Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.)
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
... 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.
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.
There are two kinds of fool. One says, This is old, and therefore good. And one says, This is new, and therefore better.
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.
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
Worried you might not keep your virginity forever? Try new Linux(TM), guaranteed twice as effective as LARPing
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.)
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?
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.
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.