On the upside, we'll finally have a real use for all those old computers people are throwing out. Instead of worthless junk, they'll be valuable commodities on the black market!
I find it interesting that they concede it may have been developed for purposes other than piracy. I think that could hurt them legally.
From: "Rob Beatie" To: aexia@yahoo.com Subject: RE: One less copy of Warcraft 3 sold
Certain programs have been developed that allow users to bypass Battle.net's CD-key-authentication process. Although these programs might have been made with good intentions, they directly promote software piracy by allowing users who have illegitimately obtained our games to play them as if they'd been legitimately purchased. Furthermore, because these programs allow access without a CD key, they render malicious users unaccountable, thereby eliminating Blizzard's ability to protect legitimate consumers. Therefore, Blizzard has taken an aggressive stance opposing the use of these programs.
Please take a moment to read through our FAQ regarding these issues at http://www.battle.net/support/emulationfaq.shtml if you have any questions or concerns about Blizzard's stance on software piracy. {WR655}
-----Original Message----- From: aexia@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:31 AM To: sales@blizzard.com Subject: One less copy of Warcraft 3 sold
Thanks to your ill-considered invocation of the DMCA, you have one less customer now. I've used alternative server software(bnetd) to play over the Internet because battle.net is laggy and full of cheaters, hackers and other assorted morons. It's simply not a fun place to play.
Creating my own server allows me to play in peace, without lag, with my friends. It's not to promote piracy; it's to play the *game*, not a "license", I paid money to buy. It's mine and I'll play it however the hell I want to.
I'm sure you'll sell plenty of copies of Warcraft 3 anyways, but you won't sell one to me until you catch a clue.
>>As far as the bnetd thing, when you buy a blizzard game, it says free internet play on bnet.. not bnetd..
So, if Windows started being sold with stickers that said "Internet access through MSN" and then started cracking down on ISPs that allowed Windows users to connect to the Internet, you'd agree with it?
WHy not? After all, the box says you can connect to the internet through MSN, not other ISPs which are encouraging piracy by bypassing Windows piracy prevention schemes and depriving Microsoft of revenue by luring away users.
Ideally, the closed, proprietary version of the server software would "phone home" to validate keys. If they only distributed binaries, it would be more difficult to hack out the authentication routines.
>>Blizzard set the terms which they offered you the game, when you gave your local software distributor money, you agreed to those terms.
I didn't see those terms on the box.
Once you buy something, you can do whatever the hell you want with it for your own personal use. Hack it, modify it, reverse engineer it. Whatever. It's your's and not Blizzard and not Microsoft can tell you what you can and cannot do.
When you start sharing what you've done with other people is where it gets tricky.
If enough people stopped bying DVD (for example) because they didn't like region control, the Studios would feel it in their pockets and would relax the situation.
More likely they'll just move to the newest media format with ultra-strict DRM sooner than originally planned.
1024-bit encryption wouldn't have helped a single bit because the *intended recipient* of the e-mails *voluntarily* turned over the e-mails to the police.
The police weren't intercepting packets or breaking into e-mail accounts. The person who received the e-mails turned them over to the police.
It has nothing to do with wiretapping laws. Let me repeat.
THERE IS NO WIRETAPPING OF ANY KIND INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.
The defendent is arguing that since the e-mails and IMs were recorded by the intended recipient without his consent(necessary by PA Law), they are inadmissable.
The prosecution argued (and the lower courts agreed) that the defendent had no expectation that the e-mail messages and IMs would *not* be recorded by the intended recipient because of the very nature of the two mediums.
That is the issue at hand. The police weren't sniffing packets or intercepting e-mails. The intended recipient of the e-mails and IMs voluntarily turned them over to the police. If he had snail-mailed the solicitations to the girl, he wouldn't even be bothering appealing.
Does sending an email or instant message imply consent for the email or instant message to be read by anyone other than the addressed party?
It means you don't have the reasonable expectation that the conversations won't be recorded. It doesn't mean the police can automatically intercept your communications; it does mean the other party can *voluntarily* turn over the conversations to the police.
