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
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.
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 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)
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.
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
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!
So they forgot to ask whether Vivendi is using orc lawyers or human lawyers
-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...
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'
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?
...because Orcs would never stoop so low.
All about me
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
This way bnetd would get control over blizzard's games.
How so? This is just a server we're talking about, a means to facillitate communication between what are essentially fat clients.
bnetd can't do anything, as they have no way of supplying (or creating) updates to the software being used by the end users. Blizzard will still retain complete control over that, no matter who writes the server software.
It is a good idea, and has been brought up on the boards over and over.
/. spend the dosh to do it when the users do it for free?
But.... people always manage to post the text of the article in the forum. Well, almost always, but close enough. Why would
-------------------------------------------------
Kit car companys do this all the time. Well maybe not volkswagon, but you can buy an AC Corbra and lot more. I don't see Carroll Shelby using the DMCA to sue these companys in to oblivion.
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.
Acting fast is only important in trademark disputes. If you don't actively defent your trademark, you can easily lose it. Other intellectual property rights aren't handled like this, and thus you can act 10 years down the road and still have a chance of winning.
In fact, that's been a common thing to do lately. Get people using your IP for free/cheap/etc by not prosecuting pirates until such time as you're so deeply entrenched in the market that you can begin the prosecution phase, win, and get even more money.
No. You don't get it. The whole point of bnetd is so that people can play Blizzard multiplayer games without connecting to Blizzard's server. bnetd doesn't have anything to do with playing Blizzard games on Linux.
And there is no reason for Transgaming to make a Linux version of Battle.net (or Battle.net client code). If Transgaming gets the Windows binaries of Blizzard games running under WineX, then those clients will be able to connect to Battle.net.
Then you're the idiot.
The code for BNetD is SERVER CODE. It has nothing to do with the games that are played. All the games are STILL Windows-based.
People would still connect to blizzards server!
Then who would care? The point here is NOT to connect to Blizzard's servers, but to be able to host our own.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Actually, if blizzard doesn't find that agreement to their liking, it's because they're fully aware of the fact that the code's been GPLed, and although they can issue any new code under a new license, the code that's already out there is, well, already out there.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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)
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.
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!
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.
It doesn't matter. I am not responsible for what the users of my programs do with those programs. Bnetd was *not* written to allow warcraft 3 beta to be played illegally. Blizzard is being a bunch of greedy fucks, and that is the only reason that they are doing this. They *will* begin charging for Battle.net access as soon as they think they have gotten rid of the free alternative.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
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
Rich
If it is, how does Google get away with it?
There are a lot of interesting and semi-compellling arguments posted here going both ways. Most here seem to side with Bnetd. But one thing I haven't heard anything about is why would Bnetd do what they did? What is the purpose of setting up alternate Bnet services? Perhaps in a legal sense this doesn't matter in the slightest, but as you all know, legalities don't always give a clear compass of right and wrong.
/. posts (usually accompanied by half a dozen exclamation points and no real content) hasn't fully rubbed off on me yet.
Could it be that Bnetd intends to make money off of stolen code? It seems likely that they will try to make money at some point if what they are doing is popular. But we don't know the code was stolen. maybe it wasn't. In either case they haven't tried to make money yet so it's moot.
Could it be that the original goal, the purpose of Bnetd was to allow people to play pirated games? I rather think it was. The only reason I can think of to play on Bnetd rather than genuine Bnet is the ol' "I don't have a valid CD key" reason. (Complaining that you want to play and that Bnet is down at the moment doesn't cut it with me.) Or maybe you just want to cheat in the game and it's easier to do at Bnetd - or that there are no consequences for doing it.
Anyway, I have a hard time seeing any reasoning behind Bnetd that I'd be willing to really "get behind" and defend. Perhaps I am missing something. No doubt two dozen impolite people will attempt to enlighten me as soon as I click the "Submit" button.
I do understand Blizzards position. They don't want people to steal thier games. They want to maintain some level of control over their creation.
I leave the legalities to the lawyers, I guess. But legalities asside I'm having a hard time faulting Blizzard and a hard time siding with Bnetd.
Maybe the "information wants to be free!", pseudo-libertarian, "bring down The Man" ethos that one finds in may
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
Kit car: Real car. Like, you get in it and drive around. You just have to build the thing yourself. Not plastic models, but $15,000 piles of metal parts. =)
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
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
No, it's like arresting someone for speeding because they might cause an accident.
Good thing people don't get arrested for this reason, eh? Speeding itself is illegal, and that's why you get charged for it. As to WHY speeding is illegal, that's irrelevant here.
There would have to be a law in place that says "the potential to make money off someone else's work is hereby illegal" in order for Vivendi's claims to hold any water. Which, to my knowledge, we don't have (yet).
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
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
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.
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.
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
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)
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!"
Lame doesn't even begin to describe their legal complaint.
iSKUNK!
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...
But thats EXACTLY what it is! "well, we're suing them because they MIGHT profit from it down the road!"
First of all, I think that it's highly unlikely that Blizzard will learn anything from other games that are out there. Their history simply doesn't support that conclusion. There are plenty of third-person perspective RPGs in the world, many of which have features that would make Diablo II an absolute joy to play. How about being able to bind more skills/spells to hotkeys? How about being able to zoom in and out? How about being able to rotate your view so you can actually see behind the fscking walls? Every one of these is a feature of Diablo style games that came out a year or more before Diablo II, and yet Blizzard learned nothing from them. Instead they put out the exact same game as Diablo I with slightly upgraded graphics and a slightly different storyline, just as they have with Warcraft/Starcraft.
As you point out, Halflife has been out for years, and yet Blizzard has obviously learned nothing from it's mind-boggling success and longevity.
I have to admit, though, that I've had a low opinion of Blizzard ever since their (totally ineffective) copy protection prevented me from being able to run my (completely legal) copy of D2 from my DVD drive, thus forcing me to deal with the painfully long load times from my aged 4x8x CD-R (that's right, no RW. It's that old). Their response? Basically "Uh, sorry". When the LoD expansion came out, I discovered it had the same problem.
I don't mind copy protection as long as it doesn't interfere with the use of a legally purchased product. I don't even mind having to put the CD in the drive even though I generally do a full install. But when the product won't work on my hardware for no apparent reason other than flawed copy protection? That's irritating.
Sorry about the rant. I'll move on now.
My second point is that the bnetd people haven't done anything illegal, unless Blizzard is claiming ownership of packets moving through my network. Reverse engineering of protocols is still legal. If Blizzard had let the bnetd guys look at their server source code, or if the bnetd guys had somehow obtained a copy and perhaps decompiled it, then I would see Blizzards point. That isn't the case though. All the bnetd guys did was inspect packets travelling through their own networks to reverse engineer the protocols, and then create a work-alike server. All of this is completely legal, and, since none of Blizzards actual code is used, in no way infringes Blizzards copyrights.
At best Blizzard could have claims under Trade Secret laws or perhaps Patent law if they patented their protocols. Under Copyright I frankly don't see how they have a leg to stand on, and therefore I must conclude that Blizzard is depending on the fact that the bnetd developers won't have enough money to defend themselves. In otherwords, they are using bully tactics to supress something that is perfectly legal.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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."
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.
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?
You'd have to replace "use" with "distribute" too. Anyone can use GPL software, if they can get it.
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
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.