Slashdot Mirror


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."

23 of 773 comments (clear)

  1. Re:sold down the river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Better?
    If you want it to get better, you have to do something about it, not just sit on your ass and say "it will probably get even worse!"
    When things get better, it's cause someone stood up and said "I want to make things better!"
    Think american revolution, WW2, and the people who protested vietnam. These people did something, because the faced the fact: Yes, if you keep sitting there complaining,
    IT WILL GET A LOT WORSE!

  2. Well, we wanted a ruling on EULA's by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now we have one. And they are legally binding...

    Joy Joy.

    Been saying all along you CAN waive rights via agreement of a contract..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Well, we wanted a ruling on EULA's by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is one of the most frightening rulings I have seen, WRT software licensing, etc. The judge pretty much get Blizzard a pass on everything.

      It's interesting to note, however, that a lot of the decisions were built upon Blizzard's stating that a person can take the software home, read the EULA, reject it, then take it back to the store for a refund within 30 days. I didn't see anywhere pointed out that you won't actually GET a refund in the real world. So Blizzard offers a "way out" of the one-sided contract that cannot actually be used.

      Hopefully the appeal will point this out, in which case I think most of the other rulings won't have a leg to stand on, since Blizzard now has $50 of the customer's money, and the customer is left with nothing they case use (without giving up a bunch of rights).

      There was a lawsuit about a year and a half ago in California regarding this very issue - naming MS, Symantec, and others. It basically said that you were being forced to buy software that you cannot return after opening without seeing a EULA that you are forced to agree to in order to use the software. I haven't seen any updates, so it may have been settled out of court.

      This ruling CANNOT be allowed to stand. It's WORSE that UCITA. It's so one-sided, it makes one wonder whether the judge was really impartial on this one.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  3. Re:Plain Engrish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a press statement by Blizzard that says "Don't buy our products!".

  4. This is wonderful news! by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yay our favorite game company won!

    Now the boycott on them can end! Enough of those pesky morals and ethics. I mean they make AWESOME video games. No one's gonna remember your sacrifice against a game company. So GAME ON!

    WOOO HOOO!

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  5. This is bad. by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You don't get to read the EULA before you have already purchased the software and many stores will NOT take back opened software. I see some lawsuits coming against said stores if this appeal doesn't work out. Imagine if when you bought a music CD you had to sign a contract saying you wouldn't allow anyone but yourself to hear any time you played it.

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  6. for those of us who value fair use backups... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...would it be legal to make backups of the software BEFORE agreeing to the EULA?

  7. Thanks for letting us know!!.. by arhar · · Score: 5, Funny

    The EFF reported that the Vivendi/Blizzard vs. the good guys case has been decided, and it doesn't look good.

    Thanks for letting us know who the good guys are! I can never figure out who's right or wrong myself, and I like it when I can count on Slashdot telling me that.

  8. Seems to me to be a bit... *duh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So say you click thru a EULA, you agree to it. You install the software and then decide to pirate it, saying "the EULA is not legally enforcable".

    You do that, that's retarded.

    You want to know a better solution? Don't agree with the EULA. If you don't like the terms that it sets out for you, stop the install, put the media back in the box, and drive back to the store and bitch about it.

    Then simply don't buy that software from them again.

    You know what would happen if people did that?

    Bizzard (and other software companies) would STOP MAKING UNREASONABLE DEMANDS ON THEIR CUSTOMERS.

    Whala, problem solved.

    And saying that it won't work beause people are sheep is no excuse for your own llamma-like behavior. Stand up for yourself, stop being such a wimp all the time.

    I mean don't you think that it's pretty pathetic to trade your self respect in order to play WoW?

    I do.

  9. Re:Plain Engrish? by brianosaurus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It roughly translates to "Boycott Blizzard."

    This ruling gives publishers the ability to take away all consumer rights under copyright law. It basically overrules copyright law with whatever they put in their EULA.

    You can't play without clicking through the license. You can't read the EULA without opening the package and running the software. You can't return unopened software (to most stores, again for mostly copyright reasons).

    So unless you consent to the possibility of giving up all rights, you should not purchase any software. You have no idea what the restrictions of the license are until after you've given them your money.

    An extension of this could mean that any documents you create under a future version of MS Office could potentially be copyrighted by MS. Granted that would be a very stupid thing for MS to do, but this ruling seems to make it possible.

