Slashdot Mirror
Q&A With Vivendi Rep About Bnetd
Colin Winters writes "War3pub.net managed to get some answers out of a Vivendi rep about why they are suing BnetD and what they hope to accomplish. Worth a read to see how Vivendi/Blizzard is thinking about the whole thing. They believe that BnetD is going to profit sometime in the future, and want to stop them now. Kind of like arresting someone because they might get in a car accident 10 years down the road. "
If you don't nip something in the bud, eventually you can't litigate against it.
If you DO nip something in the bud, well then you're evil THEN TOO! Now THERE'S some logic for ya.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
P-T: what is your stance on making open source software illegal?
Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.
Ummm, it's just this kind of thinking that will destroy us all.
It's more like damming a river, because it might flood next year. A hydroelectric dam, no less. ;-)
Or this just a joke/hoax that isn't very funny/convincing?
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
P-T: what is your stance on making open source software illegal?
Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.
How can this be possible? Under open source, credit need only be given to the orignal creator. What happened to creator control over what gets distributed? If the creator grants permission, so be it.
The Vivendi rep has no clue about open source at all.
If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!
The only way the people of the bnetd project will make any money down the road is when a large gaming company hires them to write multiplayer server software. Corporate types are always looking at the money side of things and never stop to think that, hey, maybe these guys really DO just want to do something for -free-!
If blizzard did not want bnetd to develop games for linux? why did it decide to give out the encryption codes to Bnetd?
Kind of like arresting someone because they might get in a car accident 10 years down the road.
If it's my car that they're stealing, I'd rather stop them now rather than waiting for them to get into an accident.
take your sig and shove it
We didn't have long, but here's what I could get. Turns out this fellow is actually above the people on this case, and did not know as much of the details as I had hoped. However, he provided us with some legal information which describes Vivendi's reasoning for the complaint against the BNetD project.
--------
P-T: what is your stance on making open source software illegal?
Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.
P-T: Why is Vivendi suing on the claims of making the BNetD software for money? It's open source, no one is making any money off of it.
Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit.
P-T: Is use of DMCA and attacking bnetd simply a publicity stunt to hype up Warcraft 3 before it's release? Were the supposed losses due to piracy used to justify the increased prices (compared to Diablo 2 regular and collector's edition) of Warcraft 3 regular version (from $30 to $50) and collector's edition (from $50 to $80)?
Vivendi Rep: No. We feel as though the intellectual property of the Battle.net coders has been stolen by the BNetD project. As far as I know, there are no publicity aspects involved in the suit against BNetD. It is a legal issue that needs to be cleared up and this is the way that we can do that.
P-T: Did Blizzard/Vivendi ever consider purchasing bnetd and fsgs technology as a way to improve and lessen the load off their b.net servers?
Vivendi Rep: I don't know. It's a possibility.
P-T: What do you think about the attempted hiring of a successful cracker of the Warcraft III Beta by Blizzard?
Vivendi Rep: Hiring your largest threat is one easy way to get rid of the threat of piracy.
P-T: What positive outcomes (for the gaming community and product development) do they expect to achieve by pursuing the lawsuit?
Vivendi Rep: We feel the restrictions against the theft of intellectual property will be cleared up in this suit, and will lead to a more clear idea of what is and what isn't internet piracy for the general public. In general, Blizzard is being used as a "first time" suit for this kind of piracy, and we want the public to understand that what is going on with the BNetD project cannot be done without legal ramifications under the DMCA.
P-T: Do you feel that the huge number of pirated Blizzard games will hurt BNetD in the court cases?
Vivendi Rep: Yes. The fact that it is not only pirated server software but also pirated game software will do nothing but hurt BNetD in the courts.
--------
There it is. I feel as though I got a few good answers out of him, and I hope that this helps to answer any possible questions that you all might have. My impression is that Vivendi really doesn't know as much about the dirty details of the situation, and they are filing suit on a truly legal basis. Once again, I hope this helped, and I am hoping to get some answers from the same representative over email.
Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit.
So now BNetD is responsible for what Vivendi thinks they may do in the future?
Despite their justification, it seems to be another case of a company attempting to hold on to its intellectual property, ignoring the fact that letting people run with it will in aid their sales revenue in the long term.
Examples of this are everywhere, my particular fave is where fox started shutting down fan websites. How can this help promotion of your product??
Silly move.
?
As long as the bnetd guys can show they did a clean-room reverse-engineering feat, I doubt Blizzard can say much about it. I don't know how the bnetd guys would have gotten server code from Blizzard in the first place to pirate.
Imagine if 20 years ago, Compaq had not been allowed to reverse-engineer the IBM PC BIOS. The worldwide economy would probably be a few trillion dollars poorer, and God only knows if we'd even have the WWW or ubiquitous home computers...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
If blizzard would get off their rears and actually fix battlenet nobody would use bnetd. If battlenet was not slow and prone to crash why would anyone consider using an alternate service?
Also, this irks me more than any of it:
"The BNETD software, which emulates Blizzard's free online gaming service, bypasses an authentication process designed to prevent the use of illegal copies of Blizzard games on the Internet." - Recent action by Blizzard to combat piracy - 4/17/2002 battle.net
How can blizzard expect bnetd to authenticate a cd key when blizzard won't release them? I could understand, if not condone, blizzard having a problem if bnetd were distrubuting pirated copies of blizzard's software but as far as I understand bnetd is not doing this.
"If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA"
Doesnt sound too different from the GPL...
As far as I understand the case, Blizzard's only stand is the claim that BnetD used source code from Blizzard without permission. If they can prove that, they win; if the don't, they lose. Whether Bnetd makes money or not should be irrelevant.
I'm not really impressed with the answers, and I posit the source was someone from Blizzard who doesn't really know what he's talking about. Maybe from accounting, for all I know.
I'm not trolling. Read the answers. There's nothing to see here.
I know this is probably flame bait but seriously, what has Blizzard done wrong???
/. about this. Why shouldnt they attempt to shut it down, they think they stole their code!!! Last time I checked that is not legal. Whether they did steal code hasnt been proven but thats why you go to court, to prove that this is the case.
/. crowd. Its the same as when AMD testified for Microsoft, AMD went from being the one /. was rooting for in the processor wars, to bedfellow of the evil empire.
I have been a fan of Blizzards games for years. They have never produced a bad game, all of their stuff has been quality work. They even allow you to spawn copies to others so you can play with other people without having to buy additional CDs. They want you to play their games. They are a great company.
All of a sudden somebody tries to create a clone of battle.net and they shut it down. Then theres the huge uproar from
Theyve gone from being this great company to being hated by the
Doesnt anyone think of why they are doing this, or give anyone the benefit of the doubt anymore??? Blizzard has been entertaining us for years and our then our opinion turns on a dime. I will continue buying from them since they make quality games, which very few companies can claim to do.
The anon coward who did it before you did it as an anon - thus not karma whoring
you however deserve a -1 redunndent
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the purpose of the bnetd project. It is used to run a bnet server on your own box so that you and your friends can play on a private server. The project doesn't advocate the use of pirating software, that's just what some of the users do. A lot of people that actually bought the game use bnetd on their networks to play their friends.
Hope this clears up some confusion about the project.
Good thing he has such a firm grasp on the issues involved in this case. Of course, then again, most judges don't have a firm grasp on anything of this sort either.
I wonder, if more judges that oversaw cases such as these were highly technically minded, would the people litigating such cases be inclined to learn more about the stuff they're litigating against? And if so, would they feel some pangs of moral regret for using such an absurd piece of legislation to pas their own bank accounts? (Specifically, the DMCA)
The poster claims this is 'Kind of like arresting someone because they might get in a car accident 10 years down the road'. What? What are you on? So the reason it's not okay to sue over this is that it's jumping the gun, and suing before bnet has done something wrong????? Well no, why on earth would bnet making money be wrong / illegal / criminal.
I can completely understand why we might legislate against people driving if they were going to have an accident in 10 years time (though this would be a dreadful idea, except that:) and in a way this is exactly what requiring driving licences is about. But that's totally different to letting people sue to prevent someone else making money in future. Obviously.
So I was just wondering is it now illegal to make money off of someone elses work if you make it better?
:)
Call me crazy, but I thought that was the american way. See a product on the market, devise a way to make it better, and sell the upgrade to a public that wants it. You figure out a way to backlight a screen on a portable electronic device cheaply, you sell kits to do just that, and who knows you might make some money. You find out an ingenius way to boost a car's engine by 20 horsepower with $10 bucks worth of spare parts, by the gods sell a kit that does just that, only sell it for $15 bucks and make a profit.
Somehow its totally different when applied to software? Well I don't think it is. You don't like how Blizzard balances its online servers because they can be crashy, so you devise a application that acts as your own server on your computer. In what fucked up world should that be illegal? Because Blizzard has some lame ass excuse about piracy? How is that your problem? You aren't pirating games, and somehow your supposed to be held accountable for all those who did simply because they may (may!) have used your software. I'm sorry, thats not the america I grew up in.
