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.
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
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.
?
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)
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
...but bnetd does thus facilitate infringement, bypassing an "effective" technological access protection method without the authorization of the copyright holder, which puts it squarely in DMCA land. It might make an interesting test case, actually.
Blizzard is under no obligation to provide a CD authentication service for bnetd, even if that would mean that bnetd became completely legit and even if that boosted sales significantly due to more people being able to play. For one thing, they probably don't want one non-Blizzard server getting large numbers of submitted CD keys; for another, the authentication scheme might be useful for a key generator, depending on how sparse the set of valid keys is. 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.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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
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!
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?
Put it into the context of the discussion. This is about bnetd not about httpd (or other OSS). :) The question was poorly worded to get a rise out of open source supporters and muddy the water even more. Personally I feel Blizzard does have the right to protect their games. They might not be doing it in the best way this time around but I'd almost bet that the problems this has caused them this time around will be taken care of in their next game.
For now let Blizzard do what they're doing. It's good for the game industry. How you ask? Take a look at Diablo II and its Battle.net problems. People know Battle.net is full of problems. People know gamers want control and the ability to run their own servers. Blizzard is fighting these folks tooth and nail with bnetd. Enter the competition, Gas Powered Games and BioWare with two Diablo-like RPG's where players can host thier own servers and build their own worlds. We've already seen GPG's early success with Dungeon Siege. Once players can start cranking out their Siegelets Diablo II will start fading from Battlenet. Blizzard will have to either compete by developing similar technology or hold to their guns with their next RPG and stick with a briken battlenet. In my opinion this is all good.
As for the bnetd folks, it's too bad that they put so much time and effort in and few will be able to use bnetd. However, they have done something really good and that is they've made people in the industry rethink what they were doing. Maybe it is in Blizzards best interest to work with bnetd to get the community something they want, an alternative to battlenet, and still protect their vision of a beta that ends so people will buy WarCraft III or not play with cracks.
Their lawsuit to stop bnetd will probably do more damage to themselves as they are basically going after their most hardcore customers. This will be a lesson learned for them and others in the industry to build game that are more open. All you have to do is look at Halflife to see how a game that is open can thrive and still sell copies years after releases of that same time period are in the $4.99 bargain bins.
'Same speed C but faster'
IP is a different story. I can't take Stephen King's latest novel, touch it up, and sell it under a very similar name and try to profit off of it. That's where the problem is.
Goods, services, IP, and software are all very different interrelated things.
What?
Offtopic: Ummm I do arrest people who might get in a car accident 10 years from now... most people refer to this as "getting a ticket" many of you may have experienced it first hand... I turn on the blue lights, you pull over, I inform you wich of the rules of the road you just violated and about 50% of the time I issue a citation. Why? because the areas I go to write citations in are the same places I work a lot of wrecks in and the more agressive we get in one area the number of wrecks go down for a while.
Back on topic: The same is true with Blizzard to an extent - they want to get a ruling in their favor now. Its a bit of a slippery sloap argument - if they let Bnet operate for free they could have a hard time in the future going after someone who is trying to make a profit.
While I personally think clean room reverse eng. is a good thing (and leagal) I understand their desire to act against what they see as a violation.
You can file suit against anybody for anything at any time you want. That doesn't mean you're going to win the suit.
To me it would appear as if this case is based on creating precedent rather than anything else. Just read what it says;
"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."
I've speculated in the past that Vivendi-Universal wants to start charging for battle.net access. Some people have scoffed at this, but I really don't think it's that far off. It could be some kind of subscription based on minutes spent on battle.net or some feature based billing. Say that every game comes with 600 free minutes to try battle.net out, after which one needs to pay $29.99 or some other Vivendi-esque fee for monthly access. Or perhaps $49.99 for a Gold account which gives you the ability to host a game..?
If bnetd was to exist and allow people to play for free; it could make a real dent in Vivendi's plans. Think about it... If Vivendi really doesn't plan on charging for battle.net, why in the world would they be scared that bnetd would? It would seem to me that people would go with the free service (battle.net) rather than the "rogue" bnetd.
There are a lot of things that don't make sense here. I hope that a court would throw the case out on the grounds that Vivendi is speculating on something that hasn't happened yet and may never happen.
The claim that bnetd will be hurt because it allows "pirated" copies to be played sounds equally dubious to me. Has Vivendi published numbers that are indisputable that show exactly how many copies are pirated and played on bnetd? How have they come to this conclusion other than assumption?
When big corporations get scared they either try to buy the competition or sue them to stone age.
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
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.
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.
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.
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
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.