Gee, how can coffee be "too hot"??? Coffee is supposed to have bolied water (or close to it), it can't get hotter than that. it is supposed to be hot!! Doesn't matter if it is some degerees hotter or cooler, you get burned by it, it is supposed to be that way. if it was not hot, THEN I would comply!!!
>maybe they should jump on the bandwagon and print safety labels on game boxes, like they put on coffee >cups (hot coffe in your lap whilke driving = bad) and microwaves (don't dry your cat in them)!
You expect people that do such things to be smart enough to read such labels to start with??
>Indeed there is some breadth and some allowed delay in how European Directives are implemented by >different member states -
That does still not make an "european law" and states are allowed in many cases to go, for example, further than the directives. In addition, the specific directive in case leaves room for differences itself.
> you Swedes are notoriously for being behind in bringing your IPR law in line with the homogenization >we were trying to achieve in Europe (hence the existence of certain BitTorrent sites that we'll not >name...) I believe, though, that you pulled up your socks in July, so I suggest again that you go buy >yourself a good book on the subject...
Thank you, I am VERY well aware of the subject including both the directive and the swedish implementation. The "site" you mention isn't affected really by the law change (and hence the directive) at all. You should know that if you know the directive and the swedish implementation of it. If you like, I can direct you to not only the implementation itself, but the very lengthy text work arround it, including various earlier versions, comments by concerned parties, all prorposed changes and ammendments that was up for voting in the parlament when the law was handled and so on. I have read them all in full, many times. Have you?
Interestingly you did not comment the actual subject though, that you are not in any way in breach of the copyright law by not having a "licnese" which is true, both before and after the implementation of the directive.
Actually, had you known about the directive, you would also have know that it did not concern software at all really. That was implemented by a much earlier directive, which was for example implemented into swidish copyright law many years ago. Just goes to show how much you know about the subject.
>No, I'm clarifying the difference between buying the installation media, and >having any kind of 'ownership' of (right to execute) the software, rather >than a license. You're the one who's confused...
There are no such thing as "right to execute". In addition there are two different ownerships when it comes to copyright, which are what I tried to say you mixed up.
First there is ownership to the copyright of the work and then there is ownership to individual copies of the work. They are not the same and one does not imply the other nor does transfer of one imply the transfer of the other.
The ownership of the copyright to a work is what gives you thr rights of a copyright holder which includes such things as copying and making it available to the public. That is typically not transfered when you buy copies in the store. The ownership of individual copies is what changes in the store. That is, you buy a copy and bcomes the owner of that copy, just as you become the owner of a toaster if you buy a toaster. You do not by that, get any ownerships to the copyright of the work, but you are thew owner oc a copy of the work.
So looking at the post you initially replied to, it was about how stores "sell copies", to which you replied talking about something related to the copyright claiming that there is no such "sale" in the store. In fact, you were sort of both right, but the initial poster did not talk about copyright ownership, but ownership of a COPY.
As for the right to run/use/execute a copy of the software, that does not require any copyright ownerships, it simply requires ownership (or in many countries simply possession) of a COPY. So when you buy a copy and gets the ownership of a copy in the store (but still don't get to own any copyright), you have all you need to run and execute it without any further license.
>Yes, like making copies - I suggest you go to the library and read how IPR >has been applied to software...
Not sure what "IPR" means. Perhaps because I am not a native english speaker.
Anyway, most every country has exceptions in their laws so that you are allowed to make copes that are needed to run software you have lawfully aquired in some way. Such copies are NOT considered infringing and hence you do not need any special permision or license to make them.
>but challenge: if I disagree with an EULA, i.e. never make the contract in >the first place, how can I be punished, in the scheme you're discussing, for >using the software regardless? In the reality of European Law, I'm in breach >of Copyright Law, because I've no license.
Hmm. First of, there is no "European Law". Each country has its own laws, although they are quite similar, but can differ. I am not familiar wth each and every copyright law in Europe though, mostly only with the Swedish one since I am Swedish. In addition, I am quite aware of the various EU directives on copyright. As far as I can say, ther is no copyright infringement happening when you use software normally, hence you don't need a license to start with and thus can't be "punished" for it. This typically requires that you have got hold of the copy of the software in some sort of legal way. In such cases you would be allowed, for example, to make such copies that are needed since the law says so. The use in itself is not a copyright infringement, only such thing as creating copies and/or making them available to the public in various forms. That is what you would need a license for.
>In your scheme, where an EULA is something different, I'm no less in breach >of copyright law than if I did agree to the EULA, and there are no penalties >in the contract, because I never entered one.
Exactly.
Hmm, somehow I get the feeling I did not understood your question or what you tried to say...
>No, you must stick to the terms of the license agreement or you are >immediately in violation of copyright law. >If I license you software on the basis that you hop on one leg once every >minute, then if you break our contract, you have no license and are >immediately in breach of copyright if you use my software.
Sorr, you would not be in ANY breach or infringement of any copyright at all. Feel free to tell what you thought of though. The copyright law defines a few very specific rights to belong to the copyright holder (with excpetions for others to still do it under some conditions). Only by doing any of that can you infringe copyright. Simply using a software as you say in this case would not infringe any of those rights. Sorry.
>>Funny, because the stores keep telling us they are 'selling software' > >Perhaps you should take them up on their offer, 'buy' Windows from them, >and then turn around and demand they take down the other boxes >because 'Windows belongs to you now'...
You are confusing buying a COPY of a software with buing the COPYRIGHT to a software. You buy a COPY of it in the shop. That does not mean you buy the COPYRIGHT. You become the owner of a COPY but not the COPYRIGHT. They are two very different things and one does not imply the other.
SO yes, the store sells you a copy which you becomes the owner of according to applicable sales laws. That does not mean you got any owenrships to the copyright. The person you replied to talked about buying such a copy, you replied starting to ramble about the copyright not being sold. No one claimed so.
No, a copyright license would be a license to do something that is only allowed by the copyright holder. You would need such a license if you want to make your own copies and/or distribute them to the public and so on. The exact such exlusive rights of a copyright holders are well defined in the copyright law. The EULA is a contract they they want you to agree to, just like any other contract someone might want you to agree to. It is covered by contract laws.
>They didn't start running the program that runs the copy protection; you did.
No, you did not start to run any copy protection, you inserted a music CD and for the typical person it autorun some install program (alternatively you clicked install).
>I agree though. If you hit close or cancel, the copy protection *should* unload.
It shouldn't be running to start with since you never proceeded to install it. Sure, one can argue that it could start up as part of installation, but at the very least, it should completely stop running if you cancel.
>We are paying for the right to listen to the music.
Sorry, that is just rubish. There is no such "right to listen" since there is nothing that restricts listenikng to start with. There is nothing that forbids you to listen to the music, hence you don't need any right to do it either.
Why should you have to reboot? If you don't agree to anything and don't want to istall anything, there is no need for a reboot and they should not start running programs to start with.
