EFF Continues Fight On Blizzard Vs. Bnetd Case

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a Boing Boing post discussing the continuing conflict between Blizzard Software and the makers of bnetd, linking to the latest EFF-authored court documents (PDF) in a continuing legal battle over "the free bnetd software that emulates Blizzard's free Battle.net gaming service." Boing Boing argues of the EFF's new documents: "The prose here positively sings, and is as good a treatise on fair-use reverse engineering as you could hope to read", going on to quote their argument that "...the dissimilarity between the 'BATTLE.NET' and 'bnetd project' marks alone warrants summary judgment for the Defendants on Blizzard's Count III. Also weighing heavily in Defendants' favor is the fact that Blizzard has still failed to come forward with any admissible evidence of actual customer confusion." We've previously covered this long-running legal battle on several occasions. In related news, other readers point out a $1.2 million bequest to the EFF from the estate of Leonard Zubkoff "to establish the EFF Endowment Fund for Digital Civil Liberties."

Comments

blizzard online??

[Mantorp]

I'm confused, don't they sell those at DQ? Let's sue.

I'm with the AC above

[ObviousGuy]

Who cares?

This is probably the least important thing the EFF could be doing with donation money. Scratch that. The silly Flash cartoon game that shows users how to fileswap without breaking copyright law is the least important. But this is the least important fight they needed to take up.

I also find this indicative of the types of cases that the EFF takes up. If you look over the cases that they've litigated over the past several years, all the cases are essentially prima facie decideable on the side that the EFF takes up. They never fight the fight on the side that looks to lose. There are hundreds of people getting squeezed by the RIAA for filesharing and the EFF all of a sudden has short arms to match their deep pockets.

I wish I could believe that the EFF was fighting for electronic rights, but they are nothing more than tag-a-long lawyers ready to jump into a winning battle than dedicated visionaries ready to fight the good fight.

Re:I'm with the AC above

[belmolis]

There's a good reason that the EFF isn't mounting a campaign against the RIAA: some of the RIAA's tactics may be scummy, and the penalties provided by the law excessive, but they're basically in the right. People who post and download copyrighted songs that they haven't already purchased in another format without the copyright holder's permission are in fact infringing valid copyrights. The purpose of the EFF is to defend civil liberties on-line, not the "right" to rip-off and distribute other people's property.

Re:I'm with the AC above

[Anonymous Coward]

You could take that (cynical, IMHO) view. Or you could say they're making the most efficient use of the monies so graciously donated to them. Or you could say they're establishing positive precedents, thus reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits.

Re:I'm with the AC above

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously are the AC above.

Re:I'm with the AC above

[kfg]

During the occupation of France during WWII the French resistence was made up largely of two camps. The young "hot heads" who wanted to "do something," and the older gentlemen who advised a studious caution.

The young hotheads most often got themselves killed while accomplishing nothing.

As I recall there was one group of 40 to 70 year olds, mostly farmers, who managed to tie up an entire division of the German army chasing them for the duration of the war without suffering a single loss on their part.

When one's resources are limited one is perhaps best advised to pursue that resistence in which one is likely to prevail. In fact Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. defined the role of the lawyer as being predictive of success.

The proper place to tilt at legal windmills is in the legislatures, not the courts.

Nor is this case a trivial one with regards to digital rights. At stake is whether a publisher has the right to tell you how you can play a game which you legally have license to play. More and more game publishers seem to be looking to charge you to play a game after you purchase it to further fill their coffers.

This could be a legal landmark case.

KFG

Re:I'm with the AC above

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you look over the cases that they've litigated over the past several years, all the cases are essentially prima facie decideable on the side that the EFF takes up.

I think you're exaggerating quite a lot there. However, even if that's the case... uh, what's the problem, exactly?

Many of the most unjust civil cases are where a big deep-pocketed company sues the little guy over rights they don't really have. The little guy can't afford to fight a big legal war, so is forced to settle on the big company's terms. If the little guy could afford to fight there'd be no problem.

That's where legal groups like the EFF, ACLU, etc can make a big difference -- by not only winning these cases but acting as a deterent against any other would-be plantifs.

It'd be nice if we had the "loser-pays" legal system of, say, the UK but we don't. People like the EFF are the best defence we have against these kinds of lawsuits.

Now go give them a bunch of your money :-)

Re:I'm with the AC above

[btempleton]

Excuse me? We never fight the fight on the side that looks to lose?

My god, I wish that were true. Do you know nothing about the EFF? I guess I should be thrilled that our PR is so good that some people remember only our victories. Obviously we don't like to trumpet our losses, but I am still baffled by this charge. We spent near a million dollars -- an amount equivalent to our annual budget just a few years ago -- losing the 2600 DeCSS case, a very hard case which we took on because it had to be fought, and a case based on the same principles of defending reverse engineering that are deemed unimportant by the above "insightful" posting.

I will have to relay that "we always" win sentiment down to the lawyers in the trenches. It will cheer them up, at least until they stop laughing.

Plus don't get the idea that the EFF has anything remotely close to deep pockets. Quite the reverse. As you may have missed in the note, the donation was put into an ENDOWMENT. This means it will be invested, and the earnings from the investment can be used to fund our battles. The million dollar donation is extremely generous, and I hope that others might remember us in their wills (or even better, beforehand) in this way, but it is an endowment, not operating money to give us deep pockets.

Please, actually learn about the EFF and its history before making ludicrous claims like these.

Re:I'm with the AC above

[Snoopy77]

Totally agree. Like it or not, the RIAA do have the backing of copyright laws. What is the EFF suppose to argue in court? That the copyright laws should be changed and in light of the required changes to said laws we should win this case here before you your Honour?

So I for one am glad the EFF is not trying to take the RIAA to court because it would be a total waste of resources.

Re:I'm with the AC above

[beakerMeep]

You fight the fights you can win
no
You fight the fights that need fighting


The young hotheads most often got themselves killed while accomplishing nothing.

Yeah but couldn't the reverse also be true?
"The old farts most often starved to death while accomplishing nothing"


More and more game publishers seem to be looking to charge you to play a game after you purchase it to further fill their coffers.

but not in this case. I agree that blizzard is being stupid and wasting their time but so is the EFF.

Re:I'm with the AC above

[kfg]

In court you fight the fights that need fighting that you can win. To do otherwise is pointless.

In the halls of the legislature you fight the good fight, with all your might.

Even civil disobedience is either directed at cases where one feels one can prevail and overturn a law, such as the Scopes trial, or where conviction under the law forces the hand of the legislature to act, such as in the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.

The fact that Blizzard is not seeking to charge for the use of their servers is irrelevant to the issue of rights. If a game publisher can force you to specific terms of use after purchase, then charging for such use is inevitable by someone.

If a publisher cannot enforce terms of use after purchase than the whole issue becomes moot. It's your game.

My game is Grand Prix Legends. A game that six years after it's release not only still has a strong community, but is still selling. Since it is now a bargain title there are people who buy it several copies at a time to give them away. In one case someone in England just sent a copy as a gift to a young teen in South America who was complaining that he couldn't buy it locally and couldn't buy it over the net, and was thus constrained to the six year old demo version.

It's a great game, and still considered by many to be state of the art, but what has really played the key role in its longevity is this:

It was released with rock solid net code, but the publisher provided no official servers. Nothing. Here it is guys, you're on your own. Every copy of the game can function as a server. Have at it.

And we have. And continue to. And will probably continue to for many years. And will keep purchasing copies of the game as long as it's even vaguely possible to do so.

All because it's our net game, that we control.

KFG

Re:I'm with the AC above

[kfg]

To my brother Louie, who said I'd never remember him in my will. Hello Louie.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

KFG

Re:I'm with the AC above

[OSSRocks]

Being affiliated with this situation id like to thank the EFF for their efforts :)

Re:I'm with the AC above

[0x0d0a]

The silly Flash cartoon game that shows users how to fileswap without breaking copyright law is the least important.

I believe that that game was meant to help produce an example that could be pulled out when judges seeking to censor games claim that games cannot contain significant political expression, and thus do not merit First Amendment protection. (This happenend some time ago when someone-or-other was suing someone-or-other over a game.)

Re:I'm with the AC above

[theguywhosaid]

despite being completely against the spirit of the law, doesnt copyright refer to exact copies? i mean, if some awesome cover bands did great covers and made them free, there would be no problem. an mp3 is a lossy copy, and even in its uncompressed state is by no means an exact copy. say i copyright "the blah did blah" and someone prints "the bla did bla", is that copyright infringement? assume a more reasonable example

Re:I'm with the AC above

[Deraj DeZine]

In court you fight the fights that need fighting that you can win. To do otherwise is pointless.

I didn't RYFC, but there are many firms out there that do not fight the fights that they can win. They fight the fights that they have a chance of winning. Since they can't win every case that they argue, they make up for their monetary losses in lost cases by charging insanely high lawyer fees (win one case out of 5 at $1 million and your average is $200,000 per case). Kind of like a lottery, I think, but this is how it's done. I saw it in a movie.

Re:I'm with the AC above

[cyt0plas]

Quake 1 still has an active (albeit not too large) community. Not only did they provide nice network code (and QuakeWorld, for net play), they even opened up the Game Code (it runs in kind of a VM), and even the Source for the game itself. That is flexibility.

There are now many features the authors didn't dream of. In fact, I've seen servers with permission control that beats the pants off anything I've seen in a modern day engine.

Re:I'm with the AC above

[beakerMeep]

In court you fight the fights that need fighting that you can win. To do otherwise is pointless.

is it? what about the people filing counter suits against the RIAA? And what about the guy from the EFF who posted a comment just a few down about the DeCSS case?

The fact that Blizzard is not seeking to charge for the use of their servers is irrelevant ...

Then why did you bringing up the price of other games that might potentially chage? Obviously price is relevant then. Otherwise your argument is just slippery slope hogwash.

c'mon stop being so pius. This isn't just about the DMCA. Blizzard wants people to connect to bnet and see lots of people playing -- it enhances the play experience for their new users. They think "wow look at all these people playing" yada yada. By removing this feature from the game they are removing value from blizzard's products (which are still for sale). I think the EFF is just using this case to cut off the head of the DMCA which is silly. Nevertheless, it's nice they are helping this person and all because blizzard is being a little retarted but I hope they don't spend to much time on this as I can't see it being applied legally elsewhere. I still think the original poster is right that the EFF is wasting time on this but I think he is absolutely wrong in saying they are worthless (I view them as quite a good org in general).

Re:I'm with the AC above

[kfg]

Well, what you're talking about there are cases taken on contingency, personal injury and the like where the lawyer is representing the plaintif. The current situation is a bit different.

In the old days though it was considered part of the lawyer's professional ethics to take certain cases pro bono because they needed to be fought. Clarence Darrow is a prime example of someone who took this seriously, using his success in these cases to be able to charge high rates to offset his loss of time and expenses. There are still those lawyers who follow this practice, but their numbers are dwindling.

That said my statement that you fight the fights you can win is meant to be taken as meaning you fight the fights you believe you have a chance of winning. It is always a question of probability, not certitude.

Mr. Templeton's example of the 2600 DeCSS case is a good example of this. I certainly thought they could win. They did not. They did not pursue appeal to the Supreme Court. They felt another future case along the same lines would have a better chance of prevailing.

The recent decision in California supports both the idea that the issue was winable, but that someone else was going to be the one to do so.

Sometimes you give it your best shot, but cut your losses when things do not go as you might have hoped.

Thus the example, ironically I guess, serves to both support Mr. Templton's claim that the EFF fights losing battles and my own that you fight battles you can win.

