Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blizzard Amends Complaint ... Again

Posted by timothy on from the sure-why-not dept.

Patersmith writes "From bnetd.org: Blizzard has amended their compliant again, adding what looks like possible DMCA claims, and adding Rob Crittenden, Wi Yang, and others as defendants. Originally it was thought that the courts would refuse to allow them to add anymore people to the lawsuit since Blizzard/Vivendi missed one of their serving deadlines, but the courts allowed them an exception to add additional defendants. Click here for the full scoop."

15 comments

  1. I'm confused... by Hell+O'World · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is the complaint compliant?

  2. Very Important Lawsuit by bwt · · Score: 5, Informative


    Folks this is a very important lawsuit. Bnetd is challenging BOTH the enforcability of "no reverse engineering" clauses AND the constitutionality of the DMCA on First Amendment grounds. Moreover, this lawsuit is happening in Missouri District Court, which is in the 8th Circuit, rather than the 2nd, which is known for its pro-copyright holder judicial activism (as we saw).

    I hope that this case will get the attention it deserves here on slashdot.

    1. Re:Very Important Lawsuit by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It might get more attention if the Slashdot story provided a link to a summary of the case. Odd as it may seem, there _are_ Slashdot readers who don't know who Blizzard and Bnetd are or why the are in court.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Very Important Lawsuit by addaon · · Score: 2

      I know Blizzard is a game company. Who's BNETD?

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    3. Re:Very Important Lawsuit by bwt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is the EFF's blurb about the background of the case.

      Here is the full document archive. In particular the counterclaims document there is very interesting (skip over all the item-by-item responses -- the juicy stuff is at the end).

    4. Re:Very Important Lawsuit by Alsee · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know Blizzard is a game company. Who's BNETD?

      The parent poser was an idiot, that is a perfectly reasonable question. The only reason I ever heard of BNETD was for reading one or two stories here on slashdot.

      In a nutshell BNETD is creating a program that works just like the Battlenet servers. There are several perfectly good and legal uses for their program. If anyone doubts that I'm sure the BNETD site can give more and better justifacations then I can.

      Creating a program to be compatile with another program has a long and important history, and has been upheld as perfectly legal. If BNETD loses it could cause tremendous damage to software development. For one thing it could entrench the Microsoft monopoly much further.

      One of the reasons Blizzard is trying to shutdown BNETD is that Battlenet verifies the CD key copyprotection, so some people could play unlicenced copies of games using BNETD. The thing is that Blizzard has aready shot themselves in the foot on this issue. The people making BNETD LIKE Blizzard games, and therefore they like Blizzard-the-company. They wanted to design BNETD to enforce the CD key protection to block illegal copies of games, but Blizzard blocked them.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  3. stalling tactics by Shymon · · Score: 3, Funny

    maybe if they confuse people enough they'll think they are guilty of something....even if they don't exactly know what

  4. This case could have a huge impact. by Alsee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IANAL

    Defense's response.

    If defendants win the 5th Affirmative Defence then Blizzard would lose it's relevant copyrights. Sounds like this would effectively put some of their stuff into the public domain.

    It looks like winning on the 14th Affirmative Defence would strike down part of the DMCA as unconstitutional. This is also counterclaim 3.

    Winning counterclaim 4 would declare EULA's worthless.

    On the other hand if if Blizzard wins it is a major threat to reverse engineering, emulation, interoperability, and fair-use.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  5. If you buy a Blizzard product, ... by LordNimon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    then please make a donation, of an amount equal to the cost of the product, to the EFF, with a statement that you want the funds to go to the Bnetd lawsuit. That way, you can enjoy your Blizzard product and have a clear conscience.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  6. hmm I wonder... by shaitand · · Score: 2, Interesting

    could you implement copy protection in a virus and make it punishable under the DMCA for anti-virus software to circumvent it?

    1. Re:hmm I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try reading the DMCA. They considered that.

  7. Loons by hessian · · Score: 1

    Soon nothing will exist without being "owned," and not in the 0\/\//\/3> sense. Owned like capital, stock certificates, and "rights" that means anyone doing anything slightly similar must bend over for the iron glove of pleasure through pain.

    --
    Futurist Traditionalism
  8. Boycott blizzard games! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop buying any blizzard games! Let them know this way that we do not accept this "scare the little guy" attitude.