 |
Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
On February 17th, Vivendi sent a cease and desist letter to the ISP hosting the bnetd project (which had developed a Battle.net emulator) for alleged copyright infringement of Blizzard's games as well as violations of section 1201 of the DMCA. Slashdot has run two stories on the case — the first announcing it (Blizzard Rains on Bnetd Project) and the second looking at the responses from Blizzard and bnetd (Blizzard, Bnetd Respond on Bnetd Shutdown). The Kuro5hin community also discussed the case (DMCA used to shut down bnetd project). Battle.net's response has been posted on the web (Emulation FAQ). Anti-DMCA activist Tim Neu has written a Rebuttal to the Battle.net FAQ. Chilling Effects, the cease and desist website, has the letter as well (Bnetd Project - Chilling Effects). Bnetd has posted its own Case FAQ.
UPDATE (28 Feb 2002): a few technical corrections
BACKGROUND
Blizzard and Battle.net
Blizzard is currently a division of Vivendi Universal Games, the gaming component of multinational multimedia conglomerate Vivendi Universal Publishing. Game company legend Sierra Entertainment is also part of Vivendi as are such valuable franchises as The Mummy Returns and Lord of the Rings.
Blizzard's first big success, WarCraft: Orcs and Humans, was released in late 1994 and was one of the pioneering games in a revolutionary new genre known as real time strategy. Real time strategy has since become one of the leading formats for games, especially in multiplayer gaming. In December 1995 the immensely popular sequel, WarCraft II, was released. WarCraft II allowed play by up to eight other people simultaneously via a local area network (LAN) using the IPX protocol. However, not many did because LANs were not readily available to most players. Internet play was not an option because the Internet uses TCP/IP protocols, not IPX. However, a shareware IPX emulator called Kali was available that allowed games with an IPX connection to be played via the Internet. Kali (which is now hosted by I-Lan Game) essentially fooled WarCraft II into thinking it was being played on a LAN when it was actually being played via the Internet.
Internet play via Kali was tremendously popular and Blizzard went so far as to release a patch called "War2kali.exe" to facilitate play via the Kali network, though no formal agreements were made between Kali and Blizzard. Indeed, Blizzard included a full copy of the freely distributable Kali shareware client in the WarCraft II: Battle Chest edition without asking permission from Kali (none was legally required). Since then, every subsequent Blizzard release has included LAN play and was supported by Kali, which has never received a cease and desist order. The success of multiplayer over the Internet obvious, Blizzard introduced Battle.net with their next product, Diablo, in late November 1996. Like Kali, Battle.net was a multiplayer meeting place that permitted players of Diablo to easily find opponents for Internet play. Use of Battle.net was free for the purchasers of Diablo (and every subsequent Blizzard release).
The Bnetd Project
In February 1998, Blizzard published what many consider the best real time strategy game ever released, StarCraft. It was certainly popular, selling more copies than any other game in 1998. For a variety of reasons, in the Spring of 1998 Mark Baysinger, then a student at the University of California San Diego, begin reverse engineering the protocol StarCraft clients used when connecting to Battle.net. In April, Mr. Baysinger posted the first version of a Battle.net emulator he called "Starhack." One could not actually play StarCraft with this first version — it merely had chat capability. One day after posting Starhack on the Internet, Mr. Baysinger received a cease and desist letter (Cease & Desist Letter) from the Software Publishers Association (now known as the Software & Information Industry Association). Although the SPA initiated the cease and desist demand, Blizzard was copied on the letter and presumably authorized it. Unimpressed, Mr. Baysinger asked the SPA to clarify their copyright concerns, but never received any clarification (SPA Cease and Desist Correspondence). In the face of Mr. Baysinger's refusal to shut down his project on the SPA's mere assertion, the SPA apparently dropped the issue. Slashdot noted the controversy at the time (Blizzard, SPA and StarHack site).
The Starhack project quickly became popular in the StarCraft community but, due to time limitations, Mr. Baysinger abandoned the project in December 1998. Starhack had been released under the GPL and, in a classic example of open source development, continued to be developed as the bnetd project (What is the history of bnetd? in the BNETD FAQ). As Newsforge reported (Open Source game server shut down by DMCA), bnetd was an example of a successful open source project, as "the bnetd project had 10 listed developers and was above the 95th percentile of activity at Sourceforge.net with a stable product." The latest version of bnetd supported most Battle.net functionality, including clients for StarCraft, StarCraft: Brood War, Diablo 1.05+, WarCraft II Battle.net Edition and Diablo II. The only major functionality missing was the ability for Diablo II players to host "closed" realms where the server stored the characters created by players (How complete is bnetd right now?).