>My question to you is, how do you use, say, Microsoft Word 2003, without making a copy (see your >definition) on the hard disk of a personal computer?
>Step 1. Download ISo of Game >Step 2. Acquire pirated CD key so ISo will install
And you have a pirated game!!!! No bnetd was needed. At this time you have a game that you can play.
>Step 3. Shout 'fuck' when Battle.net won't let you on
Althpough it has nothing to do with the copying, I allready told you that you can play on battle.net with pirated keys. You use the fals logic that pirated keys are the same as blacklisted, it is not. In addition, you still don't see the difference between COPYING and ACCESSING. Since you seems to think it is the same, it is really pointless to discuss.
> Right, I understand this. I never disputed this. The catch is that you can't use Battle.net.
>No, you clearly showed that key wasn't blacklisted.
Huh, yes, but it was still pirated, STOP talking about pirating if you refer to blacklisting then.
Indeed, but your ability to play on battle.net doesn't mean you can't copy the game, it doesn't mean you can't install the game, it doesn't mean you can't play the game.
>Heh. I have to ask: Are you even trying to understand where I'm coming frm here?
I see very well were you are coming from but I have tried to show you that it is erronous. You are confusing COPYING with ACCESSSING, do you see the difference?
In addition, you constantly mix up pirating and blacklisting when i tis clear that it is not the same. You make a statement about PIRATING which I show is wrong and you end up replying about backlisting. For example:
ME>>>"Your claim that one can't pirtae the game without bnetd is false since I have just ME>>>tried it and done it without bnetd." >> YOU>>You didn't use a blacklisted key. Very scientific. > ME>No, but I used a pirtaed game. You are talking about pirating and pirated games.
I clearly show that one can pirate a game (which is what you claim bnetd some way helps), without bnetd, and CAN play such pirated game on battle.net and a pirated game is not the same as a blacklisted game, and you end up making the obvious and irellevant statement of they key not being blacklisted. So? YOU mentioned pirating, I talked about pirating, and you end up suddenly replying about blacklisting. Something very different.
BLACKLISTING deals with access to battl.net, PIRATING deals with copying the game in an infringing way. You can do one without the other, not realed. bnetd has NOTHING to do with the copying/pirating which you claim.
>For the record: I never said that, either. I never made a comment on the legality of BNetD's actions. > My point was that I had no sympathy for them getting sued.
I suppose you know will claim that the suing has nothing to do with anything connected to legalities?
Your original comment was:
>Your summary should include the bit where BNetD ended up circumventing Blizzard's copy protection >scheme.
Whihc clerly is about the circumvention and what is DMCA which is all about the legality.
Since you don't understand the difference between COPYING and ACCESSING and since you don't understand what the CD_key do in relation to battl.net and since you can't understand the different between COPYING a game and using a service I see no point in discussing any more until you learn such basic things.
>But once you loser "ownership of a copy" under the UCC, you lose the >essential copying defense under 17 USC 117, which means that copying into >RAM may infringe.
It really depends on how one should interpret the "ownership". It would make sense to include all type of legal possession of a copy for example. I assume one need to look at text written when the law was drafted, court cases and so on for that. Wasn't it something like that that this court decsiion actually said? Alternatively one could go over the "fair use". It seems clear that if they are renting you the program, you should be allowed to make such copies needed to use it without having a special additional permision needed. Seems like the rental contract in itself would be enough. Just a thought.
As a side question, since I am not american, although I have a pretty good knowledge of the us copyright law, but not as good as the swedish one (I am from Sweden), what would be the actual definition of a copy and when it is considered infringing? I know many countries have the copyright law not consider temporary copies, for example when you transfer something over the net or into ram and such are not considered actual copies and hence can't be infringing. As for the copying to the hard disc during installation, it might be slightly different though. Just wondering.
Of course, if you RENT sowftware, it is something completely different. Same as the difference renting and buying a car. However, I have never seen software for rent (although appearantly Blockbuster do it). In that case you still don't need a license however, the concept is "renting", and it is covered by same body of laws governing sales.
Uhu, of course, what else would it be? That is exactly what I said.
> As it says, "you own the media on which the software is stored...."
There is no such distinction, the CD *is* the copy of the work in question (software in this case). Since this is the US, you might want to look at the US copyright law and its definition. Especially of a "copy" which is a material object including the media it is stored on. There is no such thing as "the media and the software" as seperate entities. here, a link for you:
"?Copies? are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ?copies? includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed."
That is a copy of a work.
>The right to copy and execute that software are what is spelled out in the EULA.
The right to copy is covered and restricted by the LAW (copyright law in this case). For copying it is quite restrictive. Only if I need ADDITIONAL copying, that is forbidden by the copyright law, do I need any special licence. Otherwise I do not since there is nothing forbidding it.
There is no such thing as "right to use". It is not covered by copyright law and is not a special right of the copyright holder. As long as the use does not involve infringing actions, it is perfectly allowed without any sort of permision or license.
>Your argument hinges on your theory that you are not allowed to make copies of anything without the >copyright holders express consent and that should you be permitted to make any copies you can use parts >of those copies according to the fair use guidelines.
No, I do not. I fail to see how making a copy of an entire work, on a large scale and for obvious comercial purposes, by a company on the stock market, can fall even close to fair use.
>According to your theory all internet search engines are illegal
Now you are applying false logic or did not understand what I wrote. I have never claimed that. I am coomenting on the COPYING, not having a search index, which are not nessecarilly the same.
> since they all make copies of >copyrighted material without the owners express permission and then make use of that copied material in >accordance with fair use guidelines.
I don't know, but as far as I know you don't need to make copies to index a page available on the net (as oposed to books which are not). Of course, if search sites in addition keep copies of webpages on theor own servers, then yes, THAT would be infringement, just indexing and allowing people to search would of course not.
>So perhaps you can explain how Search Engines in general are not breaking the law ?
> But does the law distingish between 'own' and 'license'?
There is no such thing or concept of "licensing" of copies. Licensing is used about the rights of a copyright holder, that is you gain such rights through for example licensing. That has nothing to do with the ownership of copies.
> The Software is licensed, not sold. This EULA does not grant you any rights to trademarks or service >marks of Microsoft.
Yet they DO sell it. Writing something else does not change the fact that many times such software are sold, for example in a shop. Doesn't matter if you like to call it something else or write something else. Even more, a third part can't change and revoke a purchase deal between me and the shop.
It is intresting to note also that "licensing" is bassically something non existant in laws regulating sales, leases, and such. Licensing is basically giving a permission to something that is forbidden. In this case, there is no such forbiden thing either. You may also try figuring out what happens if what you say is true if you do NOT agree to the EULA, or prior to even getting a chance to do so, perhaps on the way home from the shop. What is the "status" of the purchase you made then? Non existant? regulated by something you have not yet agreed to? Something else? The thing is, Microsoft DO sell it, they handle it like a sale and it is done like a sale, hence it is a sale. There are a whole bunch of laws regulating sales by the way.