KFG

Re:I'm with the AC above

[SQLz]

At the time they picked up the case the DMCA reverse engineering clause had not been tested in court so it was an important battle. Since then its been tested twice that I know of, with garage door openers and printer cartridges. That doesn't mean they have to drop it. Its still never been tested with respect to software. This case is important because if BNETD looses it sets a precident for companies to use the DMCA against freely available software which emulates threir commerical software/service.

Re:I'm with the AC above

[Anonymous Coward]

The above should have been modded -1, Troll. The EFF is fighting what has clearly been a gross injustice - and attempting to protect the legal right of the individual to reverse engineer in the face of an overbearing corporation.

Bnetd was an incredibly useful piece of software that allowed people like myself that had legitimately purchased the games to run their own game server without resorting to the hack, dupe and cheat prone 'official' servers that often suffered from unexpected downtime and rollbacks. Blizzard had absolutely nothing to lose - their servers are free, so in reality bnetd was merely reducing the load of their financial obligations. That bnetd somehow encouraged piracy is an obvious red herring - bnetd in no way facilitates the copying of the game, and the developers refused to have anything to do with anything that did.

Legitimate reverse engineering is clearly part of the core of the hacker ethic, and is a right that many who read Slashdot should feel the need to stand up for. On the other hand, freeloaders who quite illegally download music over the internet without the intention of paying the artist a single cent are most certainly not a worthy cause.

Re:I'm with the AC above

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like someone sure bought into the prapaganda. Getting a copy is wrong huh? so, I can offer you something that is stolen, and if you take it, you're in the wrong immediately. Glad that is finally cleared up...and to think all those years of people getting away with buying stolen goods unknowingly are walkign free!

Re:I'm with the AC above

[mark99]

Me too.

Too often inactivity is labeled wise, when in reality it has another cause (indecision, distraction, procrastionation, or even worse).

I would rather do the wrong thing, then waste my life in inactivity. I used to think otherwise. But I have gotten older and time is getting shorter :)

Re:I'm with the AC above

[Lord Bitman]

Well then I hope you feel fulfilled in your quest when I tell you that your comma-placement fucking sucks.

Re:I'm with the AC above

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that the point of the original post was that the EFF jumps in on the side that looks to be winning.

That you fucked up by taking sides in the DeCSS case is irrelevent to the discussion.

Re:I'm with the AC above

[Knetzar]

Starcraft is over 6 years old, and I know a lot of people still play it. When I saw it for $9.99 at some store I bought 3 copies (some of my buddies still hadn't gotten around to getting it). It's a great game and still considered to be one of the best RTS games.

Funny enough, I think your conclusion of "All because it's our net game, that we control." might be a bit biased. If the games is as great as you say, you'd probably still be playing it even if you had to use the company's free servers.

Now, I would love to be able to play with my buddies using bnetd since we're all on the same college campus and we tend to want to play when battle.net is having problems so I really hope blizzard loses the case.

*sigh*

[ohchaos]

I'd just managed to convince myself Blizzard was no longer evil, and that I could look forward to purchasing W.o.W. and now slashdot's gone and reminded me that they're still evil.......

Re:*sigh*

[ABaumann]

They're only half evil. One of the few companies that actually will do something clever like release games that are hybrid for Win/Mac.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

and that I could look forward to purchasing W.o.W.

Buy the game, make an (il)legal backup of it, then smash the original into tiny bits and send it back to Blizzard. That'll show em'

Re:*sigh*

[kfg]

You think you've got it bad?

I'm an AoE addict.

KFG

Re:*sigh*

[Cecil]

Doing superficial good to placate the masses while doing real evil that will screw the masses long after they've forgotten about the folks responsible, does not make one half-evil, it makes one a politician (in other words, pure evil).

Seriously though, Blizzard is above even Adobe on the list of companies I will never ever buy products from, no matter how good or useful they may be, or how much I may want them. Adobe being in the black books for having a foreign citizen arrested the second he stepped on American soil for the crime of figuring out how to change a bit in one of their files.

Re:*sigh*

[Ilgaz]

Well, I play Warcraft 3 on my mac, recently purchased frozen throne too..

So, some "good opensource guys" made a clone of battle.net, (which provides good anti piracy method via CD key auth.), removed that mechanism than Blizzard sued them?

I should support? nah... I support a company respect to my platform instead.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously though, Blizzard is above even Adobe on the list of companies I will never ever buy products from, no matter how good or useful they may be, or how much I may want them.

Pirating them though may be a different issue :-) !

It's funny, laugh!

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

some "good opensource guys" made a clone of battle.net,

Almost - they legally made a clone of battle.net.

(which provides good anti piracy method via CD key auth.)

No, it doesn't. If it was good, bnetd wouldn't have worked without it.

removed that mechanism than Blizzard sued them?

No, they didn't 'remove' anything. They never had it, and when Blizzard contacted them, they said "we'll add it if you want us to", to which Blizzard said "NO"

Blizzard then went and filed an obviously bogus court case, claiming that they used actual battle.net source code, because both programs behave similarly (never mind that Blizzard doesn't disclose the source code for battle.net, and bnetd is open source, so Blizzard could easily just look to see if there really was copyright infringement.)

I support a company respect to my platform instead

Rationalize it however you like, the fact remains that they are evil.

Re:*sigh*

[Hobophile]

Frankly I admire your resolve. Blizzard would be so easy to hate if only they didn't make by far the best games on the market.

You would be hard pressed to find a company that displays more naked contempt for their community than Blizzard routinely does, however.

Blizzard representatives openly mock posters on the public forums. Granted these posters often ask inane or redundant questions, but there is an astonishing lack of professionalism displayed. Questions like "what can you tell me about feature X" are often answered "when you find out, tell me, I'd love to know!" There's no need for that kind of reply. Even Microsoft doesn't actually resort to taunting its users.

Posters who ask difficult questions -- like "what happened to the clan ladder that was advertised on the box of Frozen Throne?" -- have their posts deleted. Repeat "offenders" are summarily banned.

On the other hand I know they have a lot of extremely bright and talented people working there, and some are about the nicest people you'd ever hope to interact with. Knowing the long hours and the limitless passion and energy they put into creating and refining each game, it's hard to harbor any ill will towards the company. After all, these guys are the ones that really make Blizzard great.

It seems to me such a waste to let their berserk legal department and bizarre PR attitudes overshadow that.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

Blizzard would be so easy to hate if only they didn't make by far the best games on the market.

Maybe at one time they made great games, but if you're holding that opinion that they're the best on the market in this day and age, you're sufferent from rampant fanboyism.

Warcraft has been going downhill ever since they released 2. Starcraft (which was much better) has been carrying them for the past five years at least with only a single expansion. What new games are they working on? World of Warcraft and Ghost. Wow, hold me back.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

while doing real evil that will screw the masses

...of pirates

Re:*sigh*

[Cecil]

Surprisingly even to myself some days, I haven't pirated a game since I started earning income. I'm always happy to support the people who make things that I enjoy. Even when they're bitter disappointments, which so many have been recently. *cough, MOO3, SimCity4*

Similarly to how I approach music these days, when I start getting too cynical to "waste" money on a game, I'll start looking for free alternatives like Chromatron or return to my old favourites, often using things like Exult.

Imagine that...

[Robotech_Master]

Imagine that...a weblog run by one of the leaders of the EFF, Cory Doctorow, praising the EFF's side in a court case. Isn't that just amazing?

(I'm not saying anything about the relative merits of the case here...just the amusement inherent in citing BoingBoing's opinion on an EFF affair as authoritative.)

Re:Imagine that...

[btempleton]

Cory doesn't hide his position, but he's not a leader, he's our online outreach coordinator, a sort of technological evangelist and analyst who studies and writes and slogs around to do hard work representing the EFF in important places.

But he's also one of the most respected web journalists, and if he writes that he really likes a brief, I would wager that he really means it.

Re:Imagine that...

[Robotech_Master]

OK, I was misremembering his function...but the point stands that he's still an EFF functionary. Not saying anything against him in this, though...more a comment about whoever posted or edited the post, given how careful /. is every time they link something from some other OSDN site to indicate that they're both members of the OSDN. :)

Re:Imagine that...

[btempleton]

Umm. But Cory does identify that the brief was written by his co-worker, it's very clear. Slashdot has a duty to tell you when they write about their own company, and Cory has one too. What Slashdot does is link to the actual source, where the connections are clearly laid out. Nothing untoward happened here.

missing the point

[timmarhy]

EFF would be setting a good president if they win this one, helping similar projects

Re:missing the point

[TheSpoom]

Hell, I'd vote for the EFF's representative, especially over someone like Bush. ;^)

I hope so

[ObviousGuy]

We haven't had a good president since 1988.

Re:I hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

More like 1952.

If I were in charge...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd polymorph Blizzard

"Don't make me turn you into a mindless sheep!"

Re:If I were in charge...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what REALLY happened: /** Before Warcraft III **/
[Blizzard] I command you to cease and desist!
[BnetD] Why what did we do wrong?
* CAL_Darl whispers to Blizzard "Intellectual Property"
[Blizzard] It violates intellectual property!
[BnetD] RMS Said that you can't use that word! its bad!
* Blizzard starts to heat up
* CAL_Darl slaps Blizzard with a bit of a trout
[Blizzard] Well, Cause I said so!
[Blizzard] Its my Idea, Mine Mine!
[BnetD] but we were clever enough!
[Blizzard] Don't let me turn you into a mindless sheep!
[BnetD] uhm okay...
[BnetD] When my work is finish, I'm comming back for you! /** Post Warcraft III **/
10:30:15 [BnetD] Look who's baaack!? :-)
10:30:18 [Blizzard] What you're back again!?
10:30:20 [Blizzard] That's it, i'm turning you into a mindless sheep!
10:30:21 * Blizzard sets +polymorph on BnetD
10:30:23 [Blizzard] Feel the pain! hahaha
10:31:21 * lilo sets -polymorph on BnetD
10:31:22 [Blizzard] WTF?
10:31:24 * lilo whispers to Blizzard: Polymorph isn't permanent anymore
10:31:26 [BnetD] That's why i'm back. your polymorph is now crap! now feel mine!

Re:If I were in charge...

[Anonymous Coward]

-1, Sad.

But...

[Zakabog]

... didn't they stop releasing Bnetd? I dunno I remember they stopped developing it a while ago because of the battle. That was back when the only WC3 was the beta. I haven't looked into it since then because after the game came out I didn't need Bnetd anymore.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

bnetd is still available from the CVS on the SourceForge Project page. Funny that Blizzard has either missed them or never seen the need to send CoD letters there. But anyway:

:pserver:anonymous@cvs.bnetd.sourceforge.net:/cvsr oot/bnetd
(no space between cvsr and oot. IE. cvsroot)

You're looking for module bnetd.

IANL, but I can understand this!

[Johnny Fusion]

Who knew those legal types could produce poetry?
The Legal brief is actually a very fun read.
Plus, you got to give some kudos for a guy that uses the term bogosity.

Emulation can be the only option

[kravlor]

I attend college at an institution with highly restrictive Internet access. We are incapable of playing games on the Internet, such as through Battle.net. Intra-network traffic is not restricted, however. As such, with the help of bnetd, I am able to run a server that is used campuswide daily. I've been following the case for the past two years, and I'm glad to see that it's finally getting some press -- much as I love Blizzard's products, I'm also a big fan of reverse-engineering products. The services offered by bnetd (and other offshoots like PvPGN) are invaluable to many users who would otherwise have no means of taking advantage of the matchmaking services offered by Blizzard's official servers. I'd love to see their work continue unhindered by legal pressure.