Warforge
Diablo II was released to great acclaim in June of 2000 and its expansion set, Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, was published one year later. The next eagerly anticipated release from Blizzard is the third installment in the WarCraft dynasty — WarCraft III: Reign of Chaos, which is expected to be released in June 2002. On February 7, 2002, Blizzard shipped out 5,000 beta copies of WarCraft III to selected individuals for playtesting and balancing (WarCraft III - Beta Information Center). Such extensive playtesting is necessary because of the complexities of properly balancing a multiplayer game that includes 4 different races with widely varying abilities (Rock, Paper and Scissors). WarCraft III will, like previous Blizzard games, include single player and LAN play options. However, for purposes of the beta test, only Battle.net play was enabled in the shipped beta copies.
It wasn't long (February 13th) before beta testers began to provide the bnetd project with packet dumps from the communications between WarCraft III beta client and Battle.net (WarCraft III Dumps). This was, of course, so the developers could begin work on supporting WarCraft III on bnetd. However, some of the main developers were opposed to working on support while the client was in beta (Tim Jung - Re: WarCraft III Dumps). Consequently, as is occasionally the case in open source projects (Advantages of Open Source Software), a "forked" version of bnetd was developed. The developers of this new version of bnetd called themselves "Warforge."
The Cease and Desist Letter
On February 19, not long after the Warforge WarCraft III beta compatible version of bnetd was released, the ISP hosting the bnetd project, Internet Gateway, Inc., received the cease and desist email. Action was also taken against Net-Games, also known as fsgs.com, which provided another Battle.net emulator. Net-Games is based in Germany. Unable at this time to contest an expensive lawsuit against Vivendi, the bnetd development team removed the emulator files. Subsequently, and independently, Warforge removed their emulator files. Net-Games has also removed access to the objectionable files while they consider their legal options.
It should also be noted that sometime in 2001, in the late summer or early fall according to one source familiar with the issue, both GameSpy Arcade and Microsoft's MSN Gaming Zone, which had previously served as meeting places for Blizzard games similar to Kali or bnetd, ceased to do so with little publicity. Both had been asked, informally, to no longer support Battle.net enabled games. As both have close business relationships with Blizzard (such as Gamespy's websites devoted to Blizzard games such as PlanetDiablo and Orc Command — "For ALL things WarCraft"), both complied with the request.
The Technology
Blizzard would not comment on the technologies used for Battle.net, so the following description is based on conversations with members of the bnetd and Warforge development teams.
The Battle.net protocol is a relatively simple one. Battle.net is essentially a meeting place for gamers and does not actually host games — it merely provides a forum for players to meet to set up a game, which is then hosted on one of the players' own computers. This is known as peer-to-peer gaming and is very efficient as far as the meeting place is concerned since the bulk of the game traffic does not have to pass through or be processed by the meeting place's servers (Salon published a story on the economics of Battle.net in 1999 — Online gaming's store-shelf chains — though I doubt ad revenues are as high as they were then). The partial exception to this on Battle.net is the "closed" realms version of Diablo II, where characters and games are stored on Battle.net servers. In addition to opponent finding and game launching, meeting places often offer chat, buddy lists, ladders (rankings of players) and other functions. Such meeting places are not particularly difficult to develop or run. In the gaming community there have been numerous implementations of meeting places, including ones already mentioned as well as such defunct examples as Mplayer.com (now part of GameSpy), TEN, and HEAT.
The majority of the information sent from a Battle.net enabled client (such as StarCraft) to Battle.net is fairly standard for such games and, as such, was not terribly difficult to reverse engineer. The exception being, again, Diablo II closed realms, which is only partially a peer-to-peer game. Moreover, no significant change is required in the client program to enable the program to talk to an alternative bnetd server. All that is required is for the user to edit a configuration file in the Windows Registry. Users can edit the registry using a standard program included with Windows called regedit.exe. Regedit.exe can be difficult to use, and improper use can have serious consequences such as disabling a program or the entire computer. Thus, a small progam was developed that made it simple for users to edit the pertinent elements of the registry.
The non-encryption related elements of the WarCraft III beta are not terribly different from previous Blizzard games. There have been some minor changes to the protocol, but nothing significant. Thus, the developers of Warforge were able to make the appropriate modifications to their version of bnetd within a few days.
The Crypto
For most Battle.net games there are at least three places in the Battle.net protocol that are encrypted or hashed — there may be more in some unknown fields, but they do not seem to affect functionality. These elements perform the following functions:
- CD-Key packets in newer clients,
- Client version authentication,
- Account creation, login, and changing passwords, and
- map authentication
Bnetd does not know how (1) and (4) works. Two (2) is a checksum challenge and (3) uses a pseudo-SHA-1 hash.