On the one hand, we shouldn't get so worked up about this. I'm no lawyer, but from what I understand about copyright laws, trademark laws, and other related laws, is that acting fast is one of the most important things you can do. Whether or not Blizzard actually wants to, they need to act like they are concerned, or they could be throwing away any chance they have to actually make a case out of it in the future. On the other hand, we need to get more worked up about this. That people actually have this attitude about an Open Source project is a Bad Thing. People that aren't as knowledgable about what Open Source really is will take the few things they hear about this - or any other legal issue dealing with Open Source - and apply it to Open Source in general. And, of course, lawyers being lawyers, they will latch onto any misunderstanding they can in order to get judgements in their favor (and if they didn't, they're not very good lawyers).
Kind of like arresting someone because they might get in a car accident 10 years down the road.
Kind of like that new tom cruise movie minority report.
Veramocor
Vivendi Rep: Hiring your largest threat is one easy way to get rid of the threat of piracy"
"Hey, I hear the best way to score a game programming job is to publically pirate their games!"
A.
What is curious about V/B's reasoning is that they are suing based on the possibility of future earnings (at least that is what they claim) but the rep states that something must be used by someone other than the creator to be illegal under the terms of the DCMA. Considering bnetd has yet to make any money off this, how does the DCMA argument even apply to this case?
M
If they are humans, they can have 2 clean-room reverse-engineering feats at level 1! =D
*ahem* on a more serious note:
Actually if the DMCA is invoked then the argument isn't that they copied Blizzard's stuff, or even reverse engineered it. Its because Blizzard does key-checking with their multiplayer games to make sure you bought a legitimate copy (or have a good key-gen) of their game. The bnetd version does not include this because they don't care about keychecking, they just want to play the game.
Blizzard will argue that this will invalidate their copyright protection (cd-keys) because people can now play multiplayer without buying a license (cd-key). And they're right.
bnetd will likely argue one of a few tracks:
a) cd-keys aren't effective copyright protection. I have a starcraft key-gen. Google knows of them...
b) that they have a clickthrough license agreement (do they? i dunno) that says "by downloading this source, I agree to only use it with legitimately purchased copies of Blizzard games." or some such.
In a legal sense I don't see bnetd have too much to argue about except that the DMCA sucks, and cd-keys suck, or cd-keys are not copyright protection as far as the DMCA is concerned.
Stupid Laws suck.
Why not support trangaming? They will give Linux a closed source battlenet client, and problem solved!!!
I suggested to transgaming to support battlenet, however we need more votes to get it actually supported.
If all of these people worried about the open source battlenet would just give up their 15 bucks we'd have a closed source battlenet.
While I disagree with DMCA, and I agree with open source, sometimes closed source is the easier path to take in the short term. Lets just get some games working in linux damnit, fighting with game making companies only scares them away more!!! Cant you people see that?
This case should seriously be dropped, the team working on the open source battlenet should just make a closed source version instead and help the transgaming project.
This court case against the DMCA is going to lose and be a huge waste of time and money on both sides of the fence, we have the SSSCA and Lobbying politicians to worry about, honestly I think the reason game developers dont make games for linux is because people demand their games be open source.
Why fight these guys? Instead, we should be workingg together to bring games to linux.
So all of you who threaten to boycott, do yourself a favor and instead of boycotting, petition blizzard to port battlenet or to license the battleenet source code to transgaming, mandrake, or anyone willing to pay the price.
This will solve the problem because the binary can be released, we will be happy, they will be happy, transgaming will be happy because they'd get more subscribers.
This is my solution, I'm sure my Open Source Supporting Community may end up flaming me,
So be it, I want games in linux.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Anyone else see the similarity to the Tom Cruise/Speilberg movie that is comming out based on this premis?
You arrest someone before they commit the crime...
IOException - Can't Speak
The whole profit thing is a sidetrack and not really the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is where they think that BnetD uses their source code.
Story recap:
- BnetD reverse engineered the protocol (*not the code!*) used by Battle.Net.
- Using this, they created BnetD, which simply emulates battle.net. They entirely wrote their own code to do this.
- They went along just fine until the Warcraft3 beta was leaked.
- Being as the software was open source, someone else took BnetD, added support for the leaked beta, and created WarForge.
- BnetD gets the crap sued out of them.
So, where does profit come into this? Answer: it doesn't, it's some moron Vivendi rep trying to screw with your head.
BnetD does not use any of Battle.Net's source. It's a totally legal hack, reverse engineering the protocol. They didn't even need to analyse the source of the games themselves, just the protocol. Any fool with a sniffer can see the packets, after all. After that it's a matter of trial and error.
So, given that they didn't use any of the source code from any of Battle.Net's stuff.. It's perfectly legal for them to sell it and make a profit.
Of course, if you assume, like Vivendi appears to be doing, that they stole the code or that they are using their code, then yeah, BnetD would be in the shit. But they say they are not, I believe them (as I've analysed protocols before), and thus I think BnetD will win, assuming they can afford counsel.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
> Kind of like arresting someone because they
> might get in a car accident 10 years down the
> road.
I guess you're also against arresting someone who's drinking and driving only because they "might" kill someone.
Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit.
What gets me is the "that they did not create" portion. Seems that's the fulcrum of this case, and not the smokescreen questions regarding OSS and DMCA. Burden of proof would seem to favor the little guys here, simply because you have to prove that code from Blizzard entered into the codebase from an employee (former or current) or that an intrusion occurred.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
I don't really agree with the open-handed slap against bnetd, but I think I understand why it's in Blizzard's interest to attempt to shut it down.
Blizzard provides Battle.Net as a free service to those that purchase their games. This allows them to keep their customers in a controlled environment where they can guarantee service. This makes for a better experience for the end user. Sure, battle.net is down on occasion, and sometimes they delete a character or two, but it's free.
Now, with the beta, the situation is different. The bnetd code allowed players who did not have legitimate CD-keys to play together. While I _like_ bnetd, and I fully support their right to do what they've done, I also understand Blizzard's need to protect their investment.
Why buy WarCraft III when I can copy my buddy's CD, use his CD key, and play on a rogue server? Why does it seem noone understands Blizzard's need to protect the time and money they put into this product?
Of course, Kali has been around for awhile, providing us with a way to play Blizzard games (not to mention a million more).
Flame away, I doubt many of you will take the time to see past the fact that a company is picking on a bunch of guys writing code for fun. It's really a shame that Blizz can't find a better way to deal with this... C'mon Vivendi, find a better way!
the link for this story slashdotted in about 2 minutes. Maybe we all are getting slow. =]
How about they just change the license terms (make it NON-GPL) and basically say "This software or services related to this software must not be used to make a profit." Or something like that?
The metaphor against driving falls through on a few notes. The car, after all, is blizzards, and wouldnt you want to prevent someone from using your car if they are going to lend it out to their friends, and people that THEY DONT KNOW. Despite the few good users that merely use Bnetd to alleviate the tension on the Battle.net servers, Most clientele are using it for piracy, as they do not have Cd-keys. If Blizzard could develop a means of checking the Bnetd Users CD-keys against its own databases, then Bnetd Would be more than welcome to produce again.
all my
So they forgot to ask whether Vivendi is using orc lawyers or human lawyers
Oh No! Not Karma Whoring!
News flash (from one who can remember this long-past mythical time): karma was instituted to encourage good posters to make more good posts. The whole point was to encourage actions of which karma is the (imperfect) measure. Are people supposed to be fixated on their karma? Of course not. But that doesn't make the current bizarre meme that "public accumulation of karma is evil" right either.
"Karma Whoring" is, if anything, a problem of the moderators at times; it is not a problem of the author of the post. Especially not in this case, where the posts were dated 3 minutes apart, and thus it would have been impossible for this poster to have seen the other post in time to not make his or her own redundant post.
So: be an AC if you for some reason don't want to post under your account name. But don't accuse people that do post under their account of being karma whores. Maybe they just like to own up to their own comments, good or bad. Unlike yourself.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
-Jackbooted thugs need to be stomped.
-Companies are stomped by being put out of -business.
-Companies can't stay in business without customers.
-If they stay in business, we let them.
Action: boycott Blizzard. Tell your non-technical gaming friends--explain what has happened here, and how V/B intend to milk them as cash cows with a rent-a-game scheme, and tried to crush an innocent software project in the process.
If you're a copyright infringer, make sure WC3 is out there, along with the patched bnetd for WC3 support. Bring pop-in-and-play CDR's and put them on the benches at the mall outside Electronics Botique.
DO WHAT IT TAKES TO KILL THESE BASTARDS IN THE MARKETPLACE!
Uh, well, the answers to the questions from Vivendi are, well... silly
Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.
Uh, first of all, it hasn't yet been used for any kind of profit (see next answer), but doesn't this rather go against the whole open source thing? Isn't the point to have it spread around and fixed by many to get the best of the best making something? And isn't it supposed to be free in most cases anyway? So what is their argument? That the only people who can use bnetd for profit is... uh, the creators, who are, uh, bnetd? So based on his answer, blizzard can't even use this code for profit as they are not the creators, so what exactly is he trying to say?
Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit.