Re:Emulation can be the only option

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a public university with this policy, is it?

Re:Emulation can be the only option

[kravlor]

No -- it's St. Olaf College. Essentially, outgoing network traffic is allowed, but if it is not going over, say, port 80 with HTTP, it is sent at such a rate as to timeout most connections, including online gaming services such as Battle.net.

Re:Emulation can be the only option

[abertoll]

invaluable to many users who would otherwise have no means of taking advantage of the matchmaking services offered by Blizzard's official servers.

... looking for love in all the wrong places

Re:Emulation can be the only option

[bennomatic]

At UC Berkeley, you can make your own majors. Maybe if games are so important to you, you can go there and become a network gaming major.

I mean really, what are you at college for? Is this a survival issue? I don't know if the bnetd project is right or wrong, but it should be argued on its own merits rather than whether or not the guy from I Phelta Thi can play WCIII against his tri-Lamda counterpart.

Re:Emulation can be the only option

[0x0d0a]

I believe that you're factually incorrect on your second point, and I just plain disagree with you on the first.

At UC Berkeley, you can make your own majors. Maybe if games are so important to you, you can go there and become a network gaming major.

I mean really, what are you at college for? Is this a survival issue

And yet, college students look for entertainment. Some go to bars, some watch TV, some hunt girls, some learn to cook strange foods, some do dope, some hit movie theaters, clubs, go paintballing, etc, etc, etc.

The point is that gaming is a perfectly legitimate form of entertainment. You hvae many friends nearby on a fast network, and most of you just got a computer in the last few years for college. Why not? Do you really never play games?

I don't know if the bnetd project is right or wrong, but it should be argued on its own merits rather than whether or not the guy from I Phelta Thi can play WCIII against his tri-Lamda counterpart.

One of the clauses in the DMCA in determining whether a device is an illegal circumvention devices is whether the primary purpose of the device is for copyright infringement. Blizzard is representing bnetd as a device designed to facilitate software piracy. When people chime in and talk about all the legitimate reasons they use bnetd, it helps undermine Blizzard's arguments on that clause.

Re:Emulation can be the only option

[Endive4Ever]

Blizzard spends a lot of time and money keeping people with illegetamate CD Keys off their network. Perhaps that's a secondary consideration to some, but preventing people with stolen/passed-around keys from having an alternative Network to play over prevents a certain amount of software piracy.

I know that when we wanted to do some two-player games here at home (My wife is a much bigger Diablo II fiend than I am) I went out and bought a second copy. I'm sure I could have dicked around on the 'net and found ways to do it without spending the twenty bucks, but it just wasn't worth it.

Re:Emulation can be the only option

[0x0d0a]

What I'm saying is that that is not legally significant -- that it is financially beneficial to Blizzard for something to happen is not enough to have the courts rule in their favor. Even crime reduction is not enough to force someone to do something -- if packaged food were eliminated, it's likely that people would litter much less. However, food packers do not need to get rid of packaged food.

I am quite sure that there are many people out there that have used bnetd to avoid paying for a copy of a Blizzard game. I am also sure that plenty of illegal content is swapped in IRC channels. Neither is a reason for shutting down a group of people that produce a tool that *may* be used to facilitate pirating a game.

I've never used bnetd, but here are a number of reasons I could see someone legitimately using it:

* Blizzard kicks a player off Battle.Net, for whatever reason. They can still play their game, just not using Blizzard's servers.

* The player and his friends have limited or nonexistant network access. If I work in village in many countries, I probably have lousy network access, but a fair number of folks that would like to play a game locally all in one place (especially an older game like Warcraft II that works on older computers).

* Pure interest in reverse engineering and writing a server. It's *fun* to do something like this, and you feel good when you can sit back and look at the finished product. I remember when folks reverse engineered the Hotline protocol (a vaguely BBS-like server that was quite popular on the Mac at one point). It was very neat to have something like this done.

* Ensuring that the game continues working. Blizzard may give "lifetime access to Battle.Net", whatever that means, but at some point, Blizzard will go out of business, just as all companies do eventually. Blizzard is very likely to continue sinking money into the service forever. If there is an open-soruce implementation of the protocol, people can continue playing as long as they'd like, just as with Quake.

Any of these are good reasons, and if any of these were the primary purpose of bnetd, rather than bypassing copy protection mechanisms, then the bnetd people are in the clear relative to the DMCA.

Re:Emulation can be the only option

[robnauta]

I've never used bnetd, but here are a number of reasons I could see someone legitimately using it:

* Blizzard kicks a player off Battle.Net, for whatever reason. They can still play their game, just not using Blizzard's servers. For 99% of the players that means "Blizzard bans your keygen-generated CD key you used to install your warezed copy".
I don't know other reasons why battle.net wouldn't work yet bnetd would, since they are so similar.

Re:Emulation can be the only option

[0x0d0a]

Note that I'm not a Blizzard customer (don't even have a Windows machine around), and have never used Battle.Net, so I'm not sure of their policies, but I'd guess that Blizzard will probably ban someone that they feel is cheating at games. They *may* have bans for what they consider to be inappropriate behavior via chat -- not sure. I remember some people griping on Slashdot about getting banned for something they did in Diablo that they thought they shouldn't have been banned for -- those folks can still use the game they bought. That way, Battle.Net is a useful service (a monitored, relable network for use), but it's not an attempt to require that people not be able to play their copy if Blizzard feels that they shouldn't.

Diablo alone provides a whole mess of potential things to ban people for, just because it provides long-term characters in a competitive environment. That sort of thing is ripe for nasty behavior.

Re:Emulation can be the only option

[pogle]

'For 99% of the players that means "Blizzard bans your keygen-generated CD key you used to install your warezed copy".'

Ummm. No. That means that you've been banned for griefing (backstabbing) or maphacking, in Warcraft 3. In diablo II its item hacks and other goodies. It is not keygen cd keys. Keygen cd keys have never worked on battle.net, unless you were lucky enough to randomly generate a key blizzard had already distributed, and then that person will get rather irked and notify blizzard.

I tried back in the days of Starcraft, believe me I tried (I've bought 3 copies of the game and can never find the jewel cases when I want them). Blizzard has a cd-key whitelist or something, only keys that have actually gone onto shipped cds are valid on b.net. And when a key gets deactivated, its gone forever.

Re:Emulation can be the only option

[Jim Starx]

but I'd guess that Blizzard will probably ban someone that they feel is cheating at games Haha, they wouldn't have any customers left! U used to play starcraft on b.net, I don't really anymore cause the simple fact is everyone and their mother has a maphack and unless you playing a nitwit thats an advantage you just can't surmount, so you too become one of the millions that cheat, and eventually its just not fun anymore. I think a diffrent server would be great, maybe they could find some way to rewrite the protocols to make maphacks and such harder to do, cause blizzard, try as they might, did a shit job on that front.

Re:Emulation can be the only option

[Anonymous Coward]

then use the network game option blizzard already provides!

What did Blizzard lose?

[Operating Thetan]

I'm uncertain. Did they feel the reputation of battle.net as a cheat filled hell would be impinged? Maybe they feared the loss of script kiddies and bot runners to this site? Are they not aware that the majority of pirates already play on battle.net, using keylogged CD keys stolen from the many users of bots/hacks/cheat programs?

Mind you, this is the same company that threatened legal action over an open source tribute to an 8 year old game on the grounds it may cause confusion with their modern products. Having said that, the intelligence shown by the average 14 year old Blizzard fanboy makes that a real possibility

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you would rather have thousands of cheat-filled hells ran by the local script-kiddie who added in a few backdoors to his version of bnetd or PvPGN, so while you play on his server...

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[Anonymous Coward]

No... the game doesn't require a mod to be able to join a dif. server, just an update to the server list in the registry. However, if people choose to 'automate' this change to the server list by use of a 'battle.net server selector' or such program...

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[Robotech_Master]

The thing that probably motivated Blizzard to take action on this wasn't the copyright violation per se...it was the fact that someone had leaked the beta of Warcraft III, and someone had forked the bnetd project to allow unauthorized folks (non-beta-testers) to play it over their version of bnetd. (And to a lesser extent, it would also allow use of pirated copies of already-released Battlenet games that would be serial-number-checked by Battlenet.)

And so they bring out the copyright guns to shut it down...

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[mabhatter654]

But that is the point to some extent! While I don't condone mass-pirating of games, it's not their place to decide the WHO, WHAT, & WHEN you can play ALL network versions of their products ....especially when versions like bnetd do not use Blizard resources to provide access. Wether the game is fully legal or not isn't the question in this matter...only a side issue.

Unlike Kazzaa-lite or the IM clones bnetd is not attempting to use Bizard network resources...for a matter of fact it's the opposite! They're attempting to REPLACE Blizard's locked-in service to provide playing of the game on their own terms...it's not like they're trying to hack or take over or interfere with Blizard's offical channels here...mearly offer another alternative for those not willing or able to use the "offical" channels. It's fundamentally about connecting two copies of something you already paid for...you shouldn't need "permission" to do that.

While the supporting of "pirate" copies may be a problem to blizzard, the bnetd project really doesn't have any business worrying about authentication! There's no constraint on their part to require the game to follow the "rules" that's the whole point of developing their own servers!! More than that, this would also set precedent in cases that would replace say, XBoxLive. That product is all about vendor lock-in...but the console and games themselves should be allowed a similar hack simply because it's your fair use to connect your products...especially if you are using unmodified original product...Part of this is about companies requiring you to use "specific" company-approved portals...and requiring so in the EULA! To take it to an extreme, what would the reaction be if MS forbade you from using, say, Samba on YOUR OWN networks to connect YOUR OWN PCs because they dediced to require windows license verification in AD/W2K3 server connection!! That's exactly the same issue being set forth even though it seems silly to say so. Cause remember, much of MS stratagy has been to "hide" their lock-in schemes behind the veil of "security" or "authentication" schemes. Imagine the "free-for-all" if companies can simply tag a serial number or phone home to every network connection and sue you if you don't follow it! That's totally nuts!

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[tuxedobob]

Okay, I followed your link, and the link from that, and came across a screenshot. If I didn't know otherwise (I'm still not too certain), I'd assume it was WarCraft II before the graphics were finalized. I'd say shutting it down was pretty justified.

As for cheats on battle.net, well, as far as I know, there aren't too many for War3. As for D2, it's just incredible how people are with that game.

And bnetd couldn't run D2, could it? So much for that excuse.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows bnetd as the only reason the War3 beta was so severely leaked. Does anyone know anyone who's played on it before or since? I don't.

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[tuxedobob]

for those not willing or able to use the "offical" channels.

Not able? Were you banned for cheating? Not willing? Unless you live in Australia, what's wrong with you? (I understand Australians pay through the nose for net access.)

the bnetd project really doesn't have any business worrying about authentication!

Well, they also don't have any "business" in interfering with WarCraft III. You have to mess with a registry entry or edit game code, don't you?

Part of this is about companies requiring you to use "specific" company-approved portals...and requiring so in the EULA!

Yeah... they're allowed to do that. The EULA is also there to remind you you can't make copies of the game and sell them for your own profit. EULA != evil.

what would the reaction be if MS forbade you from using, say, Samba on YOUR OWN networks to connect YOUR OWN PCs because they dediced to require windows license verification in AD/W2K3 server connection!!

Uh, people would use FTP? Or Linux?

The short answer is, there's nothing wrong with battle.net. It's perfectly capable of handling its load. Well, except when there's a new D2 hack going on, but if you're playing to hack, play an open char you can hexedit. The point of the realms was to have safe characters, and hacks kinda defeat the point.

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[Anonymous Coward]

The EULA is also there to remind you you can't make copies of the game and sell them for your own profit.