The CD-Key performs two functions for Battle.net games. The first function is to prevent installation of the game from CD without the key. That is, when you attempt to install Diablo II the program will require the user to manually enter a CD-Key before installation will continue. Without the CD-Key the game cannot be installed. The second function takes place when a player attempts to connect to Battle.net. During the initiation sequence, the client will send an encrypted version of the CD-Key to the Battle.net server which will determine whether the CD-Key is valid or not. If valid, the Battle.net server will also determine whether another player is currently logged on with the same CD-Key. If the CD-Key is not valid, or another player is currently logged on with the same key, Battle.net will reject the connection. Since each CD has a unique key, such a policy discourages piracy or the sharing of keys.
Note however, that pirated versions of Blizzard games can be installed with shared keys and that LAN play does not require CD-Key validation.
Bnetd's emulation of Battle.net does not validate keys. It simply ignores the encrypted packet containing the key. After all, users of bnetd would probably not be happy if bnetd did decrypt the packet, since that could be a means through which the unscrupulous "harvest" valid keys that could then be sold by pirates.
The WarCraft III beta works a little differently than previous Blizzard games. The CD-Key for WarCraft III seems to perform the same function as previous games, but with one addition. Having validated the CD-Key, the Battle.net server will return an encrypted response to the client (challenge-response). Without this response the client will not function. Warforge surmounted this by creating a program that changed a single byte in one of WarCraft III's Dynamic Linked Libraries (DLL) so that the client no longer expected a response.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Cease and Desist Letter
The letter sent to Internet Gateway, Inc., the ISP hosting the bnetd project appears to invoke and meet the requirements of a section 512 letter under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("This letter is to notify you, pursuant to the provisions of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act....in order for you to claim a safe harbor under the DMCA."). At first glance, it seems to include all the information required for proper notification under section 512:
- The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
- The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)]
- Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)]
- A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)]
- A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner. [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)]
On closer inspection, however, the letter is problematic on a number of fronts. First, section 512 is only applicable to infringements of copyright. It does not apply to violations of the DMCA. Vivendi claims that some of the offending material "bypasses anti-circumvention technology, thereby infringing upon Blizzard Entertainment copyrights." Bypassing anti-circumvention technology may be a violation of section 1201 of the DMCA. However, violating section 1201 is not an infringement of copyright — it is a violation of the DMCA. According to section 501 of the Copyright Act, copyright infringement is a violation of the copyright holder's rights under sections 106-118 or 602, it does not include section 1201.
The letter also claims that software hosted by bnetd "modifies and/or alters Blizzard Entertainment copyrighted software ... thereby infringing upon Blizzard Entertainment copyrights." Problematically for Vivendi, no software provided by bnetd altered or modified any Blizzard software. At worst, bnetd provided instructions and a program for individuals to modify Windows registry configuration information. Moreover, it is not readily apparent that software which modifies or alters other software necessarily infringes copyright. Again, copyright infringement exists where rights under sections 106-118 or 602 are violated. Nowhere does the copyright law say that copyright holders have the exclusive right to ensure that their works are free from modification or alteration. In essence then, Vivendi has asserted infringement but has not claimed that any of its exclusive rights as a copyright holder have been violated. How can an ISP identify infringing material when there are no allegations of infringement, only an unsupported assertion? After all, section 512(c)(3)(A)(vi) requires a statement "that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." But the letter does not identify any exclusive right being infringed.
Finally, the letter did not specifically identify any infringing files whatsoever. Although identifying every file is not always necessary, there is not even a listing of representative files that are to be removed. With the exception of the forum mailing lists, the bnetd website did not change excessively. There is no excuse for Vivendi not to have identified specific files or, at a minimum, representative files.
Does BNETD Violate Blizzard Copyrights?
Unlikely, although it must be stated that Vivendi/Blizzard has yet to claim which exclusive rights are infringed by which programs hosted by bnetd, so this analysis is based on speculation as to likely complaints.
In general, copyright infringement consists in copying or distributing another's work without authorization. In this case, the bnetd server is the original work of its various developers (BNETD Project Credits). The developers have never had access to Battle.net software, so it would be impossible for them to have copied it. As there is no copying there is no infringement. Indeed, Blizzard's FAQ on the case admits as much since it is called the Emulation FAQ. In computer science, emulators are software designed to imitate the same function as another piece of software. They are not copies. If it was a copy, it would not be "imitating" the function of another piece of software, it would be the same software.