And this speaks for itself. They are getting punished just because they stand a chance of making a profit off this product. Well, this is rather silly since bnet is free. The SECOND bnetd starts charging in any way, shape, or form, bnet will have a new bunch of regulars. Isn't it in blizzard's interest that bnetd starts charging? I mean, if they charge, the piraters need to either pay for the game and play free on bnet, or pay for bnetd. At this point, most would probably rather go legit and play on the official servers, rather than pay for using illegal software (that doesn't include a cool box and manual and whatnot). Which essentially means that bnetd will probably never be for profit (besides the fact that its open source and everyone has the code already anyway, so charging for it would be next to impossible given the speed of piracy nowadays).
Vivendi Rep: We feel the restrictions against the theft of intellectual property will be cleared up in this suit, and will lead to a more clear idea of what is and what isn't internet piracy for the general public. In general, Blizzard is being used as a "first time" suit for this kind of piracy, and we want the public to understand that what is going on with the BNetD project cannot be done without legal ramifications under the DMCA.
Is bnetd theft of intellectual property? They claimed that they used code from blizzard, which is near impossible unless they "hacked" them and stole code, which would be another thing all together. It'd be a bit easier to write from the ground up than steal the code and risk all sorts of other problems. And i'm sure they got quite a bit of documentation that this was a straight reverse engineering process (i know the guys responsible for the warcraft3beta code for bnetd did reverse engineering with port dumps and so on, since the daemon STILL doesn't work as well as bnet, and they had to play with much to even get it working with 1.21, and many things are still not supported, as well as "new" features i don't believe existed in bnet).
Vivendi Rep: Yes. The fact that it is not only pirated server software but also pirated game software will do nothing but hurt BNetD in the courts.
Contrary to popular belief, bnetd CAN be used with retail blizzard games. Just because it can be used for pirated games doesn't mean it is illegal. Like the emulator situation, the games/roms are illegal, the fact of getting the thing working isn't (thus legal demo roms). If bnetd ONLY worked for pirated games, then that'd be another situation.
Silly...
I'm sure this has been suggested before, but I'm curious why SlashDot does not have a caching mechanism for the stories it's about to post? It has become common for a link posted in a SlashDot article to become unavailable within a few minutes of the article being posted. As a result, most readers can only speculate on what the writer is actually talking about.
I'm not sure what resources would be needed to cache the links, but since there aren't that many articles per day, I would imagine that it is reasonable.
Just my $0.02.
Snowdog
Kind of like arresting someone because they might get in a car accident 10 years down the road.
Well, if they can mount a legal challenge, I'm sure they'd rather do so now before bnetd reaches a level of success that might fund more lawyers, servers, users, and bad press.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
I think blizzard has two reasons:
1.
Look at the games witch use Battle.net, they would not be played if you couldn't go on-line playing it with other people. So blizzard makes a CD key authentication so you buy the game. With bnetd you can play without a 'legal' key so less copies of the games would be sold.
2.
What if everybody went using bnetd in stead of battle.net. What control would they have in adjusting the gameplay? This way bnetd would get control over blizzard's games.
I love open source but I also like Blizzard a lot. I would really be sad if blizzard is going under due to a open source project like bnetd.
...because Orcs would never stoop so low.
All about me
Why should I beleive something posted by "P-Toms "
on a FORUM, which is a supposed interview with a REP. and not even the real guy?
What credibility do this P-Toms has? For me to beleive something, the guy should act professionally and at least name itself. And the "article" should be posted somewhere else then on a gaming forum!
I'd rather be sailing...
Quote "Vivendi Rep: Yes. The fact that it is not only pirated server software but also pirated game software will do nothing but hurt BNetD in the courts. "
How is it pirated server software? Did somebody at BnetD get access to the server apps/source code of Blizzard?
So, they claim that bnetd is made of Blizzard's copyrighted code. This is complete bull. I asked Tim Jung (the defendant in this case) what he knew about this claim:
I am not even sure what they are talking about when they say we copied their code, since they don't explain it at all or in any details. We have never had access to their servers so there is no way for us to copy their server code. We also did not decompile the clients to get information that we needed either, everything was figured out and guessed at by looking at packet traces and packet dumps of the traffic.
You can see his entire response on my site: Boycott Blizzard. boycottblizzard.org
If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA - UNLESS you provide the source code.
;)
Deal?
TRANSGAMING CAN USE BLIZZARDS CODE WHICH CHECKS THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CD KEYS THAT CONNECT TO IT.
Thus Transgaming can solve blizzards piracy situation while offering BLIZZARDS battlenet.
So you see, Transgaming allows battlenet on linux, I never said an open source battlenet, I never said battlenet for Lans, I said blizzards battlenet.
People would still connect to blizzards server!
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that actually doing something better than your competition is the way to succeed in business.
The American Way is to crush your competition with lawsuits and force the public to pay you ever-increasing amounts of money.
Remember, the free in free market is not free as in beer, it is not free as in speech, it is free as in "I'm bigger than you so I get whatever I want."
Specifically the answers to two questions... the first about the possibility of buying BNetD or FSGS. I don't see why a rep would say they might have considered it, because I just don't see how they would have... The only thing wrong with Battle.Net's service is that there are too many damn users, I don't think that BNetD or FSGS are any faster because of any other reason. The second was about hiring of an alleged cracker... I thought the answer was doing two things. First, admitting that their software was exploitable, something that companies usually don't do. Second, making it seem like they were below the law, since they tried to make a deal with the guy instead of pursuing any action against him for cracking the War3 Beta. I don't know, it just seems like this isn't the kind of statement Vivendi/Blizzard would want out in the public. But, in any case, it doesn't really bring any new points to the case itself, so I don't think we really have much to worry about if it isn't real.
ok that's complete BS
and BnetD can prove it by offering blizzard an agreement/contract stating that Blizzard will alow BnetD to continue unmolested under the condition that they never sell/lease/rent their code or anything derived from a battlenet emulator, and that the project remains free for remainder of eternity.
and if blizzard doesnt find that aggreement to their liking, it will blow their excuse out of the water, and prove what we already suspect
You can legally go out, buy, and own a gun. But just because you own that gun doesn't mean you can legally go out and shoot people with it.
That is probably a better analogy.
The short answer, snowpuppy?
-sk
Two arguements.
If they stole actual server code, then bnetd is wrong and should be shut down. In this case Blizzard is correct.
If they are only making an alternate server they didn't steal anything. They have no requirement to implement Blizzards CD key checker. In this case Blizzard is wrong.
Of course all the Vivendi/Blizzard documentation seems to puree the arguement to make it difficult to see what they are actually accusing. This sort of lame obfuscated legal crap pisses people off.
Or, even better, you can happily use a licensed cable descrambler to watch all the cable you want. And although building your own cable descrambler probably isn't illegal, using it to descramble shows is.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
WHOOP WHOOP! (Sound of crap detector going off)
/.? After all, if this was an interview or series of questions about a precedent like this and Vivendi's planned actions, wouldn't it be on a specific web page? Why would a Vivendi rep even talk about the DMCA when they said in press (with real names instead of "vivendi rep" as a monniker) previously that they were not using the DMCA? Also, why would they go out on a limb, patently off subject and say that open source should be declared illegal? The open source debate has really precious little to do with this action, IMHO.
A Vivendi Rep?
Does this Vivendi rep, say, have a name?
When and where did this interview take place?
Who is the interviewer, can we get his real name too?
Why is some forum posting considered that important that it made it on
I think that this is all complete hooey. This is some troll pushing "the tech hot button of the week" and then throwing in a little "open source sucks!" to shake up the antfarm.
They made a better product than battlenet.
Its like that, except the person arresting the driver of the car owns the car
I think my principles are reachin' an all time low
Alright,
Let's follow the possible argument form that Vivendi could present.
1 (arguable assumption): The CD-Key authentication as used to authenticate players of network games on servers owned by Vivendi is a protection mechanism within the definitions bounded by the DMCA
2 (provable fact): The BnetD server system does not utilize any CD-Key authentication.
3 (Conclusion 1:2): The BnetD server system circumvents a protection mechanism as defined by the DMCA
Folks, at this point, the game is over for BnetD.
The courts may return a ruling that none of the IP involved was incorrectly obtained (essentially ruling that the reverse-engineering of the protocol was cleanly done). However, unless the court finds that the DMCA violation did not take place (i.e. if the BnetD lawyers show #1 above to be false), then the court is bound to rule that the BnetD project is in fact guilty of a violation of the DMCA.
Guilt under that proposition alone would likely cause the disintigration of the BnetD project.
Now, of course, there are many courses of appeal ("The DMCA is an unjust, unconstitutional law", "The violation is in accordance with the exemptions within the DMCA") but that road is long, hard, and expensive.
As it stands, I would have to say that the case is similar to what would obtain if a company were to create (for instance) a Playstation clone capable of playing any game, from any region, (and incidently without checking to see if it was a copy). That device would then be in an approximately similar position as BnetD.
Of course . . . that's already happened, the device is a mod chip, and Sony is going hard after the creators . . . . Using the DMCA.
.
Unfair, yes. Unjust, certainly. Unconstitutional, perhaps. But the DMCA is your law, and damn if you hadn't better learn what kind of evil it is -- and fast.
Because the corporate lawyers already know.
A lot of people that actually bought the game use bnetd on their networks to play their friends.
Uh... they can't buy the game, it's not been released yet. So if they're playing WC3 on anything other than battle.net, they're not part of the beta, and are almost certainly playing a pirated copy.