Um, that's because of copyright law, not the EULA. You still wouldn't be able to make copies of the game even if the game didn't have an EULA at all.

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[mabhatter654]

You miss the point of bnetd!

Bnetd is not hacking! It doesn't use the blizzard servers, resources, or affect normal fair play in any way. If I want to play my Warcraft with map hacks or break all the rules I should be able to do that with my friends! That's what this is all about.

For a matter of fact, if this was allowed to be at leased sanctioned, then it would give the map hackers and player hacks someplace to go and cheat all they want! The quake and counterstrike guys got over this a long time ago...now everybody can simply run their own game servers and allow whatever they want! Blizzard for some reason wants to be a control freak and controll ALL the network play of their games. Sure, they offer it free, but it's still ABSOLUTE control...even if you don't want it!!! Bnetd is a way to get around that control and enjoy the game. Unfortunately for Blizzard, cracked copies of the game or banned players will still want to play...even though it's cheating there's no legal leg to stand on for telling them they can't play their game they purchased on a DIFFERENT network.

Other than the business issues of potentially pissing off too many people to the "free" serverr, there's no business reason to do this...other than to maintain absolute control of their business.

Personally, I don't have any use for cheats. But I would have use for bnetd! I've got 3 computers of my own and would love to simply play informal games against the kids without bothering with a slow internet connection. The problem is that the Blizard games aren't self-hosting, and I'd just as soon not be matching up with foulmouthed or cheaters online with the kids but I can't just play between me and the computer across from me without asking Blizard's "permission" That is unacceptable!

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The short answer is, there's nothing wrong with battle.net. It's perfectly capable of handling its load."

Oh of course. There must be some other reason I quit playing online due to extreme lag and constant disconnects from Bnet while all my other programs worked fine. Thanks for pointing that out.

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[tuxedobob]

Okay, part of that is basically saying bnetd is good for hackers.

The last paragraph... uh, how is it you can't play over a LAN? If you're not on a LAN, how is bnetd going to avoid your slow internet connection? If it isn't, what's wrong with a custom game? Meet in a private channel.

What Blizzard game doesn't allow LAN play? If Blizzard games aren't self-hosting, why does D2 let me host a TCP/IP game?

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[TheSunborn]

Battle.net does NOT work in following situation:
We have a "local net" with 5000 users seperated in 30 segments. Each segment is using nat with 1 external IP address(Yes, that suck, but that's all the IP addresses they got). People from different segments can't join a game on battle.net. If we are 2 people from segment a, 2 from segment b, then a person from segment c can't join because battle.net complain that the latency is to big.
The problem here is that battle.net belive that all the players are behind differen nat systems which would cause imposible lag.

Our solution was to place a battle.net server on 172.32.x.y which all computers on yor 5000 users net can access with their INTERNAL ip address. That work really well until our server had a hd crash, so now we can't play the game even thou we bought it. We are looking for a new harddisk however :}

Normal play on battle.net with other people lags far to much due to a rathed weak internet connection(Not the fault of Blizzard)

And the best is that our battle.net server was legal because in Denmark we got a special law that say that you are ALWAYS allowed to reverse-compile software IF you need to do it, in order to write third party software to corporate with the given software.

Now waiting for Starcraft II, which I hope also will work with a local battle.net server so I can actuelly play it(Single player is to boring) :}

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[Hobophile]

And bnetd couldn't run D2, could it? So much for that excuse.

From what I recall they were adding realm support shortly before the official project got shut down.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows bnetd as the only reason the War3 beta was so severely leaked. Does anyone know anyone who's played on it before or since? I don't.

A couple of the forks/derivatives of bnetd saw renewed action around the time of the Frozen Throne beta.

But since they eventually let in 30,000 testers, there was far less of a community on the unofficial servers.

Thanks to the leaked World of Warcraft alpha, there's already a project under way to create a working WoW server. Google for Stormcraft if you're interested.

I doubt anything much will come of it, though.

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[Hobophile]

What Blizzard game doesn't allow LAN play?

Right after Blizzard sued bnetd, they released a patch for Starcraft that allowed you to use UDP to play LAN games.

Prior to that your only option was to use IPX/SPX for LAN play. This was a minor hassle in Windows 2K/XP, potentially a major pain for previous OSes. That is, assuming the player knew enough about Windows networking to even know where to begin.

As far as I know both Diablo and Diablo 2 have always supported TCP/IP for LAN play, so this wasn't an issue with those games.

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[nazsco]

Are they not aware that the majority of pirates already play on battle.net, using keylogged CD keys stolen

They Don't care for those!
They really care for the people that have no idea on what's a keylogger. So, If there are servers that don't need to check the key (original or stolen) then *that* kind of people would just rather pay $5 in a pirated CD or to download it then to pay $60 for the original box.

Now, having to get a stolen and valid serial key, that can't be printed on the photocopied paper that came with the $5 cd (as can be done with offline products such as M$ office), then the $60 version became more appealing to them. And that's the kind of market that blizzard whant's to hold fighting free versions of his battle.net

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[sunami]

hmmm, funny that you should mention b.net as a cheat filled hell. Where do you get that from? What cheats are there on b.net? At least show something that supports your unfounded crap.

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[orkysoft]

You mean you ran a local bnetd server. bnetd is NOT Battle.net, it is a replacement program. Also, I don't think the decompilation law applies here, since, unless you've signed some sort of special agreement with Blizzard, you don't have access to the Battle.net binaries at all.

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[tuxedobob]

Actually, the reason (I think) that UDP was added was because there was no implementation of IPX for Mac OS X. When they Carbonized StarCraft, they added UDP to the Mac side first, then released the Windows patch so cross-platform play was again possible.

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[tuxedobob]

Again, why wouldn't LAN play work?

I'm on a campus network, and although I haven't tried to make games with people in different buildings (which are different subnets), I do know LAN play works.

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[TheSunborn]

Because Lan only work if you can broadcast to the other players(it use broadcast to find local games) and I can't broadcast to users not on my segment.

Ofcause if Blizzard would just add an "Play with player at ip x.y.z.w there would not be a problem"

Re:What did Blizzard lose?

[KeeperS]

There's already a way to do this. Battle.LAN and LANCraft both work quite well.

Of course, they're not Blizzard made/sanctioned, but nothing's perfect.

DMCA and gotwow.net

[satanami69]

Blizzard has also recently issues a cease and desists letter, backed by DMCA threat to gotwow.net. Read the forum post here

Well, today I received an email from Blizzard. You may read it below, long story short, all files and the spell db will be taken down and will not be hosted on this server anymore. Here is the content of the email

Re:The solution is there but sadly unpopular

[Operating Thetan]

It's true, Communism is great for games. Let's do a comparison.

Soviet Union produced Tetris, the most played game yet made
Post Communist Russia produced Big Rigs, hailed by Gamespot as the worst game ever
The most famous American designer produced Daikatana
The most famous British designer produced Black and White

Clearly, communism holds the key to great game design

I like BnetD

[Anonymous Coward]

BnetD

Each and every day
I logged on and played

Battle.net

Each and every day
It lagged on and I played

ATTENTION BLIZZARD

[asscroft]

For the right price....

I'll pretend to be a customer who was confused and sell out free software and legitimate uses of reverse engineering and for that matter all practical applications of intelligence and education. Why the fuck not. For the right price...

private message me for details.

Don't be so quick to dismiss the importance here

[GoMMiX]

So many people seem to think there is nothing important to be had in this case; I think they are wrong. Dead wrong.

Blizzard envoked the DMCA against bnetd, claiming bnetd (primarily) circumvented their copyright protection efforts because it bypasses the cd-key check given when logging into the battle.net service.

This is obviously an abusive use of the DMCA as that 'special' cd-key check only takes place on battle.net. It doesn't happen on single player, LAN, or TCP/IP games.

Sure, right now there are larger - more important cases to be fought. But, this case also has it's place of importance.

Blizzard is clearly abusing the DMCA [Yeah, yeah - atleast ACT suprised, k?) - and if they are allowed to abuse the DMCA this way and win their case - their case will become a reference in other similar cases.

As lame as this may sound, this is something gaming companies could use as a leash to control mods that they do/don't want to allow to continue developement.

Or, say, someday MS decides that each time you log onto their xBox Live gaming service it checks some sort of key. This would prevent anyone from offering competing services to the xBox Live. Even if they are just doing it for fun, or as an OSS project.

Regardless, the point is that the results of this case could potentially have FAR-reaching implications for potential OSS projects.

Nevermind the fact that the entire lawsuit is bogus. Though, with the exception of the trademark/copyright claim for the use of the 'bnet' name. (Battle.net is, in fact, collectively known to the majority of users as b.net - and is most commonly referred to as such.)

Not to Slashdot

[bonch]

To Slashdot, it's a "culture movement" because artists don't deserve to be paid for the work they put in to renting a studio, spending a month recording something, pressing CDs, and marketing it with their label.

There's an organization called the RIAA that happens to represent their label, so suddenly it's okay to pirate the artists' music. The legality issue is completely ignored.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[GoMMiX]

"because artists don't deserve to be paid"

Heh, I agree with your outlook on it.

But, interesting tidbit - did you know premium artists like Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears get less then $1 per album sold.

I not only think ripping off music is wrong, but I think the artists aren't properly compensated.

Seriously, how much of that $15+ that you spend on a CD is for the physical media, ink, or advertising used to get word on the album out. Imagine what lesser artist's get. Like a penny an album? More, I'm sure - but it does make you wonder.

I was watching an E! 'thing' the other day on Britney Spears - which stated she had earned roughly $18M from her album sales. Lots of money, yes. But c'mon - we're talking about BRITNEY SPEARS here. And that's from well over 20 million total album sales. So she earns the music industry a few billion and they give her a few million.

Ehh, not that anyone cares. To me it's like donating money to a charity only to discover 95% of the money donated goes to pay fat executives.

The RIAA doesn't give a crap about the artists, all they care about is fattening their own pockets.

In their minds, the artist making more money is simply an 'unfortunate side-effect.'

Re:Not to Slashdot

[bonch]

The RIAA doesn't give a crap about the artists, all they care about is fattening their own pockets.

It's called business. It's called a contract--THAT THE ARTIST SIGNED.

Britney Spears didn't even write most of her music. She doesn't get all the money, because part of it goes to her image-makers and marketers, part of it to her songwriters, part of it to her producers and developers, and part of it to the label. That's what happens when you're a pop singer who doesn't write your own music or have your own image.

An artist should shop around for a better contract, or not sign one. This crap about "The RIAA doesn't care about artists" when those artists are the ones who freely signed the contracts in order to get a deal is bogus--you think those artists think they need you to pity them when they put down their signatures willingly?

There's a lot that goes into CD distribution, from marketing to production to hiring to etc.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called business. It's called a contract--THAT THE ARTIST SIGNED

There is no alternative. You either sign up with RIAA, or you get no record, no air time, and no tour dates.

That's why the RIAA was formed, to monopolize the production of (bad) music.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[eclectro]

There's a lot that goes into CD distribution, from marketing to production to hiring to etc

you forgot, they need money for drugs.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[zurab]

This crap about "The RIAA doesn't care about artists" when those artists are the ones who freely signed the contracts in order to get a deal is bogus--you think those artists think they need you to pity them when they put down their signatures willingly?

First of all, let me say that I agree with the previous posters, and you partially, that people who share copyrighted material without permission to the masses online are likely to be infringing on those copyrights. I am indifferent towards the recent RIAA lawsuits as they filed John Doe cases, so that a judge can issue subpoena[e/s] to find users' identities. This is much better than going directly to ISPs to extort private info and shutting off users' accounts.