In order to create a Battle.net emulator, the bnetd developers engaged in a combination of reverse and value engineering. Their method of reverse engineering did not require any decompiling or disassembly of the code of the client (again, they could not have deassembled or decompiled the Battle.net code since they did not have access to it). It is decompiling of code that frequently gets reverse engineers in copyright trouble — that is not a problem for bnetd since it was not required. Bnetd was able to reverse engineer by simply looking at the traffic between server (Battle.net) and client (game player). For example, a player would start a game as one type of character on Battle.net in Diablo II (e.g., a Necromancer) capture the packets, then start a game as a different character (e.g., a Barbarian) and capture the packets. By comparing the two packet dumps, one of the bnetd developers would be able to determine which packets identified specific elements of the game. The developer would then make changes to the bnetd server and check his work by performing the same test with client on the bnetd server. Through trial and error, the bnetd server improved.
To my knowledge there is no law that holds that reverse engineering a protocol through packet dumping implicates copyright in any way.
Vivendi might claim that special programs to assist users of bnetd to edit their Windows registry violated copyright. As mentioned above, the Windows registry consists of configuration files that can be modified by the user using regedit.exe which is part of every version of Windows. It is not at all clear how provision of a program to make editing certain portions of the registry easier would violate an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Moreover, it is not clear whether a user who alters the registry is violating copyright. They may be violating the EULA (more below), but that is not a violation of copyright.
Does BNETD Violate Section 1201 of the DMCA?
Unlikely, but the statute in question is quite complicated and the law has not yet been clarified by the courts. It must also be made clear that simply because something may facilitate piracy does not mean it violates section 1201 of the DMCA.
The first issue is whether or not the CD-Key authorization mechanism is an access control device under section 1201(a). Section 1201(a) states that a device controls access to a work, "if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work." One significant question is access to what work? Bnetd does not facilitate unauthorized access to Battle.net, it is a substitute. Bnetd does not facilitate access to the single player version of the game. Bnetd does not faciliate access to the LAN multiplayer aspects of the game. Bnetd does not facilitate access to Internet multiplayer, since that is accomplished through LAN emulators such as Kali. At worst, bnetd facilitates access to Internet multiplayer using the client's Battle.net interface. It is questionable whether access to a particular interface counts as "access to the work." It is questionable whether enabling certain functionality is "access to the work." Even granting that the interface or functionality is a work that can be improperly accessed, does accessing it require tha application of information, or a process or a treatment to gain such access? For every Blizzard game prior to the Warcraft III beta, clearly not. Bnetd servers don't send any "access" information to a client, they simply do not bar a client from accessing them.
This is made clear by the definition of circumvention in 1201(a)(3)(B), which "means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." Bnetd does not descramble, decrypt, remove or deactivate anything. It does not avoid, bypass or impair, it ignores. Ignoring is not circumventing. Indeed, section 1201(c)(3) states that, "nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure." The reason for this is to prevent copyright holders from forcing copy protection measures onto computer and consumer electronics manufacturers. An example would be a music publisher who releases a CD that has watermarking in the music. The watermark states, "do not rip into MP3 format." There is no obligation for CD manufacturers to build in a system that can detect and obey that watermark.
Moreover, even bnetd did circumvent an access anti-circumvention measure, it would still be legal to distribute it so long as:
- It was not primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumvention. A very good case can be made that the primary purpose of producing bnetd was to provide an alternative to the drawbacks and limitations of Battle.net (About the BNETD Project). One quote from a Review of Diablo II on MacGamer.com will provide some idea of the frustrations many feel with regard to Battle.net: "Provided that Battlenet doesn't make you want to pry your eyes out with a grapefruit spoon, you will find that you can go online and play your character in the Diablo Battlenet Realms." Even Blizzard's Senior Director, Bill Roper, admits that Battle.net's stability left something to be desired in an interview with Eurogamer, "There was certainly a period of time in the history of Battle.net where the team was constantly playing catch-up. They work on stability, they work on how many people could be online, they work on access and bandwidth issues, they get all those things fixed, and then we get another 25,000 people online concurrently and all [the] new stuff will break."
- It has more than limited commercially significant purpose. Again, a very good case can be made that bnetd does have significant commercial purposes. Bnetd currently supports a number of features that Battle.net does not, such as the ability to connect with IRC, create custom ladder games and tournaments, and send broadcast messages.
- Is not marketed for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. Although, as an open source project, bnetd has little control over how some individuals may promote it — the bnetd and Warforge developers have never promoted piracy of Blizzard's games. Indeed, the developers of bnetd are some of Blizzard's biggest supporters and fans.