That would just confirm that a conversation took place, not that sexual advances were made. Of course, the guy did it while a detective was posing as the girl so he's rather up a creek, but if that hadn't happened, he could credibly claim the logs were forged.
The original chat: 12:34 SexualPredator29321: How about those Mariners? 12:35 InnocentGirl0923: I really like Ichiro. 12:36 SexualPredator29321: I hope they go all the way this year. 12:37 InnocentGirl0923: Me too.
The modified chat: 12:34 SexualPredator29321: How about we have sex? 12:35 InnocentGirl0923: I'd really like that. 12:36 SexualPredator29321: I hope to go all the way with you. 12:37 InnocentGirl0923: Me too.
If you were a priest, lawyer, doctor and were not to be directly involved, I beleive I have a reasonable right to privacy.
IANAL, but I think that only applies to lawyers(attorney-client) and doctors(doctor-patient). Priest and spouses *can* voluntarily testify but cannot be compelled by the courts to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
On the upside, we'll finally have a real use for all those old computers people are throwing out. Instead of worthless junk, they'll be valuable commodities on the black market!
California, at least, hasn't elected any dead men lately.
whether the Linux underwear for this version has been released yet.
>sperm = life (which I do not believe),
Sorry, but your misinformed opinion isn't the basis for moral rights or wrongs.
How can you live with yourself when you condone the slaughter of trillions of human beings? You monster!
What "innocent" explanation is there for withdrawing over two hundred grand from your bank accounts without telling your wife and then disappearing?
>>Wrong. There is furious debate over this, about the fundamental issue of whether or not human life begins at conception or not.
No, there isn't. My sperm is human life but it's not considered murder if I abandon them to die.
The issue is whether a handful of cells should be treated the same as me.
Chemical reactions don't happen randomly so your entirely cut-and-pasted-from-a-creationist-website analysis falls flat on its face.
I find it interesting that they concede it may have been developed for purposes other than piracy. I think that could hurt them legally.
From: "Rob Beatie"
To: aexia@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: One less copy of Warcraft 3 sold
Certain programs have been developed that allow users to bypass Battle.net's CD-key-authentication process. Although these programs might have been made with good intentions, they directly promote software piracy by allowing users who have illegitimately obtained our games to play them as if they'd been legitimately purchased. Furthermore, because these programs allow access without a CD key, they render malicious users unaccountable, thereby eliminating Blizzard's ability to protect legitimate consumers. Therefore, Blizzard has taken an aggressive stance opposing the use of these programs.
Please take a moment to read through our FAQ regarding these issues at http://www.battle.net/support/emulationfaq.shtml if you have any questions or concerns about Blizzard's stance on software piracy. {WR655}
-----Original Message-----
From: aexia@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:31 AM
To: sales@blizzard.com
Subject: One less copy of Warcraft 3 sold
Thanks to your ill-considered invocation of the DMCA, you have one less customer now. I've used alternative server software(bnetd) to play over the Internet because battle.net is laggy and full of cheaters, hackers and other assorted morons. It's simply not a fun place to play.
Creating my own server allows me to play in peace, without lag, with my friends. It's not to promote piracy; it's to play the *game*, not a "license", I paid money to buy. It's mine and I'll play it however the hell I want to.
I'm sure you'll sell plenty of copies of Warcraft 3 anyways, but you won't sell one to me until you catch a clue.
>>There simply isn't a need for bnetd unless you want to play with an illegal version.
Or unless you want to play on a server that isn't full of hackers, cheaters and assorted lamers.
>>What's the problem?
Battle.net servers are laggy and full of lamers.
>>As far as the bnetd thing, when you buy a blizzard game, it says free internet play on bnet.. not bnetd..
So, if Windows started being sold with stickers that said "Internet access through MSN" and then started cracking down on ISPs that allowed Windows users to connect to the Internet, you'd agree with it?