Having said that, what I believe is "not right" is not directly related to the above, but is a larger issue. The entertainment industry, IMO, as represented mostly by RIAA and MPAA member companies, is an illegal cartel. These are handful of media conglomerates that do not compete in a true sense of competition, they fix prices, they unfairly squash competition, enforce illegal trade restrictions, abuse people's rights and privacy, engage in "creative accounting" and don't pay a dime in taxes, etc., etc., etc. They have been sued/charged with many of these violations, have lost or been convicted, have paid fines, and have resumed practicing exactly the same.

This is not only hurting potential customers and the related entertainment market in general, but also has an adverse effect on musicians and artists. In effect, most artists are not even able to negotiate their contracts saying anything better than signing their lives over to the cartel. There is no real competition. This is not right. The cartel should be disbanded, illegal price fixing and non-compete agreements should be invalid. Law makers should assist in creating an environment where competition will bloom. It's especially important right now with all the technological advancements being made. This, however, is a difficult task to accomplish, partly because of legal bribery that is allowed in many "developed" governments. Cartels want control and power - they don't want competition and fair play.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[CornHole]

Call it a "culture movement" or whatever you like, but it's not about ripping anybody off. The thought process is about art, not demonizing the RIAA or thief. It happens, to people with this mindset, that these are causalities in a dilemma of understanding. Understand that the mindset is that music, like any other art form, is created by those who have a passion for it, those who want to give/explain/justify their view of the world to the world. That those people would be doing this not matter what, money, fame, whatever. Call it a purist view of the world, but don't miss understand it.
Given that viewpoint, the RIAA and those "shiny, Barbie doll artists" would be the antithesis of the purists view on music as art, seeking (only?) to profit from an art form. But this is the nature of a capitalist economy driven by consumerism.

As to the legality issue, there is no question that the law bodes against the practice of file sharing. I will remind you however, that the law was also, once, in favor of slavery, civil rights abuses, women's rights, etc. The "LAW" is a living document subject to change with the ebbs and flows of society.

The question remains, would you take the same stance on the issue, if you were charged $12-18 per painting or collection at your local art gallery for sub par works of artists seeking a profit. Most likely not.

So yes, under the current model, artist, labels, and the organizations that represent them deserve to be paid. But, I think the point that everyone is trying to make is that the model needs to be changed.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[geekoid]

a buck an albun sounds bad, but it is really meaningless with out a toal breakdown. For all I know that could be the biggest piece.

15 bucks in the store: Whats their % 30?
10.5 Middles mans cut, 15%?
9 Artisit 1 buck
8 cost of production? Unknown to me, but I'd love to find out.

also, onlt 75% can be kept ar 'overhead' and still be kept as a charity. That can be bad, but not always.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[Walkiry]

There is no alternative.

Bullshit. There is no easy alternative. The "artists" go the easy route and sign up with the RIAA labels because it's the easiest and most comfortable way to get their dime-a-dozen craptacular pop music out. The alternatives would require hard work and talent, so I'm not surprised they don't take them given their lack of both. But they exist.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[DragonMagic]

A more interesting tidbit.

Did you know that most authors, including Zahn, Clarke and Sawyer, earn probably 5-8% royalties on sales of their books?

Unless they sell a great number (for SF books, this is usually into the six figures, and most SF books, except for franchises like Star Trek and Star Wars, sell between 20,000 and 50,000), that number stays low on paperbacks.

So that $8 paperback you bought only earns the author, who did nearly all the work on that book, about $.50. Talk about a travesty!

Or, frankly, that's just how the industry works. Artist/author makes a creative work, sends to the label/publisher, who has a team design the jewel case & liner notes/jacket or covers, before marketing the work if they do at all, then selling in volume to big distributors, who sell to smaller distributors or major chains, who have to ship them to the individual stores, who have to put them on the shelves or online for the consumer to purchase.

Each one of those steps needs to make its profit, the last of the chain needing to be the biggest cut (between 40-60% off retail). In the end, the cuts trickle back to very little leftover for the artist or the author.

And that's how it's always been. CDs can be bought online and the record labels circumvented. However, most authors still enjoy being in print, so eBooks aren't going to change that industry yet.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[wathead]

A good friend of mine's father is the king of rockabilly. He has had a recent resuragance in fame over the last several years in Eorope. The only way to get his CD was through amazon in the US. The industry put togather a greatest hits CD from old recordings from the late 50s early 60s. I think he told me gets about 15 cents a CD. I asked was it allright for me to make copys for my friends. He said to make as many as I wanted. Then told me he doesnt get anything from the Cds anyway. He got paid alot more for a cheap B flick that used one of his songs.
It doesnt make file sharing right though. But it is not the artist that are losing.
Screw you mettalicca You suck anyway.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[goatan]

To Slashdot, it's a "culture movement" because artists don't deserve to be paid for the work they put in to renting a studio, spending a month recording something, pressing CDs, and marketing it with their label.

It's the big record companys who are keeping the majority of artists poor whilst keeping CD prices high that are in the wrong because they are gouging both customer and artist. The vast majority of recording artists Recive hardly any money for there effort as most of it's taken by the record compan'ys it's not Slashdot that belive artist don't deserve to be paid it's the RIAA and those like them (i.e you). If I'm going to pay money for something that cost's a lot of money and the artist is going to get very little of that then I am going to make sure it is worth buying and the artist is worh the small support RIAA allows me to give by downloading and seeing if I like there music.

The following is a list of artist's who's music I would not have bought if I had been unable to listen to there music first

Pink floyd

Led zeppelin

Fleetwood mac

Pink

The darkness

John Lee hooker

Squeeze

Joe satriani

Steve via

Eric Johnson

Steve ray Vaughan

Beck

Most are music of an older generation which I would never get to hear often enough to decide if I like them if the RIAA had it's way those artist's would have sold less records but i suppose that's ok by you

Re:Not to Slashdot

[bfg9000]

Dude, there is *no* alternative which will allow you to be successful to even a fraction of what the RIAA allows. I'm trying to think of examples, and I can't think of any. I mean, even the amazing fricking genius Prince went out on his own and promptly disappeared. And 99.9% of artists will never have one-tenth the talent Prince has in his fluffy Purple Pirate Shirts. So if *he* can't make it on his own, what chance does anyone else have? There's a lot of CRAP getting to the top WITH the RIAA, and a lot of GREATNESS going nowhere WITHOUT the RIAA. If you have examples to disprove this, I'd be happy. But I think "work hard, kids, and keep your chin up" ain't working against the walls the RIAA has put up (paying radio stations to never play independant music, etc.).

Which reminds me, the Prince bio page on iTunes has many technical inaccuracies, and clearly sides with the record company against the Artist. Does anyone know if Apple wrote the bio, or was it sent from the record company? And I noticed that you can't buy Prince's newer albums through iTunes - basically the bands that NEED iTunes' help with distribution most can't get it, while the Britney crap that you can find anywhere is well represented....

Re:Not to Slashdot

[Pizzop]

the real money is in touring. if you look at the profits from the tours, you'll see that's how the rockstars get really rich.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[kaoshin]

Tell that to bands like Metallica... the Grateful Dead.. bands who forced the industry to recognize them because of their popularity. Some people earn it because of actual talent and hard work, and don't have it all just handed to them.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[shotfeel]

Its like that in most "industries". The farmer who grew the corn in your $3 box of corn flakes is lucky to get 10 cents for the corn that went into the box. Figure the cost doubles every step up the chain as "value" is added and you come up about right.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[JavaLord]

There is no alternative. You either sign up with RIAA, or you get no record, no air time, and no tour dates. That's why the RIAA was formed, to monopolize the production of (bad) music.

Agreed, to take it a step further, if you download music from an artist you normally wouldn't listen to or buy (ie britney spears), decide you like it, and go to their concert aren't you actually helping out the artist since they get more money from the concerts than from CD's that you would have never bought anyway.

This is a lot like the warez pupz that download Visual Studio and don't do anything with it and don't even know how to code. Sure, microsoft claims that as a "lost sale" due to piracy, but the person would have never bought the thing anyway, there was no sale to lose.

The Record Industry isn't losing money at all. This is simply a monopoly leveraging it's power.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[nazsco]

But, interesting tidbit - did you know premium artists like Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears get less then $1 per album sold.

beside the Premium artists thing that i'm not going to bite... just think that those people are produced out of marketing (investment) from some recording company. So they are right to claim their money back, after all, they paid for them to be famous and to sell.

Here in Brazil, we have Lobao. A musician that started to print his own CDs and them used his money to distribute it on news stands. He claim that even selling much much less than he would having the CD sold by a record company, he made much much more money.

The downside is that his CD had less repercursion (ok, this case had more repercursion because it was the first case that an already-famous-person did it, but if he does that again, the rule will be valid). If he earned less money being "ripped off" by the recording company, he would, in the long run, be more know and keep selling CDs for a longer time...

I said all of that just to ask: What if britney have sold her CDs by her-self... earning $10 instead of $1 per CD? Would any one ever know her for her true tallent?

Re:Not to Slashdot

[PaleBoy]

"It's called business. It's called a contract...

Just because something is business does not make it ethical or moral, or even legal. Slavery had a contract too.

"An artist should shop around for a better contract, or not sign one."

Their were, until recently, very few other options. The crap deal was the only deal to be had, as the publishers owned the production, distribution, promotion, AND the airwaves.It's called a monopoly.

Their is no doubt that musicians should organize and fight for fairer compensation. But is it so wrong that the consumer, on the other end of the deal, ALSO GETTING SCREWED, wants to help the fight, too?

File sharing is illegal. But has it made a statement? Has it created a discussion? Has it changed things? Look at Itunes. Things have changed. A discussion has been created. A statement has been made. If the Itunes model prevails as a dominant music distribution, the publishers will perish as the parasitic middlemen that they are.Sometimes a little civil disobedience is necessary to make yourself heard.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

$%^&*%^&*^*%^*^&*^&%^&%^*&%^*%^&*%^&"$%^"$%^"$%^"$ %^"$%&"$%^&^&^&%^&

Re:Not to Slashdot

[bonch]

There is no alternative. You either sign up with RIAA, or you get no record, no air time, and no tour dates.

Absolutely, completely, 100% false. Apparently, you believe there is some gun pointed at a band's head forcing them to willingly sign a standard business contract. Are you even aware of the European market, or the indie genres, or the non-RIAA mediums? Are you aware there exists such a thing as an Internet? iTunes? I could go on and on and on.

That's why the RIAA was formed, to monopolize the production of (bad) music.


No, it was formed as a lobbying group to represent several major labels. The contracts Slashdotters bitch about come from the RECORD LABELS, not the RIAA. So it's a bit perplexing that Slashdotters equate "evil" contracts with the RIAA to begin with, when the RIAA has nothing to do with the business contracts of their represented members.

In any case, it doesn't matter--the artist signs a contract, or they don't. This ridiculous charge that people have against the RIAA treating artists badly is completely insane. If you want to bitch at somebody, bitch at the artists you're supposedly protecting. They're the ones who didn't seem to think it was so bad signing the contracts.

I doubt anyone here has even been involved in the music industry, so all the complaining about something nobody even really knows about also perplexes me--though it's not surprising. It's basically an internal justification for using Kazaa without feeling guilty--blame it all on the RIAA. Right?

Re:Not to Slashdot

[bonch]

The Record Industry isn't losing money at all. This is simply a monopoly leveraging it's power.

You're right--

Millions of people downloading billions of songs from thousands upon thousands of music albums magically equates to being a good thing and not affecting sales at all.