The next issue is whether bnetd violates section 1201(b) which prohibits distribution of devices which "effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under" the Copyright Act. To qualify as technological protection measure under section 1201(b), a device must in the ordinary course of its operation, prevent, restrict, or otherwise limit the exercise of a right of a copyright owner." The only right at issue would seem to be the right to copy. But it is difficult to claim that bnetd undermines this as one must already have a copy of a Blizzard game (legitimate or illegitimate) in order to use bnetd. In other words, any copying occurs prior to use of bnetd. It may be that the availability of bnetd encourages some to make illicit copies who wouldn't have without bnetd, but that is not a violation of the DMCA.
It is also strange to claim that the CD-Key system prevents copying since a valid CD-Key is not necessary to connect to Battle.net and download the latest patches for a warez copy of the game. Using a warez copy one logs into Battle.net. Prior to CD-Key validation, Blizzard conveniently provides the latest patches for the warez copy. Patches are also available via public ftp (http://ftp.blizzard.com/pub/war3/patches/beta/). It is hard to claim that the CD-Key system effectively prevents copying when Blizzard itself updates warez copies of its games to the latest version. Most bnetd servers are set up by owners of legitimate copies and the server ensures that those joining have the same version of the game. If Blizzard were truly concerned about piracy they would at least try to make it more difficult to get the latest patches.
Furthermore, under section 1201(f)(2):
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure ... for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
It seems pretty clear that even if bnetd is a circumvention device, then it clearly falls under the exemption of 1201(f)(2), since any circumvention is only for the purpose of achieving interoperability between bnetd and the Blizzard game. Such interoperability does not constitute infringement, since it does not violate sections 106-118 or 602.
|
|
 |
| |
 |
Login |
 |
 |
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name. |
|
 |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Article Rating |
 |
 |
Average Score: 4.54 Votes: 381

|
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
"User's Login" | Login/Create an Account | 303 comments |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 11:44:11 EST | This is extremely cogent and well-researched stuff. One can only hope that Blizzard comes to consider different alternatives. The present structure of Battle.net penalizes almost everyone.
|
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 1, Insighful) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 12:27:39 EST | Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether the letter is valid or invalid. As long as the ISP is faced with the choice of messing with a bunch of piddly-ass developers or Vivendi Universal's lawyers, they'll shut down the developers every time. That's why all those procedural safeguards in the DMCA takedown provisions are meaningless -- even when the courts don't rule them explicitly so. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 12:59:06 EST | I am not a student of Law. I dont pretend to even have a clue about all these various copyright acts, but I do know one thing. The law was created to uphold a certain moral standard. Yes I'm being very idealistic but the bottem line is somebody stole the files for an unreleased game, and created a system so people could play this game before it was released, and if nothing happens after the release as well. This is theft, pure and simple, and should be dealt with accordingly. |
[ Reply to This ]
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 13:04:29 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Publius on Wednesday, February 27 @ 13:05:18 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 14:18:40 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 14:46:29 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 20:34:56 EST
- Didn't steal the program, just copied the packets by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 21:00:01 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 21:02:31 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 21:12:10 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 21:31:02 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 21:45:49 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 23:51:44 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 03:52:56 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 09:46:00 EST
- Did you even read this? by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 15:47:18 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 15:53:53 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard - you must be retarded by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Monday, March 04 @ 14:45:26 EST
BNETD and Warforge are not to blame... (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 14:26:56 EST | First of all, bnetd is so legal that it's not even funny. Perhaps if Blizzard lawyers weren't stupid they would have asked Warforge to shutdown, the site they were probably after.
However, I don't see how they could lawfully shut down Warforge, either. They did the same thing as bnetd--reverse engineered a game. Warforge and bnetd had nothing to do with pirating the game or warez. bnetd developed a legal software and warforge forked from that. People had pirated the WC3 beta ISO long before there was any server to play it. Period.
Power to these guys. I hope the right thing happens here and Blizzard backs down and realizes that these products likely promote their games rather than steal from them. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 14:44:02 EST | There is only one point that is weak (as far as I can tell):
"It is also strange to claim that the CD-Key system prevents copying since a valid CD-Key is not necessary to connect to Battle.net and download the latest patches for a warez copy of the game. Using a warez copy one logs into Battle.net. Prior to CD-Key validation, Blizzard conveniently provides the latest patches for the warez copy. Patches are also available via public ftp (http://ftp.blizzard.com/pub/war3/patches/beta/). It is hard to claim that the CD-Key system effectively prevents copying when Blizzard itself updates warez copies of its games to the latest version. Most bnetd servers are set up by owners of legitimate copies and the server ensures that those joining have the same version of the game. If Blizzard were truly concerned about piracy they would at least try to make it more difficult to get the latest patches."
