Blizzard Stomps Bnetd in DMCA Case

base3 writes "The EFF reported that the Vivendi/Blizzard vs. the good guys case has been decided, and it doesn't look good. Some highlights from the ruling are: A clickthrough EULA isn't unconscionable (and thus enforceable); Fair Use rights can be waived in a EULA; First Sale rights (!) can be waived in a EULA; The DMCA's interoperability provisions are not a defense. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it will allow one-sided EULAs to force the waiver of the rights of First Sale and Fair Use. This, combined with the Supreme Court's recent assent to perpetual copyright, a few decades at a time, will destroy any semblance of balance in U.S. copyright law. Fortunately, the EFF plans to appeal the ruling."

Comments

bnetd's case

[rpdillon]

I've been following this for some time, and was always kind of appalled by how unjust the case is.

Basically, for those that don't know, bnetd was a daemon (!) that ran under Linux (maybe windows, I forget) that emulated Blizzard's Battlenet server. Blizzard sent out a C&D and took them to court under DMCA. Really, this is a whole lot like DVD Jon in some ways, because Vivendi is contending that the existence of bnetd promotes piracy because it does not enforce CD key checking. In reality, the motive was never to circumvent CD key checking - it was a workaround to allow LAN games over TCP/IP (vice IPX, bleh). The only way to work this is to emulate a battlenet server that everyone can log into locally.

IIRC, the bnetd team actually asked for Blizzard's help in making CD key authentication work (since the point of the project wasn't piracy) and Blizzard told them to go away. This clearly demonstrates a horrible misuse of the DMCA - basically the circumvention of the copyright protection was unintentional and in fact, undesired.

Hell, since I'm on the fence about who to vote for, if one of the candidates for president would say "Hey, I'm going to fix the DMCA mess!" I'd vote for him. Too bad that'll never happen.

Re:Plain Engrish?

[arkanes]

This especially pisses me off because a lot of the current form of fair use (especially right of first sale) exists because book publishers tried to do exactly the same thing, thus eliminating the market for used books. It didn't fly then, why the hell does it fly now? Software publishers don't need EULAs! Copyright law provides all the protection and rights they need to work effectively. Harsher EULAs don't inhibit piracy - a pirate will violate an EULA even faster than he'll violate copyright, and with far more moral legitimacy. The ONLY thing EULAs provide to the software industry is the power to control consumers and the market and thats a crock of horseshit.

If you want to license your software instead of selling it, do it right. Require a signed (and countersigne) agreement up front. This is a pain in the ass and doesn't get you into retail stores, but thats your problem and you need to deal with it if your product is that sensitive and important. If you're going to sell retail, then you can treat your software just like a book with no problems.

On a side note - if someone has written or can provide me with a pointer to a "license agreement" that basically says there is no license, you're bound by copyright law alone, here's a summary of your rights and restrictions I would be grateful, because I'm lousy at writing that stuff myself.