Get real.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[bonch]

It's the big record companys who are keeping the majority of artists poor whilst keeping CD prices high that are in the wrong because they are gouging both customer and artist. The vast majority of recording artists Recive hardly any money for there effort as most of it's taken by the record compan'ys

Again--you seem to have missed the point--those artists freely signed those contracts. You're trying to "protect" the artists from something they did themselves. It's a completely irrelevant point and I don't know why people bring it up anyway, because it DOES NOT justify stealing their music.

it's not Slashdot that belive artist don't deserve to be paid

If you believe downloading music without paying for it is to be championed, what else are you professing?

it's the RIAA and those like them (i.e you).

I believe artists should be paid. That means not being ripped off. By downloaders. If their label gave them a bad deal, they should sue their managers/lawyers for forcing them into contracts they didn't like.

If I'm going to pay money for something that cost's a lot of money and the artist is going to get very little of that then I am going to make sure it is worth buying and the artist is worh the small support RIAA allows me to give by downloading and seeing if I like there music.

How does downloading their music give them any money at all? Why do you think the artist gets such a low cut? Distribution, marketing, interviews, photo shoots, radio play, illustrators, fashion designers, video shoots, and whatever else the label has to pay for. They get recouped according to the contract the ARTIST WILLINGLY SIGNS. Get over yourself.

Most are music of an older generation which I would never get to hear often enough to decide if I like them if the RIAA had it's way those artist's would have sold less records but i suppose that's ok by you

That doesn't even make sense. The RIAA doesn't decide who sells things. The RIAA is simply a lobbying group that represents several major labels. Major labels are still selling those CDs--I see them in stores all the time and hear them on the radio.

As for hearing them before buying them, it's called iTunes/radio/MTV/Fusion/whatever you want to use.

Re:Not to Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Millions of people downloading billions of songs from thousands upon thousands of music albums magically equates to being a good thing and not affecting sales at all. Get real.

Look at their sales figures, they speak for themselves. They have had normal growth for the past few years, especially given the downturn in the economy. It just isn't enough growth for them, the rich want to be richer.

You know what...

[Rallion]

I feel for anybody whose circumstances prevent them from playing on bNet. But as long as a project like this gives the ability for anybody to effortlessly negate Blizzard's main layer of piracy control, as well as providing a tool to use in developing cheats that will work on bNet (by providing a nice reference on the network protocol), I fully agree with Blizzard's decision to shut it down. It's indisputable that bnetd provided both of those things, and I'm pretty sure that some form of copy protection wasn't on their list of future features, either. Neither did they plan on closing the source to deny bad cheaters easy reference.

I'm not saying that piracy and cheating don't happen on bNet, of course. But the way I see it taking things like this out of the picture is like locking your door in a bad neighborhood. It sucks for a guy walking by who needs some shelter, but is that really going to change your mind about it?

Re:You know what...

[Operating Thetan]

Blizzard's utter joke of an enforcement policy doesn't help, I doubt preventing cheats was their main motive in this case

Re:You know what...

[Rallion]

Well, they are the only game developer I know of that has an enforcement policy...

And they do ban cheaters' CD-keys. The more cheats there are, the more complicated the enforcement work gets.

I will certainly agree that it wasn't the main motive, however.

Re:You know what...

[devaudio]

and I'm pretty sure that some form of copy protection wasn't on their list of future features, either.
Wrong -- the actually contacted blizzard and asked how they could incorporate it into bnetd. They were first ignored, then later hit with cease and desist, and then DCMA and then here we are today. But they actually made the effort to make the CD Key check work

Re:You know what...

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Blizzard can get angry all they want, but the fact is that bnetd is none of their buisness. It is simply a matter of people using their private property (the bnetd code, and the copy of the game that Blizzard sold them) however they like. Once again, the DMCA gives anyone with a lot of money the right to tell other people what they can do with their own property by assuming them guilty.

It is possible that people use bnetd in conjunction with illegally obtained copies of blizzard games, but that has nothing at all to do with bnetd. Those people should be prosecuted for copyright infringement. No need to use the DMCA to prosecute people who did not commit a crime.

Re:You know what...

[SJ]

>as well as providing a tool to use in developing cheats that will work on bNet (by providing a nice reference on the network protocol)

If anything, this reflects poorly on Blizzard. What's the first rule of anti-cheat online gaming?

NEVER TRUST THE CLIENT!... EVER....

You must assume that you have absolutely no control over what commands the client will issue and when it will issue them.

The system should be designed so that even if I had the source code to the client I wouldn't be able to cheat. Just like the source code is useless in breaking well designed encryption systems.

If Blizzard really cared about cheating they would have designed B.Net and all of their games to work like this.

Re:You know what...

[Rallion]

Unfortunately, that doesn't work at all in practice, even in a server-based model.

The major method of cheating in a WarCraft III game is via a map hack.

The server-side solution to this is to only send what the player can see to the player.

Problems arise with lag, when the player can't see units as soon as he should. It also means for a significant number of extra fun computations on the server, which is probably pretty busy as it is, and that will likely just add to the first problem.

This is all irrelevant, though. War3 doesn't use a server-based model. A game over bNet runs just like a game over a LAN. For the player to only recieve data on units he can see, then the opposing machine must know where he has units! It can't work.

Re:You know what...

[Anonymous Coward]

BNetDguys: Hey, we've managed to emulate your servers so that we dont need you anymore. Now, if you could just give us your CD-Key scripts so we can make sure these guys arent cheating...

What Blizzard Hears:
Hey guys, we just disabled your ONLY way of fighting piracy. Now, if you could just give us your CD-Key scripts, we can make it so you never sell another blizzard game again!

Posting Anon, because you hate to hear the fucking truth.

Re:You know what...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they are the only game developer I know of that has an enforcement policy...

And they do ban cheaters' CD-keys. The more cheats there are, the more complicated the enforcement work gets.

Every single MORG that I know of has a cheating policy. Tons of gaming companies have clearly defined rules and consequences concerning cheating.

Instead of chasing your own tail trying to find and ban all the cheaters why not fix the cheats and reduce your workload? Blizzard long ignored rampant cheating going on in Battlenet and all of a sudden they want to act like they care? Yeah, ok.

Re:You know what...

[Quixadhal]

I feel for anybody whose circumstances prevent them from playing on bNet.

Hmmm, like bnet crashing, or having horrible lag because the windows servers they use are unstable.... or just plain slow ISP.

But as long as a project like this gives the ability for anybody to effortlessly negate Blizzard's main layer of piracy control,

Hmmm, so what is the purpoe of the pain-in-the-ass CD Key I have to type in every time I reinstall my legitimate copies of every Blizzard product? Why do I have to keep the stupid original jewel cases around to ensure those numbers stay put?

How about that non-standard CD format that prevents me from (easily) making a backup copy? You know, the one that might save my $50 game from having a young child take the disc and start playing frisbee with it?

as well as providing a tool to use in developing cheats that will work on bNet (by providing a nice reference on the network protocol),

Hmmm, our company is too lame to use an encryption protocol for our packet stream... so can we please use the DMCA to make up for our lack of competence in the technical arena?

Not to mention the fact that Rule #1 of client-server programming is that you never trust state-updates from the client. The client is for command input, and state display... the server is for state management. If you have to push more data across than needed to display the current state, you better encrypt it (if you want the extra state data to remain hidden).

I fully agree with Blizzard's decision to shut it down. It's indisputable that bnetd provided both of those things,

I fully agree with the government's decision to remove computers from the hands of private citizens, and require security clearances and licensing for employees to use them. It's indisputable that computers provide a means to commit criminal activities.

and I'm pretty sure that some form of copy protection wasn't on their list of future features, either.

Wrong. They not only planned on honoring the CD-Key protocol that Blizzard used, but tried to obtain information from Blizzard about authenticating this protocol.

Unfortunately for them, Blizzard doesn't understand public-key encryption, and so used a simple cd key generation algorithm which (if explained) would make pirate key generators trivial.

Neither did they plan on closing the source to deny bad cheaters easy reference.

That much is true.

bnetd was a way to supplement existing Blizzard products by providing a local character vault and game server, which could be used on the LAN. Most Blizzard titles allow LAN games, but character information is stored on each local hard drive, and thus easily hackable.

Neverwinter Nights provided a similar concept by allowing you to download and run a server locally, where characters are stored in that server. If you trust the person running the server, no client can cheat. In fact, they liked the idea well enough (plus the fact that servers can be linked) that they abandoned their own server ideas as redundant.

Allowing private servers should not be an issue for Blizzard. The desire to play in a ladder and compete against everyone else would always keep battle.net alive... but for those who want a fast lag-free game with friends, or who wanted to setup a private game with their own maps or mods, bnetd provided that opportunity, and could have done so without weakening Blizzard's position -- had they chosen to work WITH instead of AGAINST them.

Blizzard makes good software, and I'm sure I'll buy WoW when it materializes. I'll be annoyed at whatever copy protection hoops I am forced to jump through (even though a subscription-based game should have none -- your credit card is the best dongle I can think of). But, they make software. When I buy a hammer, I don't want Sears telling me I can't use it to break ice off my roof because it was only designed to hit nails. Why should software be any different?

Re:You know what...

[/dev/trash]

You are licensing Blizzard's property.

Re:You know what...

[alph0ns3]

Since when CDKey checks are the ONLY way to fight piracy? And why would implementing that would prevent blizzard to sell another game?

Re:You know what...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people ever use lag as an argument for bnetd? The only game that uses bNet to actually run the games in Diablo II. All others are direct client to client connections.

That's also very relevant when it comes to talk about cheating. The #1 rule of client-server programming is all well and good, but Warcraft III, the game that brought about bnetd, is NOT client-server.

Re:You know what...

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

No, I purchased a copy of a copyrighted work.

They may enclose a bunch of legalese with the product, but that is irrelevant. I already purchased the copy. I don't need to agree to any license or contract to use something I already own.

Re:You know what...

[/dev/trash]

Well unless you can prove you have a legit copy of that copyrighted work, then don't expect to be allowed on their server.

Re:The solution is there but sadly unpopular

[Anonymous Coward]

Under communism, Blizzard wouldn't exist. And productivity would be horrible because there wouldn't be any incentive when you're going to get a (un)fair salary no matter what.

Oh, and you probably wouldn't be posting on Slashdot, since the Internet either wouldn't exist or would be a complete mess.

Re:The solution is there but sadly unpopular

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, communism holds the key to great game design

But games played with dirt and potatoes just aren't as fun.

Re:The solution is there but sadly unpopular

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an incentive, personal fulfillment; the betterment of mankind; your own long term self-interest and - hey, stop laughing. I'm serious, this isn't a joke!

No really, communism is in your best interest. The next time you get laid off to someone who is willing to work for $30,000 a year less than you, just ask yourself: would this have happened under communism? And anyway, when you stop working for the sake of money and start working for the sake of accomplishment, you stop becoming a slave to the dollar. Do you like being a frightened slave under capitalism?

When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it hilarious that Blizzard can complain about copyright infringement when their entire IP is stolen from Dungeons and Dragons and Games Workshop

Re:When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard a rumor that there may be legal action under consideration by Games Workshop against Blizzard. May be entirely fictitious, but it's one of those things that makes you go hmm.

Re:When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard a rumour they ended up paying a 6 figure sum to avoid a lawsuit over Starcraft, but I haven't been able to find any proof either way

Re:When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs

[nickco3]

I've heard a rumor that there may be legal action under consideration by Games Workshop against Blizzard

The day Games Workshop pull that off is the day the day they need to start looking over their shoulder for the Tolkien estate.

