Slashdot Mirror
BnetD v. Blizzard Suit Moves Forward
Gamasutra has news that the ongoing legal battle between BnetD and Blizzard Entertainment will move to a new circus ring when the appeals court session begins today, Monday the 20th. From the article: "[The] EFF took the case to stand up for consumer choice in the marketplace. Reverse engineering is often the only way to craft a new product that works with older ones. Congress expressly recognized this when it created an exception to the DMCA for reverse engineering."
By which I mean picketing or possibly a viewers gallery.
Monday night is me and my friends 'game' night. Game can mean rpg (pen and paper) or video or whatever we decide, and it just seems apropriate this is getting started near where we game (anyone got the exact adress?).
If there is any 'action' of any sort (other than lawyerees being tossed around) me and my friends might be able to stop by and give an account.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
I know this isn't going to be a popular thing to say on slashdot, but I'm actually finding it difficult to get particularly upset about this whole case. I'm no Blizzard fanboy; Starcraft left me cold, I quite liked Warcraft 3 but didn't go mad over it and World of Warcraft hasn't impressed me in the slightest. However, I'm finding it hard to see them as particularly villainous here.
I mean, yes, I know the DMCA is a "bad thing". However, it does seem to me that the only practical purpose of the whole bnetd thing was to allow people to play pirated copies of Blizzard games online. Blizzard's own battle.net system has always seemed a good system to me; it's fast, it's free (unless you include WoW) and I haven't noticed serious reliability problems since shortly after the Diablo 2 launch.
Maybe I've just got the wrong end of the stick here (and I'd be happy to be corrected if I have), but is this a case of the "good guys" picking the wrong battle to fight over digital rights? I mean, it would be easier to fight the DMCA on terms that would make it easier to convince the educated (but non-techie) public, as well as lawmakers, if we weren't using a program whose main purpose in the wild is always going to be the circumvention of legitimate copy protection as the test-bed?
The thing you're missing is that they're not being nailed for their reverse engineering--they're being nailed for a minor procedural flaw! They failed to use proper Chinese firewalls in their reverse engineering process. If they HAD done it "properly", there would be no question whatsoever that bnetd was fully legal. Reverse engineering with Chinese firewalls has been upheld by the courts time and time again! So any questions about Blizzard's "rights" to control their "property" are completely off-base and irrelevant, as are questions about whether "pirates" might use bnetd.
This is a challenge to the (rather stupid, and never really court-tested) requirements to use Chinese firewalls in reverse engineering. And those requirements are stupid, since the results are the same in either case. If the bnetd folks lose, another team could easily come along, follow proper procedures, and give us pretty much the same software, and Blizzard wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So what's the point? A requirement that has no practical, useful effects is a stupid, stupid requirement!
This case goes way, WAY beyond any questions of a particular game or a particular company. This is a fundamental challenge to the whole idea of what's involved in providing/creating interoperable systems; a challenge that has repercussions for the entire industry. Whether you like StarCraft or not is as irrelevant as whether I like butterscotch ice cream. (For the record: I do.:)
How many lawsuits over the DMCA must arise before we let our blood boil to the point of not tolerating this junk legislation?
Anger aside, let me justify my remark.
People with bombs in their shoes boarding planes spend less time in jail than DMCA violators. Why is this? Why does a company which spends so much time making their games cross-platform and well-coded try so hard to make the online options for their users so centrally controlled? Why do so many companies in general use the DMCA to bash the heads of unsuspecting coders who mean no harm to company or society? These people are trying to understand the way these software packages work. If people use their code for ill or to break EULAs, why are they liable? Outside the digital realm, why do gun shops get sued when one of their guns is shot by someone else and kills another?
It incenses me the lack of personal responsibility in this society. It's the means fault, not the person using the means. Am I alone here?
The Crimson Dragon
As a longterm battle.net user, I'd say that often enough bnet isn't all that reliable. More often than not a lengthy game of warcraft III will end up with an ally being dropped by the bnet servers, or something similar. A project like this allows not only for cloned functionality, but to create a better, more tolerant (and private) environment than the offical servers.
i'm too lazy to read the article, but the summary provides what seems to be erroneous logic. why do we need the ability to play retro games... when blizzard still supports those retro games?
battle.net still works with all the older blizzard games, including war2 and starcraft. if they're arguing that bnetd is needed for retrogaming, i think they're gonna lose.
I hope bnetd wins, but in the mean time: PvPGN works great
The court found that they were contractually bound by the EULA to not reverse-engineer.
Additionally the court found they were guilty of violating the DMCA by bypassing the anti-piracy cd-check.
So its not as simple as people shouting 'DMCA REVERSE-ENGINEERING BAD BLIZZARD BAD'
Vermifax
Logout
Why not sue MS for making windows, which in fact runs all pirated software. Without windows pirated software/audio/video would reduce immensly.
I understand this. That is not what I said.
What I did say was that this should not be necessary in a free society. The defendants made the means, and other people used them. Again, why do these gys get harsher penalties than those who sell guns?
The Crimson Dragon
I expect their primary reason was wanting to retain control of their unreleased project WC3 and secondarily from a desire to reduce piracy of their other products which used battlenet. Perhaps it was the other way around.
Vermifax
Logout
From the ruling:
"The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement"
-and-
"The EULAs and TOU in this case explicitly state that title and ownership of the games and Battle.net remain with Blizzard. Defendants do not produce sufficient evidence demonstrating that title and ownership of the games passed to them. Therefore, the Court finds the first sale doctrine is inapplicable here"
And as far as your 'the courts' goes, section 117 of the Copyright Act specifically mentions computer programs and that if they are licensed and not transfered first sale doesn't apply.
Vermifax
Logout
Meeting of the minds does not necessitate negotiation. These programmers had full knowledge of the wording of Software contracts. They were also informed of the contract prior to purchase.
The EULA containing a return policy where blizzard will repay you if the retail store will not, is all that is required for consideration.
The court held that the EULA in question is a valid contract in both California and Missouri Law.
Vermifax
Logout
How about not treating their paying customers as theives?
I don't know about Starcraft or Warcraft, I never played much of them, but Diablo2 is the most heavily modded non-FPS that I am aware of (link), and you can't play mods on standard battle.net. Bnetd would allow custom servers to be set up for popular mods (link), which would really help the community flourish. As it is, if you want to play a mod in anything other than single player, you have to schedule a play date with a particular other player, and pickup games or a large real-time player chat are virtually impossible. This alone more than justifies the project's existance to me.
Because your right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. Your right to get the experience you paid for in a product you purchased isn't.
I agree with your general point, but this is a stupid arguement.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
"Your right to get the experience you paid for in a product you purchased isn't."
Your right to free speech, free assembly, and free press is protected under the constitution. Please define the difference between code and speech in this context.
The Crimson Dragon
Code is only recognized as speech by those who understand it. Even by those who do it's obvious that programming languages arehighly specialized and, at best, secondary languages. Code simply doesn't have the same status as human language. That might change if an AI is ever legally recognized as a "person", or it might not.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.