>How hard is it to understand that this is a rather effective form of >piracy prevention?
It is not in my opinion since you can both copy and play the game without involving battle.net. Had battle.net been the ONLY way to play, then it would be somewhat effetive. However, bnetd did not affect that, it only allowed to play games that themselves had the ability to connect to other services. hence I don't see any problem with that. The problem of piracy in that case have nothing to do with bnetd but about the game being dead easy to pirateand play anyway. It is not up to bnetd to make it harder than it allready is to pirate the game, they can't affect that. Note that later Blizzard games have been changed so that you can't connect to other services than battle.net without major changes to the client game code. For bnetd, you did not need to make ANY changes to the client code.
>Except those that have blacklisted keys, they can't play on battle.net.
So? That has nothing to do with pirating the game since a pirated game does not correspond to a blacklisted key. There is no connection. Blacklisting doesn't prevent a game from being copied OR used, it only prevent connection to battle.net, not any other type of play. That seems to be were the problem for you lies, you assume that if Blizzard blacklist a key, one can't even copy, install or play the game at all. That is not the case.
>You could access on-line play that wouldn't be allowed on battle.net.
Huh, so? What does that have to do with bnetd? You can do it just as easilly without bnetd. Besides, why should bnetd care what Blizzard do with battle.net? It is an alternative service. Just as if Ford decide to deny me comming to them for service of my car, should they or anyone else be allowed to cry "foul" if I go to someone else? Of course not.
>You didn't use a blacklisted key. Very scientific.
No, but I used a pirtaed game. You are talking about pirating and pirated games. This clearly show that pirated games and blacklisting has nothing to do with each other so you can't use one to argue about the other, they are not related. Your claim is that bnetd help pirating and uses blacklisting as example when they are not connected. I am answering to your claim that pirated games can't play on battle.net but on bnetd when in fact that is not true.
>Yeah, it only allows blacklisted keys to be played so people don't >actually have to run out to the store and purchase it.
So? You can play the game anyway without bnetd. Just because a competing service doesn't use the same blacklisting doesn't make it bad. If one pub blacklist you so you can't go there, should other pubs need to follow that? Do you cry foul when they allow you to enter? It is not against the law to not follow someone else blacklisting.
Besides, you again mix up "pirated games" with "blacklisting". My comment was:
"Bnetd doesn't affect the ability to pirate games at all..."
To which you reply about blacklisting. I was talking about pirated games. Two completely different things. Blacklisting has nothing to do with pirating, copyright or protection circumvention. There is no legal requirement to follow other peoples blacklisting for example.
So try to keep on suibject, don't reply about blacklisting when I comment a statement you make about pirating and the other way arround, they are not the same.
>"Circumventing a protection, means you manage to do what the protection >tried to prevent." > >Yeah, like blacklisting pirated keys so they can't play the most 'fun' >area of the game.
Huh? You can still play the area of the game, you can't just do it on battle.net. That is perfectly legal. Just because you can't go to one site offering a service does not mean you can't go to another. That is not what circumvention is about, try reading up on the laws. Actually that would be an extreme case of not allowing ANY competing service or product. If I sell a toaster and for
>>>Blacklisting was being used to disable the ability to play pirated >>>copies of Blizzard's games on Battle.net. >> >>So? It still doesn't have anything to do with bnetd. > >They bypassed the protection.
You keep repeating that and yet, please tell me how bnetd allows people to access battle.net? That is what you are saying. People using bnetd aren't even connecting to battle.net, so how can they bypass its protection?
>>"bnetd doesn't circumvent anythiong so that you can go to battle.net if >>you are blacklisted for example," > >BNetD is letting you play the game with a pirated copy of the CD Key.
No it doesn't. It allows you to access an alternative servince on the net. The game is playable without bnetd as well. The pirtaed key has nothing to do with it, it doesn't stop the game from working, it only stops access to battle.net. How hard is that to understand?
People are free to chose whatever services they want, right? So people chose to play on bnetd instead of battle.net. People with pirtaed games can do the same, they can also chose to play on either.
you do realse that a copied game is completely identical to a non copied right? Otherwise it would noe be a copy. For the sake of, I made a copy (pirated it if you want) of the game, installed it and played on battle.net for a while, worked perfectly. Connected to a bnetd server as well (yes, they exist) worked as well. I then played my non pirated game, connected to both battle.net and bnetd, both worked OK. So what is your problem? The CD-key did not prevent my copying or pirating at all.
>With BNetD, ALL of those pirated keys can be used.
No, you can play the game regardless of which. A "pirated" key doesn't make the game non playable. Gee, how hard is that to understand. Again, try to understand how the cd-keys work and its different functions. I specifically told you in my last post. although you have appearantly decided to ignore it.
>Battle.net prevented pirated copies of the game from being played.
No it doesn't. It only prevents blacklisted copes to be plöayed. Huge difference. And those blacklisted does not nessecarilly have to be pirtaed. In addition, I just tried playing with a pirtaed game, and it worked perfetly, both on and off battle.net. You also realise that playing on battle.net is just ONE of MANY ways to play the game right?
>If I had used BNetD, I could have used a pirated copy of the game. There, >simple.
You could have used just as easy and much without bnetd. You are confusing "using the game" with "playing on battle.net". It is not the same.
>Heh. I didn't make any arguments about what BNetD should have done.
Yes you do, you claim that unless they do the same blacklisting as battle.net, they are in the wrong.
>>"Still you have not clarified WHAT is being protected" > >Hehe again. You don't have much credibility left to lose, man. I'm trying >to be respectful here, but you're really making it difficult.
Interesting how you don't even answer the question. I assume you don't have an answer then.
So lets see if we can clear this up. You do understand the difference between protection against COPYING and protection against ACCESS, right?
If not it is pointles discussing with you and so far, you have made nothing to show you understand the difference.
You do know what bnetd is, right? It is a matchmaking service for different games. To even use it, you must have a game to start with, it doesn't help you create or copy games.
If you don't understand that, it is again, pointless to discuss with you since you don't know what you talk about.
You do realise that the battl.net check on cd-keys, which is done ONLY when you use that service, only contrrls the access to that service, right? It doesn't affect your ability to play the game or use the game at all?
>I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land with your index idea. You can easily create such an index >without copying anything about the game,
I think you fail to see my point. In any case, why should I not be allowed to do it if Google is? What is the diference?
>The same applies to your music, just what exactly will people be searching for which you can determine >from an MP3 file ?
Who talked about mp3? Just as with books, people should search, it is an example. My point is, just because you make some index for people to search, doesn't mean you are suddenly allowed to make copies at will and that it is no longer copyright infringement. So ignore exactly HOW I would technically do searching and so on.
> So what you are actually doing is erecting a very flimsy cover story to engage in piracy and quite >rightly this would be illegal.
Why? You mean I have to spell out the technicallites and show you a program that index it and so on just to be able to argue that if it is OK for books, it seems to be for music and games too?