In fact, this system could be used to protect against piracy because it can install patches. For instance, imagine if they created a patch that fixed that single byte in the DLL and/or fixed that registry entry (he mentions them previously in the article). Thats what I would do if I were Blizzard. :)
|
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 15:33:34 EST | I am a big fan of Blizzard and own a bought copy of every game from the original Warcraft up to Diablo II: Lord of destruction. I'll also buy a copy of Warcraft III when it hits the stores. I Personally don't see any copyright laws being broken and I know little of the DMCA. What I do know is the EULA has been broken somewhere down the line. The exact violation is reverse engeneering as stated here (copied directly from the Starcraft EULA:
==========
3. Responsibilities of End User.
A. SUBJECT TO THE GRANT OF LICENSE HEREINABOVE, YOU MAY NOT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, copy, photocopy, reproduce, translate, REVERSE
ENGINEER, derive source code, modify, disassemble, decompile, CREATE
DERIVATIVE WORKS BASED ON THE PROGRAM, or remove any proprietary
notices or labels on the Program without the prior consent, in
writing, of Blizzard.
==========
Pay close attention to the Portion in capitals. It never states a method of reverse engineering, only that none is allowed. Clearly this agreement has been breeched. This would also be considered a derivative work based on blizzard programs.
|
[ Reply to This ]
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 15:41:40 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 16:16:38 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 16:24:32 EST
- Reverse Engineered PROTOCOL by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 19:14:31 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 19:25:25 EST
- Re: who says they agreed to it? by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 19:55:02 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 20:27:45 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 21:03:20 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 21:15:34 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 21:48:32 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 10:27:24 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Friday, March 01 @ 15:37:28 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Tuesday, March 05 @ 00:21:33 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Saturday, March 09 @ 21:38:54 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Saturday, April 06 @ 17:21:21 EST
- i have a question. by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Tuesday, May 14 @ 21:37:57 EDT
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 15:45:21 EST | Oh puh-leeze!! Like, we all aren't aware of the fact that the primary intended use of bnetd is to allow people with pirated copies of Blizzard games to to play them with each other. If you invested a significant sum of $$ to invent a game and ended up selling only a few copies because some yahoos invented a program that allows illegal dupes to play the game, you'd be singing a far different song. Promoting such a system is detrimental to all those who like to play these games, and who show their support by paying for legal licenses so that the game authors can continue to feed themselves while inventing even mode games. |
[ Reply to This ]
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 15:59:03 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 16:02:47 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 16:12:15 EST
- not true by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 18:09:18 EST
- Re: not true by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 09:30:47 EST
- Re: not true by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Friday, March 01 @ 12:37:08 EST
- Re: not true by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Monday, March 04 @ 13:07:55 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 21:48:14 EST
- amen -nt by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 03:54:27 EST
- Wow...wrong. by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 15:54:42 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Sunday, March 03 @ 19:20:33 EST
- My stance and a couple (hopefully funny) analogies. by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Monday, March 11 @ 09:27:25 EST
- Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Saturday, April 06 @ 17:26:44 EST
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 15:58:01 EST | End-User-Agreement:
3. Responsibilities of End User.
A. Subject to the Grant of License hereinabove, You may not, in
whole or in part, copy, photocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse
engineer, derive source code, modify, disassemble, decompile,
create derivative works based on the Program, or remove any
proprietary notices or labels on the Program without the prior
consent, in writing, of Blizzard. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 16:28:05 EST | This is BS.. Blizzard has NO legal claim.. they just tried to scare them off... If they want an ISP I will give it to them. If BnetD members are reading this.. you can continue development of this piece of software (which is BY LAW.. LEGAL) on my servers.
betax2k@hotmail.com |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 20:38:50 EST | It seems pretty clear that Vivendi will not easily succeed with their Copyright Infringement case, but that is not to say they will lose. Since bnetd was reverse engineered without access to the actual battle.net software there was no infringement. This is more the software version of AMD vs Intel legal battle. Bnetd is a competing software that has none of the cd-key and anti-piracy protections that was built into Battle.net and to challenge them based on the presumption that software pirates use this to play would be legally futile.
However, this analysis skirts the issue of violation of circumvention in section 1201. The article states:
"This is made clear by the definition of circumvention in 1201(a)(3)(B), which "means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." Bnetd does not descramble, decrypt, remove or deactivate anything. It does not avoid, bypass or impair, it ignores. Ignoring is not circumventing."
Thats like Bill Clinton asking for a strict definition of a preposition. The fact of the matter is that a DLL was modified to facilitate the softwares ignorance of its technological measure to verify authenticity. That action alone is impairment and deactivation and its subsequent outcome is the bypass of a technological measure, which is a violation of section 1201.