    --
    blog
  10. Isn't it time by rpg25 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...to open a second front against companies like this, and just refuse to buy their products?

    If Blizzard is a necessity of life for you, like food, I guess you lose. But it seems like a luxury to me, and isn't it time to just refuse to give a company your money if you don't like what they do with it?

    It's your money that's paying for their lawyers.

  11. Re:Er...whoops. by brianosaurus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The EFF is just doing their job, as lawyers, to explain the worst case possibilities of this ruling.

    You can bet your ass that Blizzard's lawyers, and EA's lawyers, and MS's lawyers, and Sun's lawyers, and IBM's lawyers, and probably even SCO's lawyers are reading up trying to figure out how they can best leverage this into their own products.

    Next thing you know, your iPod will only work with iTunes.

    Oh. Right...

    --
    blog
  12. No, EULA's don't come with software. by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They come with the installation of software--after you've already paid for it.

    The big problem most people have with EULA's is that they aren't presented at the time of purchase. I go to the store to buy a copy of Warcraft 3, I see no license agreement, I am presented with no conditions on my purchase, I pay for it. Contract concluded. Finito. I now have all the standard rights of the consumer to a copy of a copyright-protected work.

    What makes you think Blizzard can then say, "Oh, and you have to agree to surrender some of those rights. Tough luck."

    1. Re:No, EULA's don't come with software. by mitherial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      *Huh?* If you are that concerned about EULA's (and I'm not saying that you are wrong to be) simply email the company asking to see their Eula before purchasing. Adobe (for example) lists their EULA on their webpage, and refers you there from the outside of the box [I think this is the way to go].

      It used to be standard practice to print the EULA on the outside of the shrinkwrapped plastic disk package.

      If you're concerned with the usage-restrictions in a EULA, take the time to find out. And if you don't agree with the terms (quite reasonable in the case of spyware etc.) don't accept the EULA and send back the software for a refund; that is: don't use the software .

      It is the software maker's perogative to offer their software on whatever conditions they want, and it is your perogative to NOT USE THEIR SOFTWARE (and instead consider giving your money to a competing product).

      --
      Foo?
    2. Re:No, EULA's don't come with software. by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If you're concerned with the usage-restrictions in a EULA, take the time to find out.

      That's bullshit. When I head over to my local bookstore, I don't first log into the publishers web site to see if I'll be able to sell the book to a used book shop. When I go buy a CD, I don't check to see if I can make a tape copy, or if I can sell it to a used cd shop.

      The software industry has managed to convince the world that they get to have magical new rules unlike those anywhere else in the world. This little trick is based on some downright flaky court rulings and an ignorant public. It does not need to be this way, and it should not need to be this way.

      I'm perfectly happy to make contracts. I sign employment agreements, cell phone contracts, auto-loan contracts, service contracts, and more. In those situations it's done honestly; we agree roughly on the terms, I'm presented with and sign the contract, we then exchange goods, services, and/or money.

      And if you don't agree with the terms (quite reasonable in the case of spyware etc.) don't accept the EULA and send back the software for a refund; that is: don't use the software

      Hahahahahahaha. Sure. Take it back; I'm sure they'll happily give you a refund. Right. And since we're in fantasy-land anyway they'll reimburse you for the time you wasted buying a product you only learned you couldn't use when you got home.

      It is the software maker's perogative to offer their software on whatever conditions they want, and it is your perogative to NOT USE THEIR SOFTWARE (and instead consider giving your money to a competing product).

      Sure. I was at Best Buy recently. There were music CDs, the offer appeared to be about $18 for a music CD, o strings attached. There were some magazines, the offer was often something like $3.95 for a magazine, no strings attached. I actually bought a new clock-radio; the posted offer was $29.95, no strings attached. I headed over to check out pricing for Doom III. The posted offer was $54.99. There was no sign warning me of additional limitations. There certainly wasn't any contract present that I could review. Yet, for some magical reason, I'm supposed to treat Doom III different. It'll complete bullshit. If software publishers want contracts with customers, they can afford to be up-front and honest about it.

  13. bnetd's case by rpdillon · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  14. Re:sold down the river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you want it to get better, you have to do something about it, not just sit on your ass and say "it will probably get even worse!"