>Your second paragraph is simply wrong, the act of copying is not copyright infringement if you are >making the copy for purposes covered by the fair use clauses.
Ehh, exactly, that is what I said. Sorry if it is not clear.
>You cannot seperate the act of copying and the use to which the copy will be put because to do so >simply makes no sense whatsoever.
Of course you can. The act of copying is that the copyright holder has an exclusive right. It is the act of copying that can be a copyright infringement, not whatever you later do with it (except if that is ALSO an act of copyright infringement.
>> what does battle.nets blacklisting have anything to do with bnetd?" > >Blacklisting was being used to disable the ability to play pirated copies of Blizzard's games on >Battle.net.
So? It still doesn't have anything to do with bnetd. What Blizzard do on battle.net is their bussiness, bnetd doesn't change that, doesn't remove any blacklisting and so on. You were talking about circumvention, bnetd doesn't circumvent anythiong so that you can go to battle.net if you are blacklisted for example, so the question still stands and you have not answered it.
>>"Why are you babling about COPY protection when it doesn't affect copying at all?" > >It affects copy protection quite nicely.
No, since you can copy the game just as easilly or hard regardless of if there is or if you use bnetd.
> I should know, it forced me to buy a new copy when I lost the number to my old one.
Bceause of bnetd???? You had to go out and buy a new copy??? You turn stranger every day.
Also, when talking about cd-keys, there are TWO different protections, don't confuse them. One is built into the game and installer and controls your ability to install and play the game. That can by the way not be "blacklisted" or contorled by Blizzard, nor does it have anything to do with battle.net. The other is another check done when you try to access battle.net. That seems to be what you usually talk about by the way. Don't mix them up. You tend to do that in your posts. In neither case does them affect your ability to COPY the game though. hence it has nothing to do with a COPY PROTECTION, which prevents or controls copying.
> None of the serials I could find would work. Battle.net barfed on them.
??? You lost me here. Either you had installed the game, then it keep track of your cd-key and uses it when you log in. Or you had no installed the game, and then you can't even connect to battle.net.
> Rather spiffy at preventing me from acquiring a pirated copy, though I was a legit customer.
How did it prevent you from doing that? you could just as easilly have copied the game, installed it with whatever key, either with the same as the one you copied, or even another one. And BINGO, you would have had a copy!!! CD-keys doens't prevent copying, it prevents access to battle.net, and in a limited form access to the game.
>>I must assume that you simply is against competition." >Not a nice thing to say, nor was it a solid conclusion to draw.
If it is nice or not, I really can't judge, but from your arguments, it is the only conclusion I could draw. Your argument is that bnetd doesn't do the same thing as Blizzard, hence it is bad. You say that if Blizzard likes to blacklist keys, bnetd for some strange reason would have to as well, and since they don't, it is a bad program. And for some even stranger reason you claim they "circumvent copy protection". So how SHOULD a competitor to battle.net go about according to you?
>I thought I'd respond to this last because it's so amusing.
Since it is not a question, you cna't answer it. Apeparantly you still don't understand it though you seem to have read a bit about it.
>Why would Blizzard not blacklist pirated keys when it'd be so easy to do and be so effective?
No idea, can't see any reason. I feel it is good for them to do so. I don't see why everyone else in the world should care if Blizzard blacklist keys though. Should my grocer close to me care and blacklist people with that key? The local internet cafe blacklist the same that wants to come in and play games (including playing on bnetd?) and so on.
Your main point, which is what I originally replied to deals with "circumvention". Appearantly half way through you seem to say that you are not basing anything on the laws though, so that creates the troubble of knowing WHAT you base anything at all on. Still you have not clarified WHAT is being protected (although I assume you refer to battle.net) and HOW bnetd managed to make people still access that protected thing (battle.net). Feel free to tell, because you always "reply" with completely irellevant things.
>They very specifically blacklisted pirated keys. Copy.... protection. BNetD did not blacklist keys. >Copy... circumvention. Point... clear... as crystal.... Duh.
Appart from appearantly thinking it is easier to understand you with lots of...., what does battle.nets blacklisting have anything to do with bnetd? Nothing. Just as if one store black list some customers (for whatever reason, including crime) does not mean every other store must lock them out either.
The blacklisting is for ACCESSING BATTLE.NET. Nothing else. A blacklisting on battle,net prevents accessing that service. it does not prevent creating copies of games, it does not prevent access to playing the game (except by accessing battle.net), it doe snot prevent access to other services and so on. So if it does not prevent for example access to toher services, you are not circumventing anyting. If bnetd allowed you to STILL access battle.net, then it would have been circumvention. Now it isn't, no matter how much you like it to be. bnedt has ntohing to do with battle.net, it is an alternative service, there is no reason for them to have either the same rules or same accees policy than their alternatives and so on.
>> what does it have to do with what others offer?" >Copy protection brokie.
So, you claim that if someone connects to bnmetd, they suddenly can make a copy of the game that otherwise is not possible? I tell you a secret, you don't need to make any copy to start with, and even if you WOULD use a prated game, you would have had to make the copy to start with. It doesn't affect COPYING, it affect ACCESS of battle.net.
Why are you babling about COPY protection when it doesn't affect copying at all?
>Heh. Look man, it's plainly clear that your argument is crumbling, so you're hoping to 'win' by drawing >me into an argument about my views or whatever.
Your arguments is just repeating "copy protection" when clearly there is NOTHING about copying going on. Perhaps you are under the impression that bnetd was a copying program? You are arguing that if Blizzard doesn't want someone to use a service they offer, then no one else should be allowed to offer a similar service (or else you appearntly cry "copy protecion"). That is all you have done in this thread.
You show you have no clue about what or how the DMCA (which deals with circumvention of protecion) works. You have shown you have no idea about the difference of a protection that controls copying versus one that controls access. And you have shown you really have no clue about how Blizzard's cd-keys work and how battle.net work. Since you further seems to believe that bnetd is a program that helps you make copies of a game, I really have no clue what you really want, hence my questionb. Since you repeatedly seems to come back to "bnetd must do the same as Blzizard or it is copyprotection", then I ask, what is your point with those false statements?
> it's another thing altogether to waste my time with cheap attempts to make me look like a bad person.
Your person is most likely a not bad, I don't even know me. I have not commented on your person, so stop putting words in my mouth). Your arguments are bad though, and more important, your understanding of the facts, like what the DMCA says, how the cd-keys work, what prevents copying, what prevents access, what the difference of access and copying is, how bnetd works and what it is, how ballt.net works and so on, they are all wrong to varying degrees. Which leads to your arguments being "copy protection" in reply to things were there is not even copying going on. Oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, how can coffee be "too hot"??? Coffee is supposed to have bolied water (or close to it), it can't get hotter than that. it is supposed to be hot!! Doesn't matter if it is some degerees hotter or cooler, you get burned by it, it is supposed to be that way. if it was not hot, THEN I would comply!!!