Insert witty
Does bnetd include pirated code or not ? Read the excerpt above; Salon.com quotes Blizzard accusing the bnetd project of piracy, and then it quotes "bnetd developers", as if in response to that allegation specifically, and they don't deny it.
Have the lead bnetd developers ever denied that bnetd contains code stolen from Blizzard ? And even if they did deny it, how could we trust their statement ? Any contributor to bnetd who got his hands on Blizzard's source could have snuck it into bnetd, claiming it as his own work. Since nobody except Blizzard has seen Blizzard's source, how is anyone on the bnetd project to know whether bnetd includes code stolen from Blizzard ?
By backing bnetd in this the EFF is setting itself up to be painted as a defender not of free software, but as a defender of software piracy; If Blizzard can prove that bnetd includes stolen code, EFF gets screwed.
Blizzard has seen Blizzard's source and, we can assume, they have seen bnetd source. The EFF has only seen bnetd source. Blizzard is alleging piracy. Think about it.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Am I right in thinking that there was no problem before Warcraft III? That Blizzard knew or should have known that Bnetd existed. That, through an incredible oversight, they released a beta version of the game that relied on it being played on their official server to expire?
So in short someone at Blizzard made a huge mistake and gave away the farm, and now they are using the legal system to try to fix things?
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em. (Terry Pratchett)
In this case, reverse engineering DIRECTLY RESULTED in widespread piracy of the Warcraft 3 beta. Without the reverse engineering of battle.net's functions, the bnetd program could not have been released. Without the release of the bnetd program, warforge would not have been able to release a server (and loader, which bypasses some checks) with which to play 100% illegitimate and pirated software.
If reverse engineering of the bnet protocol had not been utilized, piracy of the warcraft 3 beta could not have existed.
While not all (in fact not many) uses of reverse engineering lead to piracy, it most certainly did in this case.
I mean, it takes a whole lot of motivation and skill to completely recreate a game server like that.
;)
As long as you don't go to jail, this is a great way to get a job doing security programming.
I love how the supposed blackout has just resulted in a lot of Anonymous Cowards being modded up. Feel free to disagree, but that's what I've seen.
It's not circumvention if the server no longer requires it. Think about it: The CD check is used by Blizzard servers to authenticate clients. Fine. If you want to play on Blizzard's servers, you need to have a valid CD Key. If you use some mechanism to fool Blizzard's servers into thinking that you have a valid key when you don't, then you are circumventing their checks and are conceivably in violation of the DMCA.
Now, if someone should create a server which allows all of the functionality of the Blizzard server *without* including a CD check, then this isn't circumvention. The clients do not require a unique CD key in order to play standalone (if there is a standalone mode, i don't know), so there is nothing in the server which is circumventing any existing functionality in the client. Think about it, Vivendi/Blizzard will have to convince the court that Bnetd is in violation of the DMCA for not including a particular feature.
So the onus is upon them to describe how leaving something out of a simulation (Bnetd is a Blizzard server-simulator) qualifies as a circumvention. If anything, Bnetd can argue pretty strongly that they are enabling interoperability. Sure, it's interoperability between warezed copies, but if warezed clients are the problem, then that's Vivendi/Universal's problem (though they'd probably be able to get the court to sympathize unless bnetd was proactive in heading them off at the pass).
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
They recieve donations and run ad banners. Whether they make a PROFIT is a different story, but they are receiving money for it.
Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit.
Whoa, hold on, slow down..
I think we found the stupidest person on the face of the planet.
If they didn't create the software, how can it be theirs? In one sentence, he says that the code is theirs, but that they didn't create it.. I'm sorry, but WHAT?!?!?!?!?!
By saying that the emulator, Bnetd, is using stolen source code, Blizzard will try to get them shut down for distributing copyrighted material. However, for material to be copyrighted, doesn't it have to be published? If it is a legitimately reverse engineered trade secret, and not a copyrighted work, then Bnetd should be in the clear. Surely Blizzard realizes this and is hoping that the Bnetd will crumble under the costs of defending themselves in court.
Cryptnotic
My other first post is car post.
1 (arguable assumption): The CD-Key authentication as used to authenticate players of network games on servers owned by Vivendi is a protection mechanism within the definitions bounded by the DMCA
But it isn't a protection mechanism. You can still play the games on your own PC whether or not you connect to the Battle.net servers. Their existence or non-existence is not a requirement for you to play the games that you have purchased.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
From what I understand, Bnetd has been around for quite some time. It wasn't until WCIII got started that problems suddenly sprung up.
AFAIK, it wasn't bnetd that fUx0r3d with WCIII, it was a seperate group. If that is the case, why isn't VB (Heh, VB. Ironic acronym.) going after those people?
So.. What happens if they win? What happens to Wine? Samba? They're reversing protocols as well.
..And can VB make up their minds about what they're suing over? The fact that bnetd exists, or the rumors of code theft? (Hmm. How possible is it that they inserted Bnetd code into Battle.net after the fact?)
I'm glad I've never liked Blizzard's games that much. It makes them so much easier to boycott.
In the first Vivendi's amendment to the lawsuit, Vivendi claims that BNETD copied source code from Blizzard by examine the source code available at sourceforge. Well, who can say it is the reverse that happened? - http://www.bnetd.org/case_letters.php
Well, I don't really know much details about this case but it seems to me that they are making the claim that SOMEONE from bnetd SOMEHOW checked out of their CVS and 'pirated' source code to put into their software. Having done this, at least from a common man's point of view that SOMEONE did insteed STEAL something that did not belong to them. As 'robinhood-like' as this may seem to the many legal owners of various blizzard games so that they have choices to play their games on other 'non-laggy' servers, it is still breaking the law. I don't believe that GPL protects open source software that has its origins from non-open sourced avenues. At least not in the sense where one steals code to put into their own.
Now, on the flip side of the coin. If the developers of bnetd did not steal code like Blizzard had originally claimed, and in fact reverse engineered the whole thing, then I think they would be protected by GPL (though i could be wrong on this one....).
I believe this case could set some major precedence when the judgement gets handed down. Basically, we have one party that is complaining the fact that they have a nice piece of software that more or less achieves much of its functionality through the authentication of its battle.net servers. Authenticate: great, you get to play. Do not authenticate: probablly means you got the software in through an illegal means and deny your usage. On the other hand, we have an alternative service that does not authenticate because it simply chooses not to. Reason being? Could be a million reasons. Make the servers go faster? Don't have to contact a database to see if it's real or not? Performance issues? Circumventing software piracy countermeasures? Perhaps... all of these issues have not been raised and certainly when it goes to trial, we will perhaps finally learn the truth.
However, the should the judgement rule in favor of blizzard, i wouldn't be surprised for those individuals that write applications that circumvent standard protocol i.e. alternative dns, freenet, p2p applications, or even protocol encapsulations so as to protect those activities that we don't want others to know about....
Still a lot of beans to be spilled and much to be refried, that's for certain.
So we are just supposed to trust that the huge media conglomerate is doing something that is right and just, and NOT throwing its weight around to bully the small guy out of business. Because frivolous lawsuits that amount to nothing more than harassment of small critics/competitors/whistleblowsers are completely unknown. Please. In any case like this, I'm more likely to side with the little guy, just because I know that he's being picked on. And the bully knows that he can't defend himself.
The comparable thing for Microsoft would be to integrate Windows activation with MSN, so you had to use MSN as your Internet service provider. They could then claim that any other ISP which allowed a Microsoft client to run violated the DMCA.
If Blizzard wants to use some kind of forced registration/activation scheme, they probably have to separate it from their online service.
But even if it were completely unmitigated good for Blizzard, the bnetd folks have no right to force it upon Blizzard, anymore than doctors or health insurance companies can force people to eat low-fat diets.
:)
-Ael
Or the law to force us to have car insurance
However, you CAN use bnetd to play other games which have been out for quite some time...like...say...Starcraft? Diablo? Just because a few people decided to pirate the Warcraft 3 beta doesn't mean that everyone who had a legitimate use for bnetd with copies of games that they had purchased should be penalized. Bnetd's sole purpose was not to allow people to pirate warcraft 3, it was to allow people to host their own multiplayer battle.net games without having to put up with the inefficiencies and poor performance of blizzard's servers.
More likely than not, Blizzard was trying to position Battle.Net into a situation where they would then be able to charge for anyone using it, and suddenly realized that this 'bnetd' thing could stomp all over that plan. Certainly would explain why they seem so frantic to exterminate it.
INAL but the only leg I can see that Blizzard has to stand on is their assertation that bnetd "stole" their code. But we all know that was all but impossible, short of them breaking into blizzard.
But on the part about bnetd making money. Shouldn't they be able to? They wrote the software simply to be "compaitable" with the Battle.net system. And anybody that has ever used Battle.net will agree, the Battle.net service is pretty crappy. They built a better mousetrap, would you be willing to pay a nominal fee to play on a battle.net-alike system that actually *works*? They saw a need and filled it, that is the American way.
I think this case will boil down to weather or not Blizzard (and all game companies) have the right to dictate how and where their games are played. Personally I feel that I am buying a product and they can take this "liscense" stuff and get bent.