Interoperability between 2 programs may have been cited for Bnetd's legal use but its need to circumvent a technological measure to ensure authenticity does constitute infringement of Vivendi games software. But certain things must develop for bnetd to be allowed to continue its use:
A) Bnetd must include authentication protocols as approved by Vivendi (thus be subject to conditions set forth by Vivendi)
B) Blizzard must stop supporting warez patch updates to eliminate culpability and tacit support.
C) DLLs provided to enable server challenge-responses must be better protected via software to prevent simple manipulation.
D) New EULAs be made to implicitely express that the use of Blizzard games on any emulator without the expressed and written
consent of Blizzard is subject to prosecution and legal remedies.
X~Slayer(ALE)
|
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 21:27:24 EST | This will probably come down to who owns the TCP/IP or UDP packets coming out of one's computer. IMHO |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 22:24:49 EST | This quick and dirty analysis has some good points, though I'm not sure I can agree with the author's analysis of possible violations of the DMCA. Even if you don't like the DMCA, and I don't, you must fully take into account its existence and intention. Certainly Blizzard is trying to control access to a work protected under copyright law. There is little reason for the CD key check when a user connects to BattleNet unless Blizzard is trying to reduce the level of piracy. In fact, Blizzard has to have been aware of bnetd for some time, meaning that they may have been looking for a way to get rid of it, for what ever reason. The response of the server for to a Warcraft III game was likely placed in the software specifically to invoke the DMCA. If the game were limited to LAN games or single player, it's longevity would be threatened, so BattleNet does add some value to the game. I would say that perhaps the software coupled with access to BattleNet constitutes a copyrightable work. The fact that it takes two or more computers to complete the work shouldn't affect the ability to create a copyrightable work. The authorization of the BattleNet server controls access to that work.
As for the arguments that people should have an alternative to BattleNet, I would point to Universal City v. Corley (aka the DeCSS case) -- you don't have the right to defeat a copy protection scheme, even a lame, ineffective one, so that you will be able to use the software in a more productive way.
Just a quick and dirty response. Still, I'm glad to see a site like this exists...
Oh, and if you want to get rid of the DMCA, talk to your Congressperson, not to the courts. It's too early for the courts to do much about it. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Wednesday, February 27 @ 23:28:32 EST | To my knowledge there is no law that holds that reverse engineering a protocol through packet dumping implicates copyright in any way. --If there isn't, there will be. I also feel confident that the courts will see the protocol as a form of language and that would place it under copyright protection. Further, no one, no matter how well written or researched, can convince me that this isn't a way to warez Blizzard games. If you legally owned the games (I do -- all of them), then you would just play online at Battle.net, which IMHO, is a great thing. It's free. READ NO LAME MONTHLY FEES. I hope this project is closed down immediately. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 01:07:38 EST | One thing that I noticed in the evaluation. The author states that bnetd and FSGS are competing softwares. It's kind of hard to be a competing software when Battle.Net is a free service, as are bnetd and FSGS. If Blizzard were to assist bnetd and FSGS developers to include the CD-Key check, and charge for a copy of the server, I imagine that there would be little to no trouble with software piracy. I myself would be more than willing to pay $200 US or so to be able to host a closed server that would allow me to play a mod. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 03:51:34 EST | You didn't get into the beta. Boohoo.
The people who sent the packet dumping to the bnetd project are probably in violation somehow because they manipulated the war3 beta other than what was intended for it.
Because of the bnetd project, a b.net emulator was created and pirated versions of the beta are all over the net.
If they had just waited the extra 2 months or so till the game is released I bet a lot of this hassle could have been avoided.
And lastly, because I read the last line. You guys are talking about violations and non-viloations of blizzard games. warcraft 3 isn't even a game yet. Its still in its beta stages. bnet d was released for stracraft/war2/diablo2 all of which at the time were released games, and blizzard didn't seem to put much emphasis on shutting it down. But this isn't a game, its a beta.
And we go back to my original point. If you had just waited till this game was released, then all this could have been avoided. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 04:00:57 EST | As a user of Battle net I lost most of my accounts, cause I was in hospital(some stuff in my brain..) and after not being able to play for more than 3 month in Battle Net, all my accounts are deleted permanently.
BNET is a alternative, where I don t loose my character, play in close Realm and so much less dupes exist. I m very glad about this, cause I lost all my characters, inventory and so on...gamed 12 month before every day 4-6hours...
I have 7 legit copies!!! FFDiablo2/LOD, to always support my own full games for experience ...
Yes I m a D2 freak..but battle net...not avaibale, laggy..and...not able to restore my hard work..after 3 month...and not able to convert my local copies of battle net cxharacters back in realm or convert into open characters.