>maybe they should jump on the bandwagon and print safety labels on game boxes, like they put on coffee
>cups (hot coffe in your lap whilke driving = bad) and microwaves (don't dry your cat in them)!
You expect people that do such things to be smart enough to read such labels to start with??
>Indeed there is some breadth and some allowed delay in how European Directives are implemented by
>different member states -
That does still not make an "european law" and states are allowed in many cases to go, for example, further than the directives. In addition, the specific directive in case leaves room for differences itself.
> you Swedes are notoriously for being behind in bringing your IPR law in line with the homogenization
>we were trying to achieve in Europe (hence the existence of certain BitTorrent sites that we'll not
>name...) I believe, though, that you pulled up your socks in July, so I suggest again that you go buy
>yourself a good book on the subject...
Thank you, I am VERY well aware of the subject including both the directive and the swedish implementation. The "site" you mention isn't affected really by the law change (and hence the directive) at all. You should know that if you know the directive and the swedish implementation of it. If you like, I can direct you to not only the implementation itself, but the very lengthy text work arround it, including various earlier versions, comments by concerned parties, all prorposed changes and ammendments that was up for voting in the parlament when the law was handled and so on. I have read them all in full, many times. Have you?
Interestingly you did not comment the actual subject though, that you are not in any way in breach of the copyright law by not having a "licnese" which is true, both before and after the implementation of the directive.
Actually, had you known about the directive, you would also have know that it did not concern software at all really. That was implemented by a much earlier directive, which was for example implemented into swidish copyright law many years ago. Just goes to show how much you know about the subject.
>No, I'm clarifying the difference between buying the installation media, and
>having any kind of 'ownership' of (right to execute) the software, rather
>than a license. You're the one who's confused...
There are no such thing as "right to execute". In addition there are two different ownerships when it comes to copyright, which are what I tried to say you mixed up.
First there is ownership to the copyright of the work and then there is ownership to individual copies of the work. They are not the same and one does not imply the other nor does transfer of one imply the transfer of the other.
The ownership of the copyright to a work is what gives you thr rights of a copyright holder which includes such things as copying and making it available to the public. That is typically not transfered when you buy copies in the store. The ownership of individual copies is what changes in the store. That is, you buy a copy and bcomes the owner of that copy, just as you become the owner of a toaster if you buy a toaster. You do not by that, get any ownerships to the copyright of the work, but you are thew owner oc a copy of the work.
So looking at the post you initially replied to, it was about how stores "sell copies", to which you replied talking about something related to the copyright claiming that there is no such "sale" in the store. In fact, you were sort of both right, but the initial poster did not talk about copyright ownership, but ownership of a COPY.
As for the right to run/use/execute a copy of the software, that does not require any copyright ownerships, it simply requires ownership (or in many countries simply possession) of a COPY. So when you buy a copy and gets the ownership of a copy in the store (but still don't get to own any copyright), you have all you need to run and execute it without any further license.
>Yes, like making copies - I suggest you go to the library and read how IPR
>has been applied to software...
Not sure what "IPR" means. Perhaps because I am not a native english speaker.
Anyway, most every country has exceptions in their laws so that you are allowed to make copes that are needed to run software you have lawfully aquired in some way. Such copies are NOT considered infringing and hence you do not need any special permision or license to make them.
>but challenge: if I disagree with an EULA, i.e. never make the contract in
>the first place, how can I be punished, in the scheme you're discussing, for
>using the software regardless? In the reality of European Law, I'm in breach
>of Copyright Law, because I've no license.
Hmm. First of, there is no "European Law". Each country has its own laws, although they are quite similar, but can differ. I am not familiar wth each and every copyright law in Europe though, mostly only with the Swedish one since I am Swedish. In addition, I am quite aware of the various EU directives on copyright. As far as I can say, ther is no copyright infringement happening when you use software normally, hence you don't need a license to start with and thus can't be "punished" for it. This typically requires that you have got hold of the copy of the software in some sort of legal way. In such cases you would be allowed, for example, to make such copies that are needed since the law says so. The use in itself is not a copyright infringement, only such thing as creating copies and/or making them available to the public in various forms. That is what you would need a license for.
>In your scheme, where an EULA is something different, I'm no less in breach
>of copyright law than if I did agree to the EULA, and there are no penalties
>in the contract, because I never entered one.
Exactly.
Hmm, somehow I get the feeling I did not understood your question or what you tried to say...
>No, you must stick to the terms of the license agreement or you are
>immediately in violation of copyright law.
>If I license you software on the basis that you hop on one leg once every
>minute, then if you break our contract, you have no license and are
>immediately in breach of copyright if you use my software.
Sorr, you would not be in ANY breach or infringement of any copyright at all. Feel free to tell what you thought of though. The copyright law defines a few very specific rights to belong to the copyright holder (with excpetions for others to still do it under some conditions). Only by doing any of that can you infringe copyright. Simply using a software as you say in this case would not infringe any of those rights. Sorry.
>>Funny, because the stores keep telling us they are 'selling software'
>
>Perhaps you should take them up on their offer, 'buy' Windows from them,
>and then turn around and demand they take down the other boxes
>because 'Windows belongs to you now'...
You are confusing buying a COPY of a software with buing the COPYRIGHT to a software. You buy a COPY of it in the shop. That does not mean you buy the COPYRIGHT. You become the owner of a COPY but not the COPYRIGHT. They are two very different things and one does not imply the other.
SO yes, the store sells you a copy which you becomes the owner of according to applicable sales laws. That does not mean you got any owenrships to the copyright. The person you replied to talked about buying such a copy, you replied starting to ramble about the copyright not being sold. No one claimed so.
>EULAs are copyright licenses, aren't they?
No, a copyright license would be a license to do something that is only allowed by the copyright holder. You would need such a license if you want to make your own copies and/or distribute them to the public and so on. The exact such exlusive rights of a copyright holders are well defined in the copyright law. The EULA is a contract they they want you to agree to, just like any other contract someone might want you to agree to. It is covered by contract laws.
>They didn't start running the program that runs the copy protection; you did.
No, you did not start to run any copy protection, you inserted a music CD and for the typical person it autorun some install program (alternatively you clicked install).
>I agree though. If you hit close or cancel, the copy protection *should* unload.
It shouldn't be running to start with since you never proceeded to install it. Sure, one can argue that it could start up as part of installation, but at the very least, it should completely stop running if you cancel.
>We are paying for the right to listen to the music.
Sorry, that is just rubish. There is no such "right to listen" since there is nothing that restricts listenikng to start with. There is nothing that forbids you to listen to the music, hence you don't need any right to do it either.
>Reboot and it will be gone.
Why should you have to reboot? If you don't agree to anything and don't want to istall anything, there is no need for a reboot and they should not start running programs to start with.
>My question to you is, how do you use, say, Microsoft Word 2003, without making a copy (see your
s c_sec_17_00000117----000-.html
>definition) on the hard disk of a personal computer?
From the same place, check 117:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
So you can indeed make such copies if they are nessecar (which they obviously are).