Re:When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs

[tuxedobob]

who in turn ripped it off from Tolkien and folklore.

On the other hand, if Blizzard ripped off its characters from D&D, then WHY DO DWARVES FLY on gryphons?

Re:When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs

[Anonymous Coward]

In the original Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos, the human side had a "dwarf gyrocopter" and a "steam tank", both names which Warhammer fans might recognise (from the Dwarf and Empire armies, respectively). When you install the Frozen Throne addon pack, the names are changed to the "Flying Machine" and something else equally lame, and the ex-steam-tank's graphics change significantly.

Hmm...

Re:When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs

[YomikoReadman]

The fact of the matter is, Games Workshop could pull that off. They have stores in half a dozen countries, not too mention the fact that there are probably non-GW stores in as many more. I'd be willing to bet that more people play GW games than all of Blizzard's stuff, not to mention that GW has been around for over 30 years.

Re:When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs

[Anonymous Coward]

Tolkien didn't have steam tanks and gyrocopters and muskets. The heart of GW's stuff is close to Tolkien, but the copyright's expired on that stuff anyway, so it's not as big of a deal.

Re:When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs

[orkysoft]

Yes, that made me go "hmm" as well. Siege Engine, eh?

Re:When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs

[orkysoft]

Actually, GW has a whole range of LOTR miniatures out at the moment. My brother is going gaga over them as I write this.

Me, I'm still disappointed that there were not Space Orks in Starcraft. Maybe in Starcraft II. A man can dream though, a man can dream...

Re:When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs

[damiam]

That's like saying "MS can't complain about copyright infringement, their entire IP is stolen from Xerox" or "Metallica can't complain about copyright infringement, their entire IP is stolen from Bach". In both cases, the majority of the work is theirs, even though it may be based on others'.

Myth | Bungie

[OwlBoy]

The community run game server concept worked / is working for the Myth community... http://www.playmyth.net -Owl

Re:Myth | Bungie

[Anonymous Coward]

The community run game server did not work with the myth community. The person who opperated playmyth also took over the operation of mythdev (guys who did patches and stuff) and placed an encryption file into the next version of myth II which prevented any new servers from using the 1.4 version of myth II. The two existing servers (playmyth.net and mariusnet) could use 1.4 however when mariusnet changed their DNS they had to backwards engineer the encryption file which resulted in mythdev threatening to sue them for violating the DMCA. You can probably read more about this if you search the news archives at www.mariusnet.com

Incidentally during all this mess support for the linux version fell by the wayside and now there are no servers that support the linux version of myth. If there are linux programming type people out there you might be able to find information about how to help at www.projectmagma.net but I'm not sure.

Direct Quote

[Zenmonkeycat]

zenmonkeycat - Anyone want to help me kill Baal?

l0ser - u hav gold

zenmonkeycat - Do I have gold?

l0ser - hey give me sum gold

zenmonkeycat - I really don't have any to spare.

l0ser - hey fagit giv eme gold

zenmonkeycat - Seriously, I don't have enough as it is.

l0ser - i need wps
l0ser - jail
l0ser - give wp

zenmonkeycat - Seriously, you don't need it.

l0ser - give wp fagit!!! [spammed four times in a row dowm my screen]

zenmonkeycat - No. I'm not going to give you any waypoints if you're going to be a dick about it.

l0ser - give gold!!!!

zenmonkeycat - Shut up, you're not getting any of my gold.

l0ser has gone hostile on zenmonkeycat
[five minute wait with me in town the whole time]

l0ser - give me wps
[ten minutes pass and I'm still hanging out in town]

l0ser has left the game

zenmonkeycat - Heh.

Blizzard=SCO?

[Operating Thetan]

Taken from a Cease and Desist issued by them

Recently, we have received an increasing amount of feedback from our customers in regard to the probable copyright infringement of Diablo, Diablo II, Starcraft, Warcraft II: Battle.net Edition, Warcraft III and World of Warcraft products (each, a "Program") on the Internet. We here at Blizzard share the concerns that many gamers are voicing. In this regard, we have contacted one of your users in connection with the aforementioned site and the infringement of Blizzard intellectual property. Please note that all title, ownership, and intellectual property rights in and to each Program and any and all copies thereof (including, but not limited to, any titles, computer code, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch phrases, locations, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions, audio-visual effects, methods of operation

Seemingly Blizzard now claims the rights to the entire RTS genre

Re:Blizzard=SCO?

[Rallion]

That's pretty standard, really. Cease and desist letters are always scary and irrationally worded, if never outright lies. "Methods of operation" is such a vague term, it can mean practically anything. Hell, forget RTS, maybe it's talking about the use of mouse and keyboard. Or a machine that computes things. Or a device that has metal parts.

Or maybe it means building a Command Center which can then build SCVs and allows a Barracks which allows an Armory which allows you to build Firebats...okay, I haven't even played that game for about two years.

That's the point, though. Say terrifying things. Make them think you could sue the pants off of God so you don't have to try to sue the pants off them.

Shady, yeah, but what isn't these days?

Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

Bnet.d contains no Blizzard code and doesn't infringe on any laws (excepting perhaps the DMCA, which happens to be a dubious law anyway)

Blizzard's concerns about "piracy" or cheating may or may not be justified, but ethically and legally it's none of their fucking business if someone wants to make a b.net-compatible server as long as they don't break any laws. Blizzard shouldn't have the power to do shut them down. No one should.

It's time to stand up for the little people, even when they don't always do things that maximize profits for corporations. I ask you, which do you value more, freedom to develop software that may put a dent in the sales figures of some corporation (GNU/Linux is a good example - they're taking massive market share from lots of companies who formally made big bucks selling proprietary alternatives) or allowing Blizzard to restrict these people in the name of profit and/or misguided hysteria?

Re:Oh please

[Rallion]

The War3 EULA forbids the hosting or providing of any alternative matchmaking services. (See 3.C.iv, it was the same in the beta, just like it was for StarCraft.) So there's another legal basis for you. Unless the coders divised the network protocols via divine inspiration and without the use of the War3 software, that can be applied.

Re:Oh please

[vanillacoke]

Well this adds to the bonus of the case if its is won the frivolousness of the EULA.

NOTE: THIS WAS DIRECTED AT GRANDPARENT

[Anonymous Coward]

thank you ;)

Piracy Control? Huh?

[GoMMiX]

Okay, for starters - bnetd said they would implement the cd-key check system Blizzard uses on battle.net. Blizzard in fact agreed to it at one point, then retracted and filed suit.

The CD-Key check on battle.net is NOT Blizzard's primary form of anti-piracy. Hell, it's not even a good one. CD-Key gen's are available for every Blizzard title. EVERY title. (Well, all those that require a key anyway.)

All can be found with little effort, navigating the right hack sites. In fact, many people trade them off for items in games.

Another problem with calling Blizzard's CD-Key check their main anti-piracy protection is the fact that SP, LAN, and TCP/IP play do _NOT_ have any sort of CD-Key authentication.

In fact, the MAIN anti-piracy measure Blizzard has taken is unquestionably the initial CD-Key check required during the installation of the product.

The battle.net CD-Key check feature merely ensures more then one person isn't using the same key on the same service at the same time. Hardly a main piracy protection scheme. Though, it's a good and valuable one.

However, if it were so important that a product like bnetd would harm their business - it would suffice to say they would not have allowed TCP/IP, LAN, and SP without the same CD-Key check.

Now, take notice to what you are saying. According to you, a company [such as Blizzard], could effectively hold a monopoly over a service by merely adding a copyright protection feature to their own proprietary service - such as a CD-Key check.

The way they do it is simple. Make product, product can use online service. Make online service do a CD-Key check that ONLY producer can do.

BANG, no one can offer a competing service.

Re:Piracy Control? Huh?

[cubic6]

CD keygens are available for every Blizzard title, but none of them generate keys that work on Battle.net. Battle.net doesn't use an algorithm, it actually has a list of all shipped keys. Compared to the number of possible keys, the actual working Bnet keys are very much in the minority. The key algorithm when you install, however, is pathetic. With Starcraft, for example, you can usually guess a working install key within a few minutes.

Re:Piracy Control? Huh?

[RazzleDazzle]

yeah, I found on my own if you do
1234567890123
works great.
(cant remember exactly how many but it just increments like that)

WoW

[filtur]

Someone tell the EFF to leave Blizzard alone so they hurry up and release World of Warcraft :)

(I kid, I kid)

Re:WoW

[LittleBigLui]

You don't want the lawyers to get anywhere near the code. Really, you don't. That would be ... messy, to put it nicely. Seriously. No lawyers near code. You wouldn't like it. Really. I'm not kiddin' you.

Free Standard Game Server

[ElliotLee]

What happened to FSGS? I remember playing on this Battle.net clone years ago. It seems they got shut down too.

Re:Free Standard Game Server

[Jacer]

It was Free Starcraft Game Server. Or atleast the one I played. With a simple change of the ip address in your registry, you played on their servers. A lot less lag, and a lot less players. It worked really well for my friends and I to get together and play. We dropped connection a lot less frequently too. I tried to get to their site (www.fsgs.net) a few months back, but it was down.

Re:Free Standard Game Server

[Rallion]

I don't think they were shut down...They just died.

Re:Free Standard Game Server

[Anonymous Coward]

They were shut down by Blizzard.

Re:The solution is there but sadly unpopular

[LittleBigLui]

Soviet Union produced Tetris, the most played game yet made

No no, you've got it all backwards!

Re:Allow me to be the first say...

[jogie112]

You because you bothered to post.

Blizzard has given somethings to the community..

[Anonymous Coward]

battlenet as a free service. However they haven't turned around and gpl'd the source of some of their older games like id. I am on a fulcrum point of whether or not to support them in the future, but this dispute definitely hasn't won any points with me as a paying customer. As a consumer I am well aware that there are alternatives to Blizzard products and they are becoming more and more appealing to my wallet.

Re:Don't be so quick to dismiss the importance her

[Jarnis]

""This is obviously an abusive use of the DMCA as that 'special' cd-key check only takes place on battle.net. It doesn't happen on single player, LAN, or TCP/IP games.""

It's kinda hard to perform the check in singleplayer and LAN games, as you could either circumvent it by unplugging your network connection to the world, or losing sales to every user who do not (gasp) have Internet connection.

No keycheck for direct TCP/IP games is bit more gray area, but basically they are 'LAN games' as well, and requiring a check would require an internet connection for a game which does not require it to function. How do you differentiate TCP/IP gaming over a 'private' WAN and a game over the Internet?

The other way to do it is Valve's 'Steam' system. Look how many 'fans' they got from the LAN party community when their new system basically disallowed LAN gaming without a connection to the internet!

Blizzard is still the bad guy, as 'server emulation' for a game that does not require a paid subscription is fair game to reverse-engineer. What happens in five or ten years when Blizzard runs down battle.net and you can no longer use it? Yeah, it has a secondary issue of 'disabling' the antipiracy check, but I recall bnetd devs offered to include the keycheck to their code, but blizzard refused to provide a way to include it.

In any case, complaining that they are 'abusing' the DMCA by requiring an online CD-check only on battle.net is moronic to say the least.

Re:The solution is there but sadly unpopular

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.... hungry programmers locked up for 20 years? That's a lot of free time. I'd bet they would come up with something even better than Warcraft.

Correction

[0x0d0a]

Blizzard is very likely to continue sinking money into the service forever. should be Blizzard is not very likely to continue sinking money into the service forever.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

...thats what you get for going to school at a religious college in the middle of west bumfuck!

I'm not a lawyer...

[Queuetue]

But some Corporation's ability to make a buck off of me shouldn't be more important than my freedom to do whatever the heck I want to with my own property.