So I will thank very much BNET Team and hope they will go on..Blizzard...very godd games...but not very good support for the wishes of the legit owner...
Thanks for your sight of law! Hope this will help to get BNET project go on.
Lets do a petition again Blizzard...if they have a great problem with bnet they shall offer their realm server for download...and make it possible like fsgs to connect many user servers into a great community...with saving realm char in a great database central or something like that.
But while this would not happen, I will kiss every developer of bnet for this great stuff
Myself running BNETW with closed realm support
Juergen
Clan Leader of ChaosEmpire
ce@4u4all.de |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard: What about a compromise? (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 05:50:48 EST | My stance on bnetd and anything like it is that it is wrong to screw around with someone else's stuff. That is a terrible way to put it, but let me explain. Blizzard has tried to develop a way to create a product that everyone can enjoy with no cost, except an initial fee. This is relatively cheap. However, their efforts are sub par, and this has created a demand, hense bnetd. If everything was honky dory, and Blizzard listened to its users, and implemented their feedback, then there would most likely not be something like bnetd. But there is.
Wheather or not bnetd infringes copyright or not is not important. They need to do anything they can to protect their property due to pirating. Bnetd encourages pirating and hacks due to the fact that it curcumvents the security protocals. If this is not protected by law, then it should be. They are loosing out on money that could be used to maintain Battle.net and make everyone happy, well, almost. This also discurrages further development and capitalism. Blah blah blah. (hey, seriously, this is a big problem)
Besides the customization, the biggest problem is speed. I don't understand why every packet of info has to be sent and recieved instantly instead of being buffered, but it does. So, a copromise. What if Blizzard liscenced a Battle.net server program that people could run, make it a little customizable for peoples tastes, but didn't circumvent the security? Battle.net would be less congested, people could play on other servers if they still were not satisfied with Battle.net speed, and they would have a choice as to which server they could log on to. Also, and most importantly, it would hopefully end the pirating.
Vexis |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 10:04:43 EST | in the article it was stated that a byte in the DLL of warcraft had to be changed in order to allow play on the Bnetd servers. if that Byte was there specifically to prevent players from playing the software on another server (being as the return packet from the server was encrypted to prevent it being reproduced by a third party), clearly copyright protection measures had been bypassed by this action. this action, as stated, is in violation and although is not covered properly in this letter could easily be reissued with corrections and/or clarification. ultimately they knew they had crossed the line when they had to change the DLL in WarCraft 3 and did the right thing by shutting it down.
it's sad that such a wonderful movement as open source is becoming interchangeable with the word hacker. i'm sure that corporate america would love to shut down open source and don't expect the media not to start to spin this to try to sway the public from open source. |
[ Reply to This ]
Interesting Direction.... (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 12:47:28 EST | Regardless of the legalities of the case at hand, a few things can be surmised:
A.: Vivendi, whether legal or not, is pursuing a direction that will eliminate an open-source competitor
B.: The ISPs that host bnetd are capitulating to the request
C.: If bnetd's current ISPs do give in, any further hosting of bnetd would be severely compromised by the precedent set by the former ISPs
What can we derive from this? That a corporate giant is shutting down competition on a thin preposition of software copyright infringement/violation. If something like this goes through, and Vivendi wins in the end, than a precedent would be set that would allow ANY software developer who has the money to remove open-source competition.
Imagine Vivendi's argument being applied as is, and affected the entire industry. Counter-Strike, and every other open-source developed mod for numerous games would not exist or be shut down. In fact, a mod is much more of a violation of an EULA or the DMCA than editing a client-side Windows registry.
I see this as being yet another step for the stranglehold that corporations will hold over independent programmers. It negates creativity, exploration, and invention, and will ultimately cause them more bad publicity. I for one am sick of Blizzard games (updated graphics/interface, same damn games) and will not be purchasing WCIII. |
[ Reply to This ]
In defence of Blizzard and Battle.net (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 13:15:59 EST | This is begining to remind me of the Napster case and you all know what happened to Napster.
As of late, Blizzard has done a much better job with Battle.net. I actually have been able to play virtually lag-free (no lost muling items left on the ground either for once) for 2 weeks since Blizzard closed the latest duping loophole and (grew some balls) started deleting accounts of dupers and hackers that were caught in the act. It wasn't the Battle.net servers that were causing the lag it was the people cheating/hacking/duping on those servers (very much like most of the people that want to use Bnetd so they can do it with a pirated copy of the game). I was a little miffed at Bliz for not deleting accounts sooner and ignoring our dilema for so long, but now that it has been remedied they are once again in my and many others good graces.
To the person who was sick and lost his accounts due to inactivity-you knew it would happen