Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard Suing Creators of StarCraft II Hacks
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Rock, Paper, Shotgun:
"Blizzard have taken the extremely peculiar decision to ban players from playing StarCraft II for using cheats in the single-player game. This meant that, despite cheating no one but themselves, they were locked out of playing the single-player game. Which is clearly bonkers. But it's not enough for the developer. Blizzard's lawyers are now setting out to sue those who create cheats. Gamespot reports that the megolithic company is chasing after three developers of hacks for 'destroying' their online game. It definitely will be in violation of the end user agreement, so there's a case. However, it's a certain element of their claim that stands out for attention. They're claiming using the hacks causes people to infringe copyright: 'When users of the Hacks download, install, and use the Hacks, they copy StarCraft II copyrighted content into their computer's RAM in excess of the scope of their limited license, as set forth in the EULA and ToU, and create derivative works of StarCraft II.'"
Blizzard used similar reasoning in their successful lawsuit against the creators of a World of Warcraft bot.
While we do realize that once you buy our games, they become your property, we do reserve the right to terminate your game at any time whenever we feel it is necessary.
Erm, what?
I presume this factors into it, and it's exactly why I don't support their actions.
You see, once upon a time, in the mythic age of the mid-2000's, developers intentionally added cheat codes to their games. Yes, intentionally. No, I'm not pulling your leg, it's true! "But Keatonguy", you ask, befuddled, "Why would they intentionally give people ways to do things in the game without spending untold days of time to unlock it piecemeal?" Well, young poster, because it's fun as hell. Cheating and hacking the RAM of games is where half the replay value of the classics comes from. Tell me, would San Andreas be as fun without flying cars and rioting pedestrians? Have you ever played a PC FPS without using noclip even once? Would we have found all those unused rooms and learned the programming tricks used to make classics like Metroid and The Legend of Zelda work without an Action Replay or a Game Genie?
Now these little things called achievement scores roll around, and if anyone dares to think of getting past a part of the game they don't feel like playing, it's something to be shunned and reviled. Damn kids these days, rabble rabble rabble...
If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
Starcraft II includes cheat codes. When the codes are in effect the ability to earn the achievements is disabled. The hack in question allows players to cheat and earn the achievements at the same time.
Of course, if you want to actually be taken seriously you should refer to it as SC2, and not SC3...
No, because the achievement system isn't optional. If I bought Starcraft II (which I'm not going to, especially now), I'd probably not play it online at all, and if I did, it would just be with a few specific friends. I don't give a fuck about the achievements, I wanna play the game MY way. If I run in to a level that I find incredibly annoying, and I wanna skip it, or I wanna just stomp all over it with some invincible units, it's not any of Blizzard's fucking concern. It wouldn't have been their concern if my friends and I wanted to cheat with each other either, if we used LAN play. The only time it should matter is if we're actually, purposefully, and with intent accessing online multiplayer to play with people who couldn't know whether or not I'm cheating. If you're going to use achievements as a reason to stop people from doing what they want with their game, then that system needs to be optional.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
StarCraft 2 has cheat codes in it, their use just disables achievements until you start a new game or load an old one. Part of the issue is that this guy was using a program that let him cheat while still earning achievements and, according to the comments on the Rock Paper Shotgun article, cheat in the multiplayer too - both of which messes with the ranking system and in turn, causes all kinds of weirdness with their online matchmaking.
The real problem is that courts tend to automatically accept EULAs as being valid contracts even when they are so one-sides that they should be legally ruled unenforceable. When ruling on similar cases where there is no EULA, the courts have generally found that it is not a copyright violation. For example, the same theory was advanced to argue that a service which offered a DVD-playing program which removed certain scenes from movies (particularly, scenes deemed "offensive") was creating a derivative work from the original movie and thus should not be allowed. The courts ruled that the DVD-playing program was legal. So, basically, the question has only hinged on copyright law, the courts have ruled that it isn't a violation. When there's also an EULA, such as in the cases Blizzard has been involved in, they have consistently ruled in favor of the copyright owner.
Now, there are several reasons why this should be a non-starter. The first is that a copy in RAM should not be considered a fixation, and hence creating one is not a copyright violation. If copying something into RAM is creating a fixation then every CD and DVD player and most newer TVs continually break copyright laws every time they are used since RAM buffers have become ubiquitous. CD and DVD players simply cannot work without copying at least some of the CD or DVD into RAM in the process of playing it (although CDs could get away with as few as 16 bits at a given time). So this shouldn't legally be considered a copy to begin with, but the courts have ruled that it is in several previous cases.
Secondly, the copyright law that if someone owns a copy of a piece of software then they have the right to make the copies of it needed to run it. As a consequence, the idea that a user has to agree to an EULA in order to make the copies needed to run it is ludicrous. And the license agreement itself generally only takes away rights from the user without granting anything in return. As such, it should be considered unenforceable. However, the courts have either tended to ignore that section of copyright law and consider that the license grants you the right to make the needed copies or consider that the sale itself never happened if the medium that was bought contains software. They have ruled, effectively, that if you walk into a store and give money for a shiny disc, that if that disc contains music or movies, you've bought a copy, but if it contains software you've only licensed a copy, which is, to say the least, bizarre. As such, they've rejected arguments in previous cases that the defendants never agreed to the EULA as being irrelevant since they rule that the defendants don't own a copy and hence the relevant section of copyright law is inapplicable.