I am mostly in favor of bnetd but the one glaring problem I have with it is that as far as I can tell it is very easy to use a pirated copy of a Blizzard game (Starcraft for example) with bnetd. Aside from that, I think it's a nice idea.
Therefore, I think that the law should be that if Blizzard requests it, bnetd should be required to implement some kind of cd-key check (similar to how quake3 authenticates with the id master server). If Blizzard is unwilling to provide the means for bnetd to authenticate, then bnetd shouldn't have to comply. If bnetd cannot provide any decent cd-checking (due to not being allowed to integrate any closed source DLL's, for example) then it should be shut down.
If you have a better idea, let's hear it. But I think it's pretty irresponsible to just ignore the fact that bnetd basically cracks all of Blizzard's copy protection in one fell swoop. Blizzard makes cool games, let's at least try to prevent software piracy.
Is he trying to say that Open Source is inherantly illegal under the DMCA because many open source lisences allow for this very thing? Or am I misunderstanding?
Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit.
This is a load of crap. The Bnetd team is doing this out of their own free time as hobbyists, and released their code under the GPL so that anyone could use it for free. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone involved with Bnetd ever seriously wished to make money off of it. Bnetd
has been around for ~4 years, I believe.
Vivendi Rep: No. We feel as though the intellectual property of the Battle.net coders has been stolen by the BNetD project. As far as I know, there are no publicity aspects involved in the suit against BNetD. It is a legal issue that needs to be cleared up and this is the way that we can do that.
It is a fact that Bnetd was created through reverse engineering, not stolen code. Truth be told, Battle.net is apparently not very complex, and it only took a matter of time to get a clone working just through packet sniffing.
Vivendi Rep: We feel the restrictions against the theft of intellectual property will be cleared up in this suit, and will lead to a more clear idea of what is and what isn't internet piracy for the general public. In general, Blizzard is being used as a "first time" suit for this kind of piracy, and we want the public to understand that what is going on with the BNetD project cannot be done without legal ramifications under the DMCA.
Or do you just want the public to understand that they are stuck with crappy Battle.net, and that Blizzard doesn't care that their customers find added value in a server protocol that allows them to have an alternative way of playing online?
Vivendi Rep: Yes. The fact that it is not only pirated server software but also pirated game software will do nothing but hurt BNetD in the courts.
Again with the Bnetd being "pirated." Additionally, it is as if Bnetd is directly responsible for all the pirates out there. There are probably many more pirates on Battle.net using "stolen" CD keys than playing on Bnetd servers.
I've bought Blizzard titles in the past, and although I was sort of looking forward to Warcraft III, I will not be buying or playing any more Blizzard titles unless Vivendi/Blizzard does a
complete 180 on this.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Why can't you guys post a story without having the put that extra spin and insult on everything? This community seems to be full of communist idealists.
"Kind of like arresting someone because they might get in a car accident 10 years down the road."
eTrade SUCKS
In one of the like 100 things they are sueing for they state that the code for the bnetd server had to of been stolen from the offcial battle.net server because a unique bug exists.
(scanning the pdf)... Here it is:
17. Blizzard's username/password authentication softare was distributed to users in product releases containg a bug, i.e., a programming error. With the bug, the username/password authentication software was still able to perform the function for which it was designed, but the implementation of the bug causes the software to produce a distinctive and unusual result, and is easily identified.
Apparently this bug showed up on the bnetd server... Of course, without actually identifying the bug it's hard to say if they are right...
Thats not the point. What matters more, playing blizzard games, or having a way to not connect to blizzard servers but no way to play blizzard games?
Dumbass, right now you cant play blizzard games AT ALL!!!
I'd rather have a way to play games, then worry about playing games in specific non blizzard fashions.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Err.. I get my media from IRC and Audiogalaxy. Vivendo who?
or
2. Sex with an Orc?
~~~
It doesn't matter if Blizzard ends up winning this case; I'm sure at least half of us HAVE a copy of bnetd (I know *I* downloaded it at the last minute while I still could), and the best thing we could probably do at this point is to release a couple thousand forks anonymously, scattered all around the internet, then... Well, what's Blizzard to do?
Then who would care? The point here is NOT to connect to Blizzard's servers, but to be able to host our own.
And if blizzard says no, Then you cant host it. Whats this court case about? You have the right to play the game, read the terms of agreement, it doesnt say you have the right to host a server!
Besides, your whole idea is based on the fact that Transgaming says they'd support battle.net. Who says Blizzard would agree to give them the information to do so anyway?Increased game sales from linux users, blizzard could also license the code and make a profit, companies like make profits, companies like good marketshare, companies also WANT you playing their games when you purchase them so you'll keep buying more. Blizzard would give out the technical details to keep us from building battlenetD, to keep linux users from boycotting them, and Because out of all the reasons I mentioned, neither you or I can think of a profitable or logical reason why they shouldnt give out the technical details or license the code if the product will be closed source anyway, securerom did it, EA did it, why shouldnt blizzard?
Anyway, what's the point then? I like the idea of BNetD because it means I can tweak the way things work in the games. If I want my item drops to be better, I can do it. If I want to make some of the enemies harder, I can do that too. If it's closed source, I may as well be using Blizzard's slow-as-hell servers.
I like the idea of BnetD, but thats not the point.
The point is, right now we have no way to play starcraft AT ALL, period!
Future blizzard games like world of warcraft we have no way to play AT ALL.
By creating a seperate blizzard client you gain the benifit off something like jabber, instead of copying icq code for code, you just license the code from blizzard in the form of components snap it into the code.
Warcraft 3? Same client which can be themeable as well, native client instead of emulated so it will be faster, world of warcraft? no problem.
You see what im sayingg is we need an alternative battlenet client for linux.
Not an open source client, just a linux version off the windows client will do.
bNetD is good, i dont mind it, but honestly whats more important to a linux user, hosting servers for games, or actually playing them?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Let me see if I understand this correctly:
1. Don't include the check and you are circumventing a protection mechanism, which is illegal.
2. Include the check and you obviously reverse engineered the protection mechanism, which is illegal.
So is this a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Yes make friends with the bully, share code, get a battlenet client for linux thats open and allows us to write plugins to it and patches and improve on it while also keeping the licensed part of the client closed source.
Same as what secure rom and transgaming have done.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Ok, i got an idea:
;)
What if they put in CD-key verification support into BnetD? No one could say that they're circumventing anything, and it would be trivial for anyone with minimum C knowledge to comment that part of the code out at home.
If vivendi is bitching because they don't verify cd keys, they let's do it, add some key verification functions, call them from obvious, commented parts of the code and then maybe they'll understand why it isn't bnetd who they should be after, but the people who are really pirating their games. (price considerations apart...)
I just found one more reason to love opensource
cHALiTO
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
This doesn't make the bnetd project illegal, it makes what the War3 players are doing illegal. Bnetd doesn't advocate the use of illegal software, they just supply a great open source server for people to play Blizzard games on.
But one thing I haven't heard anything about is why would Bnetd do what they did?
Because every time they tried to spend 3 hours of free time playing Starcraft, 1.5 went into trying to get Blizzard's flakey services to allow the game to start. I quit playing Starcraft because of this.
Complaining that you want to play and that Bnet is down at the moment doesn't cut it with me.
Well, you're wrong. Battle.net is a good deal better lately, but I expect it will go to hell again when WCIII comes out, and it used to be a real PITA.
Not to mention the appeal of hosting semi-private servers, where you can invite all your friends but not the trolls, cheats, and lamers that infest battlenet.
I think bnetd can benefit blizzard if blizzard allows them to file bugs as well.
It is a protection mechanism. It's just that it's a protection mechanism that only covers one feature (multiplayer support) rather than the entire product. Since multiplayer support is a desireable feature of the product and bypassing the protection is difficult, it's also a fairly effective form of protection.
After reading the First Amended Complaint, I see a wrinkle nobody mentioned before. EULA violation. According to this, the EULA states (in section 11) that if they agreed to the EULA, they are forbidden from emulating the networking features of the games in question.
Also, according to section 17, they claim code theft because the BnetD emulator copies the results of a bug in the username/password authentication portion of battle.net. Well.. depends on the bug, but that doesn't necessarily state that they copied code from battle.net. They may have simply copied the protocol. Anyway, how did they get access to that code? Seems fishy to me.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
at http://www.bnetd.org/pdf/FirstAmendedComplaint.pdf
:D
:D
and i found nr 26 particulary funny
"defendants are also believed to have distributed the bnetd server code to third parties via the internet"
i had a good laugh.. no really.. the vivendi peeps are a funny bunch
[/i]Uh... they can't buy the game, it's not been released yet. So if they're playing WC3 on anything other than battle.net, they're not part of the beta, and are almost certainly playing a pirated copy.[/i]
They also [b]can't[/b] play the WC3 beta using bnetd. It does not support the beta for that every reason. Someone [b]else[/b] used the open source of bnetd to create another server software that would play the beta. You should at least read the news postings before you make arguments.
jello.
aka aron.
1 (arguable assumption): The CD-Key authentication as used to authenticate players of network games on servers owned by Vivendi is a protection mechanism within the definitions bounded by the DMCA
2 (provable fact): The BnetD server system does not utilize any CD-Key authentication.