>Unless you had received permission to make such a copy from the copyright holder.
So, I actually get it from the law instead.
Why not actually read the whole law before starting to make comments? So much easier.
>Step 1. Download ISo of Game
>Step 2. Acquire pirated CD key so ISo will install
And you have a pirated game!!!! No bnetd was needed. At this time you have a game that you can play.
>Step 3. Shout 'fuck' when Battle.net won't let you on
Althpough it has nothing to do with the copying, I allready told you that you can play on battle.net with pirated keys. You use the fals logic that pirated keys are the same as blacklisted, it is not. In addition, you still don't see the difference between COPYING and ACCESSING. Since you seems to think it is the same, it is really pointless to discuss.
> Right, I understand this. I never disputed this. The catch is that you can't use Battle.net.
>No, you clearly showed that key wasn't blacklisted.
Huh, yes, but it was still pirated, STOP talking about pirating if you refer to blacklisting then.
Indeed, but your ability to play on battle.net doesn't mean you can't copy the game, it doesn't mean you can't install the game, it doesn't mean you can't play the game.
>Heh. I have to ask: Are you even trying to understand where I'm coming frm here?
I see very well were you are coming from but I have tried to show you that it is erronous. You are confusing COPYING with ACCESSSING, do you see the difference?
In addition, you constantly mix up pirating and blacklisting when i tis clear that it is not the same. You make a statement about PIRATING which I show is wrong and you end up replying about backlisting.
For example:
ME>>>"Your claim that one can't pirtae the game without bnetd is false since I have just
ME>>>tried it and done it without bnetd."
>>
YOU>>You didn't use a blacklisted key. Very scientific.
>
ME>No, but I used a pirtaed game. You are talking about pirating and pirated games.
I clearly show that one can pirate a game (which is what you claim bnetd some way helps), without bnetd, and CAN play such pirated game on battle.net and a pirated game is not the same as a blacklisted game, and you end up making the obvious and irellevant statement of they key not being blacklisted. So? YOU mentioned pirating, I talked about pirating, and you end up suddenly replying about blacklisting. Something very different.
BLACKLISTING deals with access to battl.net, PIRATING deals with copying the game in an infringing way. You can do one without the other, not realed. bnetd has NOTHING to do with the copying/pirating which you claim.
>For the record: I never said that, either. I never made a comment on the legality of BNetD's actions.
> My point was that I had no sympathy for them getting sued.
I suppose you know will claim that the suing has nothing to do with anything connected to legalities?
Your original comment was:
>Your summary should include the bit where BNetD ended up circumventing Blizzard's copy protection
>scheme.
Whihc clerly is about the circumvention and what is DMCA which is all about the legality.
Since you don't understand the difference between COPYING and ACCESSING and since you don't understand what the CD_key do in relation to battl.net and since you can't understand the different between COPYING a game and using a service I see no point in discussing any more until you learn such basic things.
>But once you loser "ownership of a copy" under the UCC, you lose the
>essential copying defense under 17 USC 117, which means that copying into
>RAM may infringe.
It really depends on how one should interpret the "ownership". It would make sense to include all type of legal possession of a copy for example. I assume one need to look at text written when the law was drafted, court cases and so on for that. Wasn't it something like that that this court decsiion actually said? Alternatively one could go over the "fair use". It seems clear that if they are renting you the program, you should be allowed to make such copies needed to use it without having a special additional permision needed. Seems like the rental contract in itself would be enough. Just a thought.
As a side question, since I am not american, although I have a pretty good knowledge of the us copyright law, but not as good as the swedish one (I am from Sweden), what would be the actual definition of a copy and when it is considered infringing? I know many countries have the copyright law not consider temporary copies, for example when you transfer something over the net or into ram and such are not considered actual copies and hence can't be infringing. As for the copying to the hard disc during installation, it might be slightly different though. Just wondering.
>Unless the copy is rented.
Of course, if you RENT sowftware, it is something completely different. Same as the difference renting and buying a car. However, I have never seen software for rent (although appearantly Blockbuster do it). In that case you still don't need a license however, the concept is "renting", and it is covered by same body of laws governing sales.
>What is "sold" is a CD copy of the software.
s c_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
Uhu, of course, what else would it be? That is exactly what I said.
> As it says, "you own the media on which the software is stored...."
There is no such distinction, the CD *is* the copy of the work in question (software in this case). Since this is the US, you might want to look at the US copyright law and its definition. Especially of a "copy" which is a material object including the media it is stored on. There is no such thing as "the media and the software" as seperate entities. here, a link for you:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
And if you are too lazy, here is the text:
"?Copies? are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ?copies? includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed."
That is a copy of a work.
>The right to copy and execute that software are what is spelled out in the EULA.
The right to copy is covered and restricted by the LAW (copyright law in this case). For copying it is quite restrictive. Only if I need ADDITIONAL copying, that is forbidden by the copyright law, do I need any special licence. Otherwise I do not since there is nothing forbidding it.
There is no such thing as "right to use". It is not covered by copyright law and is not a special right of the copyright holder. As long as the use does not involve infringing actions, it is perfectly allowed without any sort of permision or license.
>Your argument hinges on your theory that you are not allowed to make copies of anything without the
>copyright holders express consent and that should you be permitted to make any copies you can use parts
>of those copies according to the fair use guidelines.
No, I do not. I fail to see how making a copy of an entire work, on a large scale and for obvious comercial purposes, by a company on the stock market, can fall even close to fair use.
>According to your theory all internet search engines are illegal
Now you are applying false logic or did not understand what I wrote. I have never claimed that. I am coomenting on the COPYING, not having a search index, which are not nessecarilly the same.
> since they all make copies of
>copyrighted material without the owners express permission and then make use of that copied material in
>accordance with fair use guidelines.
I don't know, but as far as I know you don't need to make copies to index a page available on the net (as oposed to books which are not). Of course, if search sites in addition keep copies of webpages on theor own servers, then yes, THAT would be infringement, just indexing and allowing people to search would of course not.
>So perhaps you can explain how Search Engines in general are not breaking the law ?
By not making infringing copying of works?
> But does the law distingish between 'own' and 'license'?
There is no such thing or concept of "licensing" of copies. Licensing is used about the rights of a copyright holder, that is you gain such rights through for example licensing. That has nothing to do with the ownership of copies.
> The Software is licensed, not sold. This EULA does not grant you any rights to trademarks or service
>marks of Microsoft.
Yet they DO sell it. Writing something else does not change the fact that many times such software are sold, for example in a shop. Doesn't matter if you like to call it something else or write something else. Even more, a third part can't change and revoke a purchase deal between me and the shop.
It is intresting to note also that "licensing" is bassically something non existant in laws regulating sales, leases, and such. Licensing is basically giving a permission to something that is forbidden. In this case, there is no such forbiden thing either. You may also try figuring out what happens if what you say is true if you do NOT agree to the EULA, or prior to even getting a chance to do so, perhaps on the way home from the shop. What is the "status" of the purchase you made then? Non existant? regulated by something you have not yet agreed to? Something else? The thing is, Microsoft DO sell it, they handle it like a sale and it is done like a sale, hence it is a sale. There are a whole bunch of laws regulating sales by the way.