WHy not? After all, the box says you can connect to the internet through MSN, not other ISPs which are encouraging piracy by bypassing Windows piracy prevention schemes and depriving Microsoft of revenue by luring away users.
That's essentially what Blizzard is doing.
Ideally, the closed, proprietary version of the server software would "phone home" to validate keys. If they only distributed binaries, it would be more difficult to hack out the authentication routines.
What? People are just randomly going to come across your server and join it?
Players who connect to your server will know it's not a battle.net server. If they didn't, they couldn't have connected in the first place!
>>No, I BUY things,
Not according to Blizzard.
Sure, you can attempt to argue otherwise but they have more lawyers than you.
>>Blizzard set the terms which they offered you the game, when you gave your local software distributor money, you agreed to those terms.
I didn't see those terms on the box.
Once you buy something, you can do whatever the hell you want with it for your own personal use. Hack it, modify it, reverse engineer it. Whatever. It's your's and not Blizzard and not Microsoft can tell you what you can and cannot do.
When you start sharing what you've done with other people is where it gets tricky.
I'd have to imagine that most of the people downloading TV shows do so because they can't see the original broadcast.
So what's better: someone seeing the program and becoming a fan or someone not seeing the program at all?
I'm sure $3000 is a pittance compared to the sports budget.
If enough people stopped bying DVD (for example) because they didn't like region control, the Studios would feel it in their pockets and would relax the situation.
More likely they'll just move to the newest media format with ultra-strict DRM sooner than originally planned.
that I didn't think AOL Time Warner controlled enough of the media. Now I'll get my wish!
Face the facts, encrypt!
Face the facts, you didn't read the article!
1024-bit encryption wouldn't have helped a single bit because the *intended recipient* of the e-mails *voluntarily* turned over the e-mails to the police.
The police weren't intercepting packets or breaking into e-mail accounts. The person who received the e-mails turned them over to the police.
It has nothing to do with wiretapping laws. Let me repeat.
THERE IS NO WIRETAPPING OF ANY KIND INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.
The defendent is arguing that since the e-mails and IMs were recorded by the intended recipient without his consent(necessary by PA Law), they are inadmissable.
The prosecution argued (and the lower courts agreed) that the defendent had no expectation that the e-mail messages and IMs would *not* be recorded by the intended recipient because of the very nature of the two mediums.
That is the issue at hand. The police weren't sniffing packets or intercepting e-mails. The intended recipient of the e-mails and IMs voluntarily turned them over to the police. If he had snail-mailed the solicitations to the girl, he wouldn't even be bothering appealing.
However it's again a lame analogy since the default access codes are well-known and often either unchanged or impossible to change.
Not at all unlike people choosing their birthdates or their kid's names as password.
That federal explicitly gives email communications strong privacy protection,
Does that apply if the intended recipient voluntarily turns over the e-mails to the police?
Does sending an email or instant message imply consent for the email or instant message to be read by anyone other than the addressed party?
It means you don't have the reasonable expectation that the conversations won't be recorded. It doesn't mean the police can automatically intercept your communications; it does mean the other party can *voluntarily* turn over the conversations to the police.
That would just confirm that a conversation took place, not that sexual advances were made. Of course, the guy did it while a detective was posing as the girl so he's rather up a creek, but if that hadn't happened, he could credibly claim the logs were forged.
The original chat:
12:34 SexualPredator29321: How about those Mariners?
12:35 InnocentGirl0923: I really like Ichiro.
12:36 SexualPredator29321: I hope they go all the way this year.
12:37 InnocentGirl0923: Me too.
The modified chat:
12:34 SexualPredator29321: How about we have sex?
12:35 InnocentGirl0923: I'd really like that.
12:36 SexualPredator29321: I hope to go all the way with you.
12:37 InnocentGirl0923: Me too.
If you were a priest, lawyer, doctor and were not to be directly involved, I beleive I have a reasonable right to privacy.
IANAL, but I think that only applies to lawyers(attorney-client) and doctors(doctor-patient). Priest and spouses *can* voluntarily testify but cannot be compelled by the courts to do so.