3 (Conclusion 1:2): The BnetD server system circumvents a protection mechanism as defined by the DMCA
according to statutes that the EFF cites...
This is simply untrue. As an initial matter, it does not appear that Blizzard's CD-KEYS system controls access or copying within the meaning of 1201. Even assuming that Blizzard's CD-KEY system meets the requirements of the statute, 1201(c)(3) contains an unequivocal "no mandate" provision that ensures that no person is required to design software so that it responds to Blizzard's technological protection measures. It provides:
Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1).
This provision means that bnetd is not required to design its server software to implement your "key" system or other any other technological measures you might choose to place on Blizzard games.
and unless im mistaken, that would be the reason that Vivendi dropped this part of the lawsuit
Why is this illegal? Look at what happened with IBM's BIOS. It was perfectly legal because the engineers did not use any of the original code.
They should use one of those smart cameras to find out for sure.
This just says it all:
"Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit"
this is rediculous. better come and arrest me now - because if this type of crap continues i might go "GTA 3" on all these idiots we keep reading about (RIAA, MPAA, Vivendi blah blah)
"Why fight these guys? Instead, we should be workingg together to bring games to linux."
Read the interview before posting.
"P-T: what is your stance on making open source software illegal?
Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA."
This is apparently their view of Open Source, even if it's inaccurate. If you want to support Open Source, then don't bend over "working together" with them. Let's hope the boycott includes all piracy of their games, not just stop buying and start pirating.
You want games in Open Source platforms? How about creating awesome tools to create those games? Provide useful apps first because, as my friend pointed out, it's easier to build upon apps than to create new ideas for every new game; and the fact that games require more manpower to construct. Take your pick for making games: FPS, RTS, RPG, simulations, and a few other limited options.... Take your pick for making Production apps: Compiler with GUI, graphic (2D/3D/CAD/animation) tools, database, multimedia (audio/video/TV) editing tools, taxes/accounting, office, and many more.
Harder to use and lacking usefulness are good enough reasons for not migrating.
P-T: what is your stance on making open source software illegal?
Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA. Say what? The DMCA has NOTHING to do with either who uses the software or making a profit. Strike one. P-T: Why is Vivendi suing on the claims of making the BNetD software for money? It's open source, no one is making any money off of it.
Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit. If this is Vivendi's basis for a legal action, it will be thrown out as frivolous. You cannot successfully sue for damages based on your fears that the defendant may injure you in the future. Further, even if bnetd does decide to make a profit from the software that THEY developed that is not illegal as long as they did not commit any copyright infringement. Strike two. P-T: Is use of DMCA and attacking bnetd simply a publicity stunt to hype up Warcraft 3 before it's release? Were the supposed losses due to piracy used to justify the increased prices (compared to Diablo 2 regular and collector's edition) of Warcraft 3 regular version (from $30 to $50) and collector's edition (from $50 to $80)?
Vivendi Rep: No. We feel as though the intellectual property of the Battle.net coders has been stolen by the BNetD project. As far as I know, there are no publicity aspects involved in the suit against BNetD. It is a legal issue that needs to be cleared up and this is the way that we can do that. As far as I know, reverse engineering is still legal. The fact that the bnetd people created a product that emulates Battle Net does not constitute the theft of Blizzard's intellectual property. If it did, I would imagine that we would have one car company, one telephone company one maker of computers etc, etc, etc... Strike three, you're out!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
3 (Conclusion 1:2): The BnetD server system circumvents a protection mechanism as defined by the DMCA
um.. but they could always return with:
"yes the cd key auth is a mechanism to prevent people from playing pirated wc3 on battlenet, but bnetd is not battlenet, and it is not helping these people get on battlenet, so thus blizzard's servers are still free of wc3 pirates, and the protection from pirates remains effective on battlenet"
furthermore, if the argument that the key is meant to prevent pirates from playing online multiplayer versions of the game, its rendered pointless, since blizzard games can be played via tcp/ip for peer-to-peer play without using any CDkey auth..
period
and this, my friend, is why the EFF enters the ballgame.
do you think they'll pass up a chance to rule the DMCA unconstitutional?
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
For all who do not believe the validity of the interview, I'm sorry. It occurred at Woodberry Forest School in VA last night after the Vivendi Representative gave his speech. In order to get the interview from him, I made the promise that I would not disclose his name on the web. I have not yet done so. The reason for his appearing at our school was so that he could discuss online piracy of -any- form of entertainment--DVD, Music, Games, et al. However, please realize this: The representative is not a lawyer on the Vivendi v. BNetD case. He is legal counsel for the entire Vivendi Universal company, and the most involved that he has been in that case is when he assigned the lawyers to it. I have emailed him again, asking for more answers to questions that I had, but he said from the very beginning that he DOES NOT know all of the details regarding the case. As most of you should know, Vivendi is currently very busy with another legal issue revolving around the firing of the president of one of their French television stations. The BNetD case is not as big of an issue, and that is why some of these answers might seem a bit out of the ordinary. If you don't believe me now, I'm sorry. There will be follow ups to this interview, and I hope that many of you will find them helpful in the understanding of the Vivendi side of things. Regards, Paul Toms www.war3pub.net
Man I wish I worked at Vivendi and knew who this rep was. Then I could walk over to her desk and show her "look- everyone on the internet thinks what you wrote is too stupid to be true"!
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I just don't get this... this whole piece of code centers around the pirated copies and their users, allowing them to use an advertised feature of the original software that they didn't pay for illegally.
And why in the hell would anyone want to game in Linux...WINE sucks and the few Linux titles available are equivalent to DOS titles from 1993 or are 1-3 year old titles at release that everyone has played already. Yesh... get over it.
um buddy this did happen and it wasn't the mod chip, it's called Bleem! and was deemed perfectly legal by the courts. It was software that ran on a computer and played PSX games (essentially a commercial emulator)... I'm not sure about burns and imports though, but since it was running on PC hardware there probably wasn't much way for it to tell the difference, not sure though.
I really don't get why they're going after this so badly. I mean so many other companies have embraced the communities that come up around their games. They add tons of longevity to them, someone pointed out half-life which is a perfect example. People also still play quake and quake2 for god sake!! Why would they want to alienate their fans?? I guess blizzard is just another big company now, owned by an even bigger company, more concerned with the bottom line than actually caring about their products and customers. This sort of thing would never happen with an ID game I'm sure.
I can't possibly see how reverse engineering a protocol then writing an app to support that protocol is illegal. It's been stated that reverse engineering by packet sampling isn't illegal, so why is writing a program that supports it? I can understand the gripe that people are playing the war3 beta who shouldn't, but that's where my understanding of it ends. Blizzard and Vivendi are just pissed cause they're gonna lose ad revenue from b.net and the possibility of charging people for it in the future. Even if bentd did charge for it's software I still don't see how it would be illegal?
Good things never end "eum" they end in "MANIA" or "teria"
When is Linus going to sue Red Hat, and Mandrake for violation of the DMCA?
IANAL... But I play one on
Its revenue really. I don't hav any idea if it is profit or not.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Don't forget that the DMCA allows you to circumvent the copy protection of software and hardware in order to develop an inter-operable device or program. Also the DMCA specifically says that leaving out the copy protection of a device for inter-operability is *NOT* a violation of the DMCA. Nor is defeating/removing the copy protection in order to figure out how to make something inter-operable. Please note the 2 quotes below or read the entire law yourself at:
l #c hapter12
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/circ92.htm
DMCA Section 1201-bc3
"Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1)."
DMCA Section 1201-f
" Reverse Engineering.-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title."
Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.
Ok, so this means that Microsoft using the BSD networking code (open source) and making an immense profit is illegal under the DMCA? Cool!
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
I'm not sure how many of you have actually read the DMCA and know exactly what it does and doesn't allow. It seems a lot of people are confused and misunderstand what the DMCA does allow for projects like "The BNETD Project". The DMCA allows you to circumvent the copy protection of software and hardware in order to develop an inter-operable device or program. Also the DMCA specifically says that leaving out the copy protection of a device for inter-operability is *NOT* a violation of the DMCA. Nor is defeating/removing the copy protection in order to figure out how to make something inter-operable. Also note that the key sections of the DMCA require that either the primary purpose of the device be illegal and/or that it defeats the copy protection for profit. Neither of these statements are true of "The BNETD Project". Please note the 2 quotes below or read the entire law yourself at:
c hapter12
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/circ92.html#
DMCA Section 1201-bc3
"Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1)."
DMCA Section 1201-f
" Reverse Engineering.-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title."
There are currently 3 games that Vivendi/Sierra/Papyrus publishes that does exactly the same thing here: NASCAR Racing 4, NASCAR Racing 4 and NASCAR Racing 2002 Season. Each of these games has a built in matching server for listing player race servers, which is maintained by Papyrus, which does a CD check. BUT....one can also host a server through an IPX or a TCP/IP connection, and it never goes through a Papyrus server. Enter RaceServer, an Gamespy style app that not only lists Papyrus matching servers but helps facilitate IPX/TCP/IP connections. Should Papyrus pull their matching servers, players of these games could still find online raceing with RaceServer's client. It would (does) bypass the CD check that Vivendi is claiming so important in the Diablo case. Even without the RS client or a Papyrus matching server, TCP/IP races are still possible providing all the racers know the host's IP. Papyrus puts in official form the very thing their parent Vivendi is claiming foul against. There was also a 2nd client available for online racing specfically made for the NASCAR Racing 4 demo (yes the demo) called Internet Race Finder (IRF - mainly a NASCAR Heat GameSpy style app), since there was no online capability in that demo. I find this very ironic that it's "illegal" in Diablo to connect via IP with a 3rd party client, but yet it's sanctioned in the NASCAR games.