>How hard is it to understand that this is a rather effective form of
>piracy prevention?
It is not in my opinion since you can both copy and play the game without involving battle.net. Had battle.net been the ONLY way to play, then it would be somewhat effetive. However, bnetd did not affect that, it only allowed to play games that themselves had the ability to connect to other services. hence I don't see any problem with that. The problem of piracy in that case have nothing to do with bnetd but about the game being dead easy to pirateand play anyway. It is not up to bnetd to make it harder than it allready is to pirate the game, they can't affect that. Note that later Blizzard games have been changed so that you can't connect to other services than battle.net without major changes to the client game code. For bnetd, you did not need to make ANY changes to the client code.
>Except those that have blacklisted keys, they can't play on battle.net.
So? That has nothing to do with pirating the game since a pirated game does not correspond to a blacklisted key. There is no connection. Blacklisting doesn't prevent a game from being copied OR used, it only prevent connection to battle.net, not any other type of play. That seems to be were the problem for you lies, you assume that if Blizzard blacklist a key, one can't even copy, install or play the game at all. That is not the case.
>You could access on-line play that wouldn't be allowed on battle.net.
Huh, so? What does that have to do with bnetd? You can do it just as easilly without bnetd. Besides, why should bnetd care what Blizzard do with battle.net? It is an alternative service. Just as if Ford decide to deny me comming to them for service of my car, should they or anyone else be allowed to cry "foul" if I go to someone else? Of course not.
>You didn't use a blacklisted key. Very scientific.
No, but I used a pirtaed game. You are talking about pirating and pirated games. This clearly show that pirated games and blacklisting has nothing to do with each other so you can't use one to argue about the other, they are not related. Your claim is that bnetd help pirating and uses blacklisting as example when they are not connected. I am answering to your claim that pirated games can't play on battle.net but on bnetd when in fact that is not true.
>Yeah, it only allows blacklisted keys to be played so people don't
>actually have to run out to the store and purchase it.
So? You can play the game anyway without bnetd. Just because a competing service doesn't use the same blacklisting doesn't make it bad. If one pub blacklist you so you can't go there, should other pubs need to follow that? Do you cry foul when they allow you to enter? It is not against the law to not follow someone else blacklisting.
Besides, you again mix up "pirated games" with "blacklisting". My comment was:
"Bnetd doesn't affect the ability to pirate games at all..."
To which you reply about blacklisting. I was talking about pirated games. Two completely different things. Blacklisting has nothing to do with pirating, copyright or protection circumvention. There is no legal requirement to follow other peoples blacklisting for example.
So try to keep on suibject, don't reply about blacklisting when I comment a statement you make about pirating and the other way arround, they are not the same.
>"Circumventing a protection, means you manage to do what the protection
>tried to prevent."
>
>Yeah, like blacklisting pirated keys so they can't play the most 'fun'
>area of the game.
Huh? You can still play the area of the game, you can't just do it on battle.net. That is perfectly legal. Just because you can't go to one site offering a service does not mean you can't go to another. That is not what circumvention is about, try reading up on the laws. Actually that would be an extreme case of not allowing ANY competing service or product. If I sell a toaster and for
>>>Blacklisting was being used to disable the ability to play pirated
>>>copies of Blizzard's games on Battle.net.
>>
>>So? It still doesn't have anything to do with bnetd.
>
>They bypassed the protection.
You keep repeating that and yet, please tell me how bnetd allows people to access battle.net? That is what you are saying. People using bnetd aren't even connecting to battle.net, so how can they bypass its protection?
>>"bnetd doesn't circumvent anythiong so that you can go to battle.net if
>>you are blacklisted for example,"
>
>BNetD is letting you play the game with a pirated copy of the CD Key.
No it doesn't. It allows you to access an alternative servince on the net. The game is playable without bnetd as well. The pirtaed key has nothing to do with it, it doesn't stop the game from working, it only stops access to battle.net. How hard is that to understand?
People are free to chose whatever services they want, right? So people chose to play on bnetd instead of battle.net. People with pirtaed games can do the same, they can also chose to play on either.
you do realse that a copied game is completely identical to a non copied right? Otherwise it would noe be a copy. For the sake of, I made a copy (pirated it if you want) of the game, installed it and played on battle.net for a while, worked perfectly. Connected to a bnetd server as well (yes, they exist) worked as well. I then played my non pirated game, connected to both battle.net and bnetd, both worked OK. So what is your problem? The CD-key did not prevent my copying or pirating at all.
>With BNetD, ALL of those pirated keys can be used.
No, you can play the game regardless of which. A "pirated" key doesn't make the game non playable. Gee, how hard is that to understand. Again, try to understand how the cd-keys work and its different functions. I specifically told you in my last post. although you have appearantly decided to ignore it.
>Battle.net prevented pirated copies of the game from being played.
No it doesn't. It only prevents blacklisted copes to be plöayed. Huge difference. And those blacklisted does not nessecarilly have to be pirtaed. In addition, I just tried playing with a pirtaed game, and it worked perfetly, both on and off battle.net. You also realise that playing on battle.net is just ONE of MANY ways to play the game right?
>If I had used BNetD, I could have used a pirated copy of the game. There,
>simple.
You could have used just as easy and much without bnetd. You are confusing "using the game" with "playing on battle.net". It is not the same.
>Heh. I didn't make any arguments about what BNetD should have done.
Yes you do, you claim that unless they do the same blacklisting as battle.net, they are in the wrong.
>>"Still you have not clarified WHAT is being protected"
>
>Hehe again. You don't have much credibility left to lose, man. I'm trying
>to be respectful here, but you're really making it difficult.
Interesting how you don't even answer the question. I assume you don't have an answer then.
So lets see if we can clear this up. You do understand the difference between protection against COPYING and protection against ACCESS, right?
If not it is pointles discussing with you and so far, you have made nothing to show you understand the difference.
You do know what bnetd is, right? It is a matchmaking service for different games. To even use it, you must have a game to start with, it doesn't help you create or copy games.
If you don't understand that, it is again, pointless to discuss with you since you don't know what you talk about.
You do realise that the battl.net check on cd-keys, which is done ONLY when you use that service, only contrrls the access to that service, right? It doesn't affect your ability to play the game or use the game at all?
Again, if you don't underst
>I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land with your index idea. You can easily create such an index
>without copying anything about the game,
I think you fail to see my point. In any case, why should I not be allowed to do it if Google is? What is the diference?
>The same applies to your music, just what exactly will people be searching for which you can determine
>from an MP3 file ?
Who talked about mp3? Just as with books, people should search, it is an example. My point is, just because you make some index for people to search, doesn't mean you are suddenly allowed to make copies at will and that it is no longer copyright infringement. So ignore exactly HOW I would technically do searching and so on.
