Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Q&A With Vivendi Rep About Bnetd

Posted by Hemos on from the judged-for-crimes-not-yet-committed dept.

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. "

4 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. I'll tell you something by Delrin · · Score: 5, Interesting


    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.

  2. maybe I'm crazy ... by karb · · Score: 5, Interesting
    didn't vivendi drop any pretense of a DMCA violation and stick to traditional copyright violations? About everything else the "vivendi rep" says is legally questionable, and seemingly unrelated to vivendi's actual positions, or at least as I understood them.

    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

  3. I don't believe the article at all. by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    WHOOP WHOOP! (Sound of crap detector going off)

    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 /.? 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.

    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.

  4. The DMCA prosecution (if targetted) is Vivendi's by RalphTWaP · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.