... Imagine if 20 years ago, Compaq had not been allowed to reverse-engineer the IBM PC BIOS. The worldwide economy would probably be a few trillion dollars poorer, and God only knows if we'd even have the WWW or ubiquitous home computers ...
Rediculous. Something else would have filled the evolutionary niche. The IBM PC compatible was the winner because it filled the niche first.
Alternatively, if the niche remained unfilled and there were numerous competing computer platforms, as in the early 80s, Apple vs. Atari vs. Commodore vs. IBM, why would spending have been reduced?
bnetd does NOT support WCIII Warforge, which is based on bnetd does.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
So my impression of the interview was that they're suing the bnetd guys because they /think/ that bnetd will profit from their work. (If I'm wrong, please post a response.)
/think/ that you might hit me on the head with it? Especially since, for the longest time, you've just been using it on nails.
If this is the case, then indeed, the entire lawsuit is ridiculous.
As an analogy, why don't I sue you because you bought a hammer, and that I
I'm making light of this, though I understand there is probably reasonable backing for this lawsuit. Sometimes though, spokespeople for lawyers can sound incredibly stupid.
I have loved every game from blizzard I have ever played, and this year, with my own net connection and my own copy of diablo II, I thought it was gonna be even more fun, i was WAY off.
It didnt take me long before i realized what a mess battlenet was, between all of the players who got alot of pleasure out of killing newbies, and all of the players trying to scam players out of their items, it wasn't fun for very long.
I got scammed pretty good one time, he said he had a way to dupe items and i was curious about it, even though i think cheats like that can ruin a game. i was pretty annoyed with the guy(i take games pretty seriously), even after he scammed me he was trying to get my account pass! (my hack didnt work! Give me your password and I can fix it! I wont steal your accout...i am not like that!) I didnt buy it and he fessed up and showed me my items in a trading window to taunt me.
Maybe I have lived a sheltered life or something, but I was surprised to see behavior like this. How could someone take so much pleasure out of tormenting others?
Bnetd sounds like an escape from the scammers and the player-killers and the hackers. If blizzard doesnt smarten up and start to take more aggressive actions against abusive players, people are just gonna keep on bringing up more bnetd servers, this will allow more and more players to play illegally.
The CD-Key issue is ACCESS protection, not coyp protection. The CD-Key is not what prevents me from copying the disc. it makes my copied disc (sans key) unusable for playing on their network.
Besides, don't you have to show that a device's sole purpose (or even pricinpal purpose) is to circumvent protections?
my responce on the boards indicated in this story. Assuming this interview is true and this is a VC representative, and noting that my beliefs are mine and not anyone elses i will now reply to this. P-T: what is your stance on making open source software illegal? Vivendi Rep: [b][i]If[/i] the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.[/b] This is the KEYWORD here IF.. nothing of this sort has happened with the Authors of bnetd, they are not making any profit from this it is OPEN SOURCE... P-T: Why is Vivendi suing on the claims of making the BNetD software for money? It's open source, no one is making any money off of it. Vivendi Rep: [b]The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit. [/b] You have to be kidding me? you are saying that you are basing a lawsuit off of a belief? So i believe that Microsoft will support pirated versions of Blizzard Games in the future releases.. from this respect we think you should SUE Microsoft? same thing here programmers using there OWN minds not making any profit or breaking any laws here are being sued on a belief that they "MAY" want to use this in the future? while your at it sue all the handgun owners in America because they "MAY" kill someone in 3.3 yrs. oh and dont forget to sue Blizzard for potentially looking at the opensource code and adding it into there own server.. you do know that commands inside the OpenSource server were there and then they Magically appeared inside the real one right? maybe the courts should look into this aspect .. you know a major corporation using GPL code and not adhering to the liscense is probably a bad thing
all the things i just mentioned are based on "IFs" ... and as you can see they all look as reputable as the one from the interview.
P-T: Is use of DMCA and attacking bnetd simply a publicity stunt to hype up Warcraft 3 before it's release? Were the supposed losses due to piracy used to justify the increased prices (compared to Diablo 2 regular and collector's edition) of Warcraft 3 regular version (from $30 to $50) and collector's edition (from $50 to $80)?
Vivendi Rep: No. We feel as though the intellectual property of the Battle.net coders has been stolen by the BNetD project. As far as I know, there are no publicity aspects involved in the suit against BNetD. It is a legal issue that needs to be cleared up and this is the way that we can do that.
First of all the DMCA stuff was dropped. They are now claiming Patent infringment.. basically saying that there property was stolen..
BUT the law says that you may reverse engineer for purposes of interoperability. The coders NEVER saw the battle.net code.. unless they are claiming that they broke into there systems.. Basically their claim is that since there is a bug in the code in there server AND in BNETD they must have copied it. But this is obviously not the case..
The method of reproducing the code was by taking network traffic (TCP DUMPS) and painstakingly reconstructing every single message that battle.net gives back EVERY ONE.. the point here being that if battle.net sends a message because of a bug then you would hope that if the BNETD coders are doing a good job then they will also do this. there claim here is not at all a good one and makes them look like they opened there mouths before thinking.
P-T: Did Blizzard/Vivendi ever consider purchasing bnetd and fsgs technology as a way to improve and lessen the load off their b.net servers?
Vivendi Rep: I don't know. It's a possibility.
The question here is will BNETD sell? the answer is NO its Open source .. even if they buy it the code that is GPL is legally usable by anyone and can still be maintained. infact im not sure but i think that unless released under a different liscence .. when buying it they would have to release ALL changes to the code.. that is IF you can buy GPL code?
P-T: What do you think about the attempted hiring of a successful cracker of the Warcraft III Beta by Blizzard?
Vivendi Rep: Hiring your largest threat is one easy way to get rid of the threat of piracy.
Nothing to do with BNETD .. this project is totally different..
BNETD OPENLY refused to begin work on this part of the server until final release.. like they have done on all projects. They are obviosly going after the wrong people but think there money will make this fact not be an issue.
P-T: What positive outcomes (for the gaming community and product development) do they expect to achieve by pursuing the lawsuit?
Vivendi Rep: We feel the restrictions against the theft of intellectual property will be cleared up in this suit, and will lead to a more clear idea of what is and what isn't internet piracy for the general public. In general, Blizzard is being used as a "first time" suit for this kind of piracy, and we want the public to understand that what is going on with the BNetD project cannot be done without legal ramifications under the DMCA.
Theft of intellectual property? what a crock.. the BNETD coders thought of how to program this just like the Blizzard ones.. they used the messages to see what to send BUT the code is all thought you cant just set down and look at the message and write a server without heavy thought process .. and if you think you can i challenge you to do so..
Again the DMCA is referenced.. yet the actual lawsuit says copyright stuff nothing about hte DMCA... second of all piracy has a definition.. look it up.. reproducing code from a network dump for interoperability is NOT one of them..
if they are refereing to Copied games being played on the BNETD servers then my answer is this
what about KALI.. they distro'd it with early games.. same thing there.. what about other links .. FSGS was a link on the site from Blizzard for a while. What about the fact that they allow multi-player action on IPX or LAN w/o cdkey checking? ..they make it sound like BNETD is the bad guy here.. the cdkey thing is totally invalid they provide ways to play w/o the cd-key checking so how can BNETD be the source of all of its loss of revenue due to supposed copied games? infact.. MOST people that copy it play it on a LAN at college.. yet there is NO cd-key check there..
the BNETD site, support and coders have NEVER condoned copying hte games .. the developers OWN copies of the games.. hell even Warcraft II BNE .. and that is a waste of money.
P-T: Do you feel that the huge number of pirated Blizzard games will hurt BNetD in the court cases?
Vivendi Rep: Yes. The fact that it is not only pirated server software but also pirated game software will do nothing but hurt BNetD in the courts.
So are they going to take into account the number of LAN games that are pirated? .. NO why you say? well because you cannot keep tabs on that.. just like you cannot keep tabs on our servers.. Blizzard has NO CLUE what number of people play the game on BNETD with pirated games.. hell probably more play on BLIZZARD with pirated games and cd-key generators when they get a bad key.. they just generate a new one and play again.
---------------
There it is. I feel as though I got a few good answers out of him, and I hope that this helps to answer any possible questions that you all might have. My impression is that Vivendi really doesn't know as much about the dirty details of the situation, and they are filing suit on a truly legal basis. Once again, I hope this helped, and I am hoping to get some answers from the same representative over email.
my responce on the boards indicated in this story. sorry the other post messed up so i hit a lot of returns.. to lazy to take out all the tags from theother forum
.. you know a major corporation using GPL code and not adhering to the liscense is probably a bad thing
... and as you can see they all look as reputable as the one from the interview.