> So what you are actually doing is erecting a very flimsy cover story to engage in piracy and quite >rightly this would be illegal.
Why? You mean I have to spell out the technicallites and show you a program that index it and so on just to be able to argue that if it is OK for books, it seems to be for music and games too?
>Your second paragraph is simply wrong, the act of copying is not copyright infringement if you are
>making the copy for purposes covered by the fair use clauses.
Ehh, exactly, that is what I said. Sorry if it is not clear.
>You cannot seperate the act of copying and the use to which the copy will be put because to do so
>simply makes no sense whatsoever.
Of course you can. The act of copying is that the copyright holder has an exclusive right. It is the act of copying that can be a copyright infringement, not whatever you later do with it (except if that is ALSO an act of copyright infringement.
>> what does battle.nets blacklisting have anything to do with bnetd?"
>
>Blacklisting was being used to disable the ability to play pirated copies of Blizzard's games on
>Battle.net.
So? It still doesn't have anything to do with bnetd. What Blizzard do on battle.net is their bussiness, bnetd doesn't change that, doesn't remove any blacklisting and so on. You were talking about circumvention, bnetd doesn't circumvent anythiong so that you can go to battle.net if you are blacklisted for example, so the question still stands and you have not answered it.
>>"Why are you babling about COPY protection when it doesn't affect copying at all?"
>
>It affects copy protection quite nicely.
No, since you can copy the game just as easilly or hard regardless of if there is or if you use bnetd.
> I should know, it forced me to buy a new copy when I lost the number to my old one.
Bceause of bnetd???? You had to go out and buy a new copy??? You turn stranger every day.
Also, when talking about cd-keys, there are TWO different protections, don't confuse them. One is built into the game and installer and controls your ability to install and play the game. That can by the way not be "blacklisted" or contorled by Blizzard, nor does it have anything to do with battle.net. The other is another check done when you try to access battle.net. That seems to be what you usually talk about by the way. Don't mix them up. You tend to do that in your posts. In neither case does them affect your ability to COPY the game though. hence it has nothing to do with a COPY PROTECTION, which prevents or controls copying.
> None of the serials I could find would work. Battle.net barfed on them.
??? You lost me here. Either you had installed the game, then it keep track of your cd-key and uses it when you log in. Or you had no installed the game, and then you can't even connect to battle.net.
> Rather spiffy at preventing me from acquiring a pirated copy, though I was a legit customer.
How did it prevent you from doing that? you could just as easilly have copied the game, installed it with whatever key, either with the same as the one you copied, or even another one. And BINGO, you would have had a copy!!! CD-keys doens't prevent copying, it prevents access to battle.net, and in a limited form access to the game.
>>I must assume that you simply is against competition."
>Not a nice thing to say, nor was it a solid conclusion to draw.
If it is nice or not, I really can't judge, but from your arguments, it is the only conclusion I could draw. Your argument is that bnetd doesn't do the same thing as Blizzard, hence it is bad. You say that if Blizzard likes to blacklist keys, bnetd for some strange reason would have to as well, and since they don't, it is a bad program. And for some even stranger reason you claim they "circumvent copy protection". So how SHOULD a competitor to battle.net go about according to you?
>I thought I'd respond to this last because it's so amusing.
Since it is not a question, you cna't answer it. Apeparantly you still don't understand it though you seem to have read a bit about it.
>Why would Blizzard not blacklist pirated keys when it'd be so easy to do and be so effective?
No idea, can't see any reason. I feel it is good for them to do so. I don't see why everyone else in the world should care if Blizzard blacklist keys though. Should my grocer close to me care and blacklist people with that key? The local internet cafe blacklist the same that wants to come in and play games (including playing on bnetd?) and so on.
Your main point, which is what I originally replied to deals with "circumvention". Appearantly half way through you seem to say that you are not basing anything on the laws though, so that creates the troubble of knowing WHAT you base anything at all on. Still you have not clarified WHAT is being protected (although I assume you refer to battle.net) and HOW bnetd managed to make people still access that protected thing (battle.net). Feel free to tell, because you always "reply" with completely irellevant things.
>They very specifically blacklisted pirated keys. Copy.... protection. BNetD did not blacklist keys.
>Copy... circumvention. Point... clear... as crystal.... Duh.
Appart from appearantly thinking it is easier to understand you with lots of...., what does battle.nets blacklisting have anything to do with bnetd? Nothing. Just as if one store black list some customers (for whatever reason, including crime) does not mean every other store must lock them out either.
The blacklisting is for ACCESSING BATTLE.NET. Nothing else. A blacklisting on battle,net prevents accessing that service. it does not prevent creating copies of games, it does not prevent access to playing the game (except by accessing battle.net), it doe snot prevent access to other services and so on. So if it does not prevent for example access to toher services, you are not circumventing anyting. If bnetd allowed you to STILL access battle.net, then it would have been circumvention. Now it isn't, no matter how much you like it to be. bnedt has ntohing to do with battle.net, it is an alternative service, there is no reason for them to have either the same rules or same accees policy than their alternatives and so on.
>> what does it have to do with what others offer?"
>Copy protection brokie.
So, you claim that if someone connects to bnmetd, they suddenly can make a copy of the game that otherwise is not possible? I tell you a secret, you don't need to make any copy to start with, and even if you WOULD use a prated game, you would have had to make the copy to start with. It doesn't affect COPYING, it affect ACCESS of battle.net.
Why are you babling about COPY protection when it doesn't affect copying at all?
>Heh. Look man, it's plainly clear that your argument is crumbling, so you're hoping to 'win' by drawing
>me into an argument about my views or whatever.
Your arguments is just repeating "copy protection" when clearly there is NOTHING about copying going on. Perhaps you are under the impression that bnetd was a copying program? You are arguing that if Blizzard doesn't want someone to use a service they offer, then no one else should be allowed to offer a similar service (or else you appearntly cry "copy protecion"). That is all you have done in this thread.
You show you have no clue about what or how the DMCA (which deals with circumvention of protecion) works. You have shown you have no idea about the difference of a protection that controls copying versus one that controls access. And you have shown you really have no clue about how Blizzard's cd-keys work and how battle.net work. Since you further seems to believe that bnetd is a program that helps you make copies of a game, I really have no clue what you really want, hence my questionb. Since you repeatedly seems to come back to "bnetd must do the same as Blzizard or it is copyprotection", then I ask, what is your point with those false statements?
> it's another thing altogether to waste my time with cheap attempts to make me look like a bad person.
Your person is most likely a not bad, I don't even know me. I have not commented on your person, so stop putting words in my mouth). Your arguments are bad though, and more important, your understanding of the facts, like what the DMCA says, how the cd-keys work, what prevents copying, what prevents access, what the difference of access and copying is, how bnetd works and what it is, how ballt.net works and so on, they are all wrong to varying degrees. Which leads to your arguments being "copy protection" in reply to things were there is not even copying going on. Oh well.