Now, Blizzard is in a slightly more realistic position from an EULA situation than most companies because they do actually have something to provide the user which the user doesn't already have: access to their on-line play servers, Battlenet. So, if they were to tie it all together in the EULA: you give us back ownership of the physical copy and you relinquish your reverse engineering rights, etc and in return we let you use our servers, then that contract would be enforceable (still lousy, but enforceable). However, in the previous Blizzard games I owned (which doesn't include StarCraft II, so I'm just speculating, someone else probably has more exact information) the EULA itself didn't mention BattleNet, only the game program and BattleNet was covered by a separate agreement you had to agree to in order to get your account. If the same is true here, then the EULA should be unenforceable.
But realistically, the courts never rule EULAs unenforceable, no matter the terms, and they rule that copies of software are licensed, not sold, and they rule that copies in RAM are fixations. So Blizzard will probably win again just like they did last time. They can usually afford the better lawyers and, as a result, they wind up getting the case-law put in place to support what they perceive as their interests and the rest of us get screwed. Woo.
Except Blizzard built cheats into the game for people just like you. They disable achievements, though. So for someone such as yourself, that's perfectly fine. But some people wanted to cheat the game AND the system to unlock achievements and artificially boost their rankings.
While I'm not sure a lawsuit is quite the answer, I do think Blizzard is right to make a big deal about this. A lot of people really like their achievements because... They're achievements! Some are rather hard to get. Blizzard is just making sure that the rewards someone earns aren't diluted by cheaters who make it impossible to determine who legitimately earned something and who just used a trainer.
Lets not forget that these so called "achievements" are nothing more than little blurbs from your computer assuring you that you are not in fact wasting your time and are actually somehow being productive.
but your friends can see your achievement tooooooo...
And your friends can see your pacman high-score at the local arcade. So fucking what.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Considering the achievement system, they're not cheating only themselves.
Except the achievement system literally has no point, no benefit, and is the most blatant "e-peen" exhibitionism around. It's even less important than the 360 Achievements, which is saying something.
No, this is a rights grab. They're trying to convince a court that you have no right to do anything with the product you bought and paid for, whatsoever, because you're not buying it, you're borrowing it long term for a set fee. It's utter madness. If someone wanted to make the "Game Genie" nowadays, Nintendo would sue them into oblivion and prevent it from ever happening.
Back in my day, it just meant that you wouldn't get any support for your unorthodox use of the game. Now they can sue you for millions!
Unfortunately I think you're right.
while I wholeheartedly support multiplayer games being free of cheats, the suits brought seems on the surface to enable the companies to pretty much put "we own your a**" in their EULA and get it through court. I strongly oppose any such movement. Not because I feel everything should be open sourced to be toyed with as you like, but because when I buy a toaster, what I do with it after the time of purchase may or may not be legal, it may or may not invalidate my warranty, but it's not the MANUFACTURER who decides what I can and cannot use my toaster for, anything I do with MY property is MY responsibility, legally and morally. The same should hold true of immaterial products, like software. I suspect this is why they're trying to make this sound like a simple case of pirating.
Because in essence they're using copyright infringement as the sacrificial lamb, when in reality, no distribution is taking place, and as such cause the company no loss in sales. I dont see how this cannot be a case of simple fair-use. I hope this means that screwed up EULAs will finally die a slow and horrible death, because if they loose the case, that might set a presedence for EULAs being unreasonably strict.
Disclaimer: I have NOT read the indictment, only the article(s), which may or may not be portraying reality in a tinted light.
--- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?
The point isn't the ban, it's the court action. I don't care if they want to ban people for ToS violations, in fact I welcome it - we all know cheaters ruin online play - but suing and claiming breach of copyright is ridiculous. It's like selling me a book but claiming in the small-print that I only have the right to read it, not to make notes in the margins, and that if I do make notes my legitimate copy of the book suddenly becomes an illegal copy. I'm sorry, I didn't buy a license, I bought a book.
There is no point or benefit to playing a video game at all, other than for entertainment value. If the acheivement system increases a player's level of entertainment, then it is just as valid and the rest of the game.
If you don't find it entertaining, that's fair enough, but there are plenty of people that do.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Who really cares though?
It's a game.
I play games because they should be fun. I do not play games for profit, nor do I get upset if someone has more achievements, or a greater score than I.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Ahh but there are people who play for profit and not for fun. There are leagues and there are competitions. Lots of this is based on online scores, so while YOU may not care much at all I bet you there are a myriad of people out there who are pissed off that some n00b is higher on the ladder than they are by cheating, and there'll also be a handful of players who may find themselves pitched against incorrect opponents as a result of the leader board being messed up.
People should cheat in their own time, heck I cheat games for fun too. But there something to be said when the results will carry over onto Battle.net