.. even if they buy it the code that is GPL is legally usable by anyone and can still be maintained. infact im not sure but i think that unless released under a different liscence .. when buying it they would have to release ALL changes to the code.. that is IF you can buy GPL code?
.. this project is totally different..
.. and if you think you can i challenge you to do so..
.. FSGS was a link on the site from Blizzard for a while. What about the fact that they allow multi-player action on IPX or LAN w/o cdkey checking? ..they make it sound like BNETD is the bad guy here.. the cdkey thing is totally invalid they provide ways to play w/o the cd-key checking so how can BNETD be the source of all of its loss of revenue due to supposed copied games? infact.. MOST people that copy it play it on a LAN at college.. yet there is NO cd-key check there..
.. the developers OWN copies of the games.. hell even Warcraft II BNE .. and that is a waste of money.
.. NO why you say? well because you cannot keep tabs on that.. just like you cannot keep tabs on our servers.. Blizzard has NO CLUE what number of people play the game on BNETD with pirated games.. hell probably more play on BLIZZARD with pirated games and cd-key generators when they get a bad key.. they just generate a new one and play again.
Assuming this interview is true and this is a VC representative, and noting that my beliefs are mine and not anyone elses i will now reply to this.
P-T: what is your stance on making open source software illegal?
Vivendi Rep: [b][i]If[/i] the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.[/b]
This is the KEYWORD here IF.. nothing of this sort has happened with the Authors of bnetd, they are not making any profit from this it is OPEN SOURCE...
P-T: Why is Vivendi suing on the claims of making the BNetD software for money? It's open source, no one is making any money off of it.
Vivendi Rep: [b]The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit. [/b]
You have to be kidding me? you are saying that you are basing a lawsuit off of a belief?
So i believe that Microsoft will support pirated versions of Blizzard Games in the future releases.. from this respect we think you should SUE Microsoft?
same thing here programmers using there OWN minds not making any profit or breaking any laws here are being sued on a belief that they "MAY" want to use this in the future?
while your at it sue all the handgun owners in America because they "MAY" kill someone in 3.3 yrs.
oh and dont forget to sue Blizzard for potentially looking at the opensource code and adding it into there own server.. you do know that commands inside the OpenSource server were there and then they Magically appeared inside the real one right? maybe the courts should look into this aspect
all the things i just mentioned are based on "IFs"
P-T: Is use of DMCA and attacking bnetd simply a publicity stunt to hype up Warcraft 3 before it's release? Were the supposed losses due to piracy used to justify the increased prices (compared to Diablo 2 regular and collector's edition) of Warcraft 3 regular version (from $30 to $50) and collector's edition (from $50 to $80)?
Vivendi Rep: No. We feel as though the intellectual property of the Battle.net coders has been stolen by the BNetD project. As far as I know, there are no publicity aspects involved in the suit against BNetD. It is a legal issue that needs to be cleared up and this is the way that we can do that.
First of all the DMCA stuff was dropped. They are now claiming Patent infringment.. basically saying that there property was stolen..
BUT the law says that you may reverse engineer for purposes of interoperability. The coders NEVER saw the battle.net code.. unless they are claiming that they broke into there systems.. Basically their claim is that since there is a bug in the code in there server AND in BNETD they must have copied it. But this is obviously not the case..
The method of reproducing the code was by taking network traffic (TCP DUMPS) and painstakingly reconstructing every single message that battle.net gives back EVERY ONE.. the point here being that if battle.net sends a message because of a bug then you would hope that if the BNETD coders are doing a good job then they will also do this. there claim here is not at all a good one and makes them look like they opened there mouths before thinking.
P-T: Did Blizzard/Vivendi ever consider purchasing bnetd and fsgs technology as a way to improve and lessen the load off their b.net servers?
Vivendi Rep: I don't know. It's a possibility.
The question here is will BNETD sell? the answer is NO its Open source
P-T: What do you think about the attempted hiring of a successful cracker of the Warcraft III Beta by Blizzard?
Vivendi Rep: Hiring your largest threat is one easy way to get rid of the threat of piracy.
Nothing to do with BNETD
BNETD OPENLY refused to begin work on this part of the server until final release.. like they have done on all projects. They are obviosly going after the wrong people but think there money will make this fact not be an issue.
P-T: What positive outcomes (for the gaming community and product development) do they expect to achieve by pursuing the lawsuit?
Vivendi Rep: We feel the restrictions against the theft of intellectual property will be cleared up in this suit, and will lead to a more clear idea of what is and what isn't internet piracy for the general public. In general, Blizzard is being used as a "first time" suit for this kind of piracy, and we want the public to understand that what is going on with the BNetD project cannot be done without legal ramifications under the DMCA.
Theft of intellectual property? what a crock.. the BNETD coders thought of how to program this just like the Blizzard ones.. they used the messages to see what to send BUT the code is all thought you cant just set down and look at the message and write a server without heavy thought process
Again the DMCA is referenced.. yet the actual lawsuit says copyright stuff nothing about hte DMCA... second of all piracy has a definition.. look it up.. reproducing code from a network dump for interoperability is NOT one of them..
if they are refereing to Copied games being played on the BNETD servers then my answer is this
what about KALI.. they distro'd it with early games.. same thing there.. what about other links
the BNETD site, support and coders have NEVER condoned copying hte games
P-T: Do you feel that the huge number of pirated Blizzard games will hurt BNetD in the court cases?
Vivendi Rep: Yes. The fact that it is not only pirated server software but also pirated game software will do nothing but hurt BNetD in the courts.
So are they going to take into account the number of LAN games that are pirated?
---------------
There it is. I feel as though I got a few good answers out of him, and I hope that this helps to answer any possible questions that you all might have. My impression is that Vivendi really doesn't know as much about the dirty details of the situation, and they are filing suit on a truly legal basis. Once again, I hope this helped, and I am hoping to get some answers from the same representative over email.
Yes, except... not.
there is also a tcp/ip option that blizzard put into diablo2 that could be used to bypass the cd key check.
We "feel" as though the intellectual property of the Battle.net coders has been stolen
The basis upon this charge lies on the "idea" that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit
so wheres the facts?
surely a case lacking in evidence would be thrown out. surely...
It seems to me that Vivendi is trying to prevent the bnetd project from ever earning any money as a result of their efforts by denying them every right to use their work - even for noncommercial purposes.
Is this kind of approach at all legal? I'm not even to interested in what might be the state of affairs if bnetd some day did become for-profit, but is it even possible to sue them as long as they're not?
IANAL, and so I'm lost in confusion.
The poster claims this is 'Kind of like arresting someone because they might get in a car accident 10 years down the road '. What? What are you on? So the reason it's not okay to sue over this is that it's jumping the gun, and suing before bnet has done something wrong????? Well no, why on earth would bnet making money be wrong / illegal / criminal.
I can completely understand why we might legislate against people driving if they were going to have an accident in 10 years time (though this would be a dreadful idea, except that:) and in a way this is exactly what requiring driving licences is about. But that's totally different to letting people sue to prevent someone else making money in future. Obviously.
(-1, drunken rambling)
The protection mechanism covers connecting to battle.net, a tcp/ip based game brokering service.
I can play multiplayer starcraft via IPX, Serial or Modem without connecting to battle.net. I believe I can play over the net via kali too.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
All that says is that they believe making a bug-compatible reimplementation of their server is beyond the ability of a non-commercial third party. "They couldn't possibly have copied this bug without copying our code!"
That could actually be a valid point--much as the way dictionary authors (supposedly) put intentional errors in their dictionaries so they can prove violation of copyright if someone tries to copy the dictionary. ("So tell me, just where did you get the definition for `bloofargle' from?") Of course, how effective that is depends on what kind of bug it is, and if it's something that's apparent from the behavior of the program, then it would be reasonable to expect bnetd to be able to duplicate it. But "they have the same bug we do" isn't on its face an invalid or "lame" complaint.
Actually, there are several other programs that do the same as bnetd, except for one thing, they were not useable for the warcraft 3 beta, which is why bnetd is getting kicked so hard....
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
you need CD key for tcp/ip play.
this is, after all the whole reason bnetd was created. to help those who are dissatisfied with battle.net. people shouldnt be forced to use blizzards gaming service or lose the features of battle.net to not play on it (TCP/IP mode). bnetd was not created to make a profit or take money from 'Viv. ud have to look for it to know about bnetd so theres no way the average customer would think bnetd is a blizzard product, thus disposing the trademark claims. they did not "steal code" from blizzard and if those bliz programmers really think it would be "impossible" to packet sniff their programs they are on drugs. no bliz code stolen, so no copyrights violated. its not for profit, its not violating any copyright law, the DMCA, its not violating trademarks, and the program was created using legal packet sniffing techniques. I think i just disposed of all of vivendis primary claims.
wth are you talking about.? they never gave their encryption codes to them, and they probably never will. they said in a phon conversation with Tim Jung that it was "out of the question."
we've already discussed this. you cant sue someone for something they MIGHT do later down the road.
but with warcraft 3, D2 and later on World of Warcraft, your only non-bnet option for play is direct tcp-ip without the features of bnet.