    How monumentally naive. Thousands of people have stood up to do something about the ridiculous drug laws in this country. NORML has been working for 30 years to repeal the marijuana laws. They have had no success at the federal level. Imagine spending half of your life to overturn ONE stupid law, and meeting with failure. Face it. The system is unresponsive to the needs or desires or will of the people.

  15. Re:EULA is a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It think it's this clause in the Warcraft III License that they are referring to:

    9. Limited Warranty. Blizzard expressly disclaims any warranty for the Program, Editor, and Manual(s). The Program, Editor, and Manual(s) are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or noninfringement. The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the Program, Editor, and Manual(s) remains with the User; however, Blizzard warrants up to and including ninety (90) days from the date of your purchase of the Program that the media containing the Program shall be free from defects in material and workmanship. In the event that the media prove to be defective during that time period, and upon presentation to Blizzard of proof of purchase of the defective Program, Blizzard will at its option 1) correct any defect, 2) provide you with a product of equal or lesser value, or 3) refund your money. Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of implied warranties or liability for incidental damages, so the above limitations may not apply to you.


    You'll note that the only thing that you get when you purchase Warcraft III is a working CD. The manual can crumble to dust upon opening the package. The software can do absolutely nothing at all, or for that matter it can cause your monitor to explode and ruin both your eyes, and as long as the CD is good, then Blizzard owes you nothing. In the event that the CD doesn't work Blizzard can at their option send you a Tootsie Roll(TM) Blow-Pop and that's it. If this license is binding then Blizzard has the option of taking your $50 and giving you a blank CD. Seems like bullshit to me.
  16. Re:Plain Engrish? by arkanes · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  17. No the big problem is... by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "The big problem most people have with EULA's is that they aren't presented at the time of purchase. "

    No the big problem is, people don't and can't be expected to enter into a contract (which is what an EULA purports to be) for a minor purchase for a few $$.

    Realistically these densely worded contracts you would have to get professional advice in order to know your rights and loss of rights. You can't do that for every $40 purchase.

    What's more is, its impractical to obtain that legal advice when your in a shop, even if you were presented with the contract just before purchase.

    What I think you should do is this:

    Write a letter saying that regardless of what the EULA says, you do not accept it, will not read it and are not entering into a contract with the publisher. If they don't like it, they can arrange to collect their software from you at a convienient time and give you a full refund.

    Send the letter off to them, THEN INSTALL IT.

    If they can impose terms after the sale on you, you can impose terms after the sale on them. If its reasonable for them to expect you to return to the shop at your expense, its reasonable for the shop to collect it from you at their expense (or the publishers).

    1. Re:No the big problem is... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, I am not sure, but there's no fundamental reason I can think of that they can offer you a contract of adhesion with onerous terms to escape from it after the fact, whereas you can't do the same to them. Contracts are by definition bilateral agreements, and contracts of adhesion are unilateral offers, and there's no reason only a seller can impose such a contract. So your tactic seems to show some promise as a way to effectively protest EULAs and force jurisprudence or industry action to reconsider this strategy for infringing on fair use rights.


      Another thing I just thought of - I don't understand how making archival copies for backup purposes is a protected right that can't be infringed by an EULA but reverse engineering for compatibility is a fair use right that CAN be infringed by an EULA (actually, I just looked it up and apparently the government now suggests that parts of Title 17, including the right to archival backup, can be thrown away by EULA).


      Fair use and archival backup are both sections under Title 17 of the Copyright Act. In order to accept that any of exemptions can be made not to apply, you have to accept that the software you are buying at a store isn't 'bought' at all, it is solely licensed after the fact by the EULA. So as to the question of what happened in that store when you handed them cash or your credit card and carried that box home, I basically give up trying to make sense of it.

  18. Re:sold down the river by f8free · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Society, as a whole, doesn't give a fuck about fair use rights, perpetual copyrights, or click-through EULAs, either. Yet here we are.

    Just because there isn't massive popular sentiment against what we here think of as an injustice doesn't mean it's not worth fighting against. You have to start somewhere.

  19. Yes they are by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful
    4. The effect of the use upon the potential market. By making a backup of your software, you are potentially depriving the copyright owner of a second sale in the event your original media are destroyed or otherwise rendered unreadable.

    But according to the EULA you're not buying the software, you're buying a license to use the software. Even if your original media is destroyed or unusable, your license is still valid. Either the software manufacturer owes you a free copy of the software (minus media and shipping costs), or you can use your backup. No effect on the market.