogy would be that "Gone with the Wind" is "Gone with the Wind", even if you first translate it to Urdu then translate it from Urdu to Navajo. The resulting text won't resemble the original very much from a cosmetic point of view, but it is still "Gone with the Wind", and is still covered by the copyright for "Gone with the Wind".

Remember that civil trials are decided based upon a "preponderance of evidence", NOT upon "behond reasonable doubt" such as is true of criminal cases. If Vivendi introduces evidence that suggests that their code was translated from machine code to assembly code and the assembly code then translated to "C", based upon a strong resemblance of the code, then the bnetd guys have to provide evidence that this did not happen. No evidence means Vivendi wins. That's the biggest difference between a civil trial and a criminal trial. That's why the commercial guys doing reverse engineering are using those numbered/dated/notorized engineering notebooks and "two-box" processes.

-E

Re:Laugh

[Hrothgar The Great]

It is irrelevant whether the service is supplied by another or not. Blizzard's service is not patented; thus it can be legally duplicated by another organization. That is the nature of capitalism. Are you arguing against competition now?

Reverse engineering issues

[Eric Green]

If you took "Gone with the Wind" and translated it into a different language, such as Urdu, it would still be "Gone with the Wind" and would still be copyrighted. And if someone else took that Urdu copy of "Gone With The Wind" and translated it into Navajo, it would still be "Gone with the Wind" and would still be copyrighted. Apparently what Blizzard is saying is that the BNETD people took their copyrighted machine code, translated it into disassembled assembly language and translated it to "C" code. The result would still be copyrighted by Blizzard, even though it's in a different language.

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

Hello? Public Key Proxy...

[Cheerio Boy]

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.

That is ridiculous

[Hrothgar The Great]

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.

Wrong again.

[Hrothgar The Great]

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.

Re:Wrong again.

[Hrothgar The Great]

I didn't defeat my own argument, and neither did you. Don't jump to conclusions. First of all, you only attempted to discredit one of my THREE examples, and then you proved that you did not read the court case of Sony vs. Connectix, which concerns only the reverse engineering of a product (specifically, that it was legal to do so). Your implication that the case was won because of VGS's copy protection is pure speculation; as the decision of the court upheld it simply because reverse engineering is fair competition.

Please, if you're going to keep using this lame car example, explain exactly in what way bnetd is similar to selling keys to other people's cars. I'll continue to use arguments from the real world, on the other hand.

Can I sue Blizzard for ripping off Nethack?

[ChadN]

(ie. Diablo... ie. Dia-BLOW)

This is so sad...

[pclminion]

I will not buy a Blizzard game again.

Sure, I'm biased toward free software. But doesn't everyone have their biases? This is ridiculous.

My last post on the subject

[Hrothgar The Great]

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.

Re:Vile.

[_archangel]

The only disagreement I would have with you is about the Bnetd sounding too much like a derivative of Battle.net. The people who you mentioned Bnetd to probably have never heard of it. Instead they most likely assumed that you were referring to Battle.net (or B.net). I believe that anyone who takes the time to set up a Bnetd server or modify their registry to be able to see a Bnetd server will have no doubt in their minds of the difference.

Re:hmm..

[Dyolf Knip]

That, my friend, is what is so insane about the DMCA. And they aren't even using it in their lawsuit, so their argument holds less water than a rock.

The source is out there

[Cironian]

You can still get it as usual...

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?

Bravo!

[ebyrob]

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.)

Can I sue you for stupidity? Damn, I guess not

[Stickerboy]

(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.

It's funny how little words...

[ebyrob]

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?)

Re:It's funny how little words...

[AME]

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."

Never mind when it was in vogue to say this (I'm not sure that it ever was); but when was it ever a statement of legal reality? I can't think of a time.

However, a number of things are illegal, under specific circumstances, because they have no significant legal use. (Meaning: The number of people who use them legally is statistically insignificant when compared to those who use them illegally.)

Re:The Gnomes Know

[Rakarra]

2. Lawsuits!

I wonder

[detritus.]

Did anyone consider that maybe Blizzard has a their own "bnetd" in the works that they plan to release?

Re:Legitimate Use: WC2-BNE

[Rakarra]

Why don't they just work WITH the people to create a vibrant, alive community rather than trying to kill off any innovation outside of their own company

Because they are the nobles and we are the peasants. We will play their games on their terms, and we'd better like it. This may not have been the attitude back at Blizzard before they were bought by Vivendi, but it's the attitude that most of the major media companies (and some major software companies) have fostered.

Correct response!

[jmorris42]

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?"

Crappy oversimplification.

[El Camino SS]

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.

Bullshit

[BLKMGK]

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.

Ah, you're finally getting it!

[BLKMGK]

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.