The U.S. has to stop treating corporations - tools designed to deflect liability and dodge taxes - as living entities. A Corporation's goals do not benefit mankind - they benefit the stockholders.

When you give a non-human entity greater rights and priveleges than you do actual people, it enslaves us.

Re:I'm not a lawyer...

[slycrel]

Unfortunately they are claiming that you DON'T OWN ANYTHING. They say that you click in the "I disagree" box then you have zero rights whatsoever. That you're just licensing the game and you don't own anything other than a license to use it. And only a license to use the game from the specific CD you purchased.

That's nuts, and it would be a very bad thing if this came out in their favor.

Re:I'm not a lawyer...

[Frenchy_2001]

But some Corporation's ability to make a buck off of me shouldn't be more important than my freedom to do whatever the heck I want to with my own property.

Actually, i dont think they would disagree with that. Their problem is more do whatever you want with an illegal copy of stolen property.

Most of the Blizzard games are seen at their bests only on Battle.net. Seriously, in the latest ones, Diablo2 was fun once in single, but countless of times in multi.

Same thing with war3, that has been transformed from a RTS game to a platform used to build new games (a map on Bnet lately is almost a game in itself). Without Bnet, those games would not be the success they are. And without Bnet, there is no incentive for the people to pay for it.

Sure, you can catch a CD key generator that will let you install the game, but it probably wont work on Bnet. This *IS* Blizzard's main weapon against piracy, the incentive for people to buy: a free service that verify that you are authorized to play.

And their problem with Bnetd was that it had either
- no key check
- a key check routine in the source code, distributed freely.

Yes, their usage of the DMCA is stupid, but they just try to defend their business model (give free service that verify your game copy is right).

Re:I'm not a lawyer...

[Queuetue]

And their problem with Bnetd was that it had either

They can have problems all they want - it still wasn't the bnetd group that was breaking the law. They should go crack down on those who were.

If someone has stolen something from you, go get them - not the people who built the getaway car.

Then emphasize the artists

[SoopahMan]

Then we need P2P software that truly emphasizes the artists, and completely circumvents the RIAA. Maybe an add-on interface for Kazaa, MUTE or WASTE. If the average user sees they can get at the artists directly, legally, and still get all the music they want... sounds like a pretty high-selling idea to me.

Blizzard's other lawsuit

[Edgetho007]

I happen to run across another lawsuit that is about to break. It appears that Blizzard Entertainment is in a trademark dispute with a New York company called Blizzard Records. Here is the only link I've found on it in the public sector. Based on what I've heard this could really hurt Blizzard Entertainment.

Re:Don't be so quick to dismiss the importance her

[Anonymous Coward]

The bnet mark confusion is addressint in the (F) article. Blizzard has provided no proof that battle.net was known to its users as b.net prior to 1998 when 'bnetd project' began using that name.

WHAT!? Pass some of that crack over here.

[Anonymous Coward]

You support the ability of a game company to shut down other people's projects if those projects in some miniscule ancilliary way help people develop cheats for the company's game?

That's a pretty interesting position to take.

Do you support card deck companies shutting down computer chip manufacturers because their chips can be used to create card-counting devices?

renamed and then shutdown

[Anonymous Coward]

They renamed it Free Standard Game Server years ago but they shut down shortly after Blizzard sued the bnetd project. Guess they didn't want to deal with a long multimilion dollar lawsuit with one of the biggest international corporations on the planet :)

Re:renamed and then shutdown

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is some games actually used FSGS. Sub-Titans supported internet matchmaking play ONLY through FSGS. Now that Blizzard killed the project they killed Sub-Titans (admittedly it's a bit old but...) I would think that company could sue them for damaging their business

World of Warcraft won't be free.

[Mustang Matt]

This is really obvious to anyone who tried to sign up for the beta test. They have to shut down any free versions of battle.net because they're planning on making money off of world of warcraft monthly fees.

I don't blame them but then again I'm not sure they should be able to shut someone down who created a free version of their proprietary online game engine.

Re:World of Warcraft won't be free.

[DatAsian]

This is really obvious to anyone who tried to sign up for the beta test. They have to shut down any free versions of battle.net because they're planning on making money off of world of warcraft monthly fees.


You know that 200000+ people hitting a server and constantly refreshing is rough right? I mean the forums were flooded with "When are beta signups" and when someone posts that it's up, everyone looked. 400000+ total applications and a bunch of 'em being spammed isn't nice.

Battle.net service is NOT being shut down. WoW business model is an MMORPG. Yes they charge monthly fee. That's NORMAL. Battle.net will remain up and free.

-Dat ^_^
ex-MVP

Virtual property is different

[Solandri]

Its like that in most "industries". The farmer who grew the corn in your $3 box of corn flakes is lucky to get 10 cents for the corn that went into the box. Figure the cost doubles every step up the chain as "value" is added and you come up about right.

The corn example you cite is actually a pretty good example of the markups on a physical commodity. It takes a lot of work and resources to prep and move a physical commodity from production to the customer. It creates a three-tiered business model: production -> distribution -> retail sales.

Music, books, and software are different though - they're virtual commodities. For thousands of years they were closely tied to physical media so they could be treated as a physical commodity. The three-tiered business model still applied.

With the advent of mechanical reproduction (the printing press, phonograph, mimeograph, etc), the cost of reproducing the virtual commodity dropped. It was still tied to a physical medium so the distribution cost stayed the same, but the the production cost dropped. The people in the first two stages of the business model loved this because it meant more money for them. Their costs dropped, but the physical product was the same so they could charge the same price to the end customer under the guise of distribution costs, while they got fat on the profits.

Now, with the advent of tape recorders, cd-burners, computers, and the Internet, the other shoe has dropped. The revolution that started with the printing press has reached its conclusion - virtual commodities are now completely unencumbered by any physical media or distribution costs. The new business model for virtual commodities is going to be production -> sales, with maybe a small marketing role in the middle. Suddenly those middlemen who were profiteering for centuries off the distribution portion of the model are going to be out of a job, and they're scared.

The days where distributors could eat up most of the profits for virtual commodities are going to be over soon. It's already happened with travel agencies, it's happening with banking (check processing is being supplanted by online bill paying), and it's going to happen to music, books, software, and movies for the simple reason that it's a more efficient business model. Those who've set themselves up comfortably in the old business model see the writing on the wall, and they're fighting tooth and nail to delay the inevitable - throwing up every legal, financial, and PR roadblock they can to try to slow it down so they can milk their positions for a few more bucks.

Blizzard games already support local network play

[AHumbleOpinion]

Blizzard games already support local network play. Old games that only shipped with IPX LAN support were updated many years later with support for UDP LAN.

chuck that nigger in the graveyard

[Anonymous Coward]

homes!

Re:The solution is there but sadly unpopular

[Anonymous Coward]

While trees and pig farms are?

I interviewed at Blizzard a few years back

[complexmath]

and wasn't impressed. The interviewer got into work two hours after the interview was supposed to start, and things went downhill from there. If they hadn't paid for my plane ticket I would have left. I still find it surprising that such a well-known game company can be so unpreofessional and remain successful.

Hilarious

[bonch]

Call it a "culture movement" or whatever you like, but it's not about ripping anybody off.

I didn't call it a culture movement. Justifiers like you have.

The thought process is about art, not demonizing the RIAA or thief.

For fuck's sake--give me a break. The thought process is about "art?" When a college kid installs Kazaa and rips the latest Linkin Park CD in 30 minutes, he's thinking about how artistic he's being and preserving music? Get real. You're justifying it as an art movement to remove the attachment of guilt that lands upon you when you download music you should be paying the artist for.

It happens, to people with this mindset, that these are causalities in a dilemma of understanding. Understand that the mindset is that music, like any other art form, is created by those who have a passion for it, those who want to give/explain/justify their view of the world to the world. That those people would be doing this not matter what, money, fame, whatever. Call it a purist view of the world, but don't miss understand it.

If you appreciate their worldview so much, how does stealing it support them financially to make more? A lot of artists do this for a living.

Given that viewpoint, the RIAA and those "shiny, Barbie doll artists" would be the antithesis of the purists view on music as art, seeking (only?) to profit from an art form. But this is the nature of a capitalist economy driven by consumerism.

It's nature, period. You trade for something. Artists sign distribution deals in exchange for a return of the profits to the labels who will be producing their video, filming it, hiring directors, hiring producers, renting a studio, clothes, setting up photo shoots, interviews, etc.

As to the legality issue, there is no question that the law bodes against the practice of file sharing.

That should be the end of it. Not only legally, but morally. However, I fully expect some sort of moral justification to follow--

I will remind you however, that the law was also, once, in favor of slavery, civil rights abuses, women's rights, etc. The "LAW" is a living document subject to change with the ebbs and flows of society.

Ah, and there it is. The fact that slavery and other civil abuses once existed somehow translates into the idea that it's okay for people to download music without paying for it. Law is NOT a living document subject to the ebbs and flows of society. Law is a strict code of ethics. Only when it is changed through further legislation does it EVER change. Right now, it is against the law.

I very much appreciate the irony of you bringing up rights violations of the past to JUSTIFY rights violations of artists.

The question remains, would you take the same stance on the issue, if you were charged $12-18 per painting or collection at your local art gallery for sub par works of artists seeking a profit. Most likely not.

What would you be doing paying for $12-18 paintings you thought were sub-par? Does that make it okay for you to freely make copies of them and distribute them on the Internet?

So yes, under the current model, artist, labels, and the organizations that represent them deserve to be paid. But, I think the point that everyone is trying to make is that the model needs to be changed.

You don't make that point by ripping off the artists. They willingly signed those contracts. The anti-RIAA, pro-artist bullshit is just a justification to try to shed the image of illegality that will always haunt this mindset--it's a distraction of the issue. "We're getting music albums without paying for them--blame the RIAA!" This rampant moral relativism to justify the convenience of thievery disgusts me.

Re:The solution is there but sadly unpopular

[Anonymous Coward]

While trees and pig farms are?

Well yeah. Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing man!

Re:Don't be so quick to dismiss the importance her

[wings]

I agree with you that this case was an abuse of the DMCA, but by reading the bnetd_reply pdf, it is explained exactly why Blizzard couldn't use the DMCA. See section IV in the paragraph starting on page 14, where it says:

In Skylink, the Court held that because the plaintiff Chamberlain had not placed any restrictions on the type of garage door openers its customers could use, there was no DMCA violation when using an alternative opener.

Followed a little further on by:

Like Chamberlain, Blizzard has placed no restriction at all on what kind of matchmaking server its customers can use. Once customers have purchased the game, they have the "authority" to use whatever matchmaking server they prefer. Therefore, like Chaimberlain, Blizzard cannot sue purchasers who choose to use a different server.

From my reading, it looks like a simple rewording of the EULA might have been all that was needed to give Blizzard leverage with the DMCA.
Also a little further along Blizzard attempts to claim their software is only licensed and not sold, when (apparently) "...no less than ten times..." in court documents they described the software as 'sold'. It looks like if Blizzard's documents had been worded a little differently ('licensed' instead of 'sold') they might have had something there too.
There's also the part on page 11 where Blizzard failed to make good on the claim of copyright infringment on the icons, because they were lumped in with the rest of the game client as a whole, and that copying only the icons was de minimis. In that section, the document seems to imply that Blizzard might have had a case there had they bothered to register each icon individually.
So, I'm glad Blizzard lost, but the bnetd_reply document reads to me like a step by step HOW-TO (not make these mistakes again) document for lawyers.

Re:The solution is there but sadly unpopular

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather be a rich slave than a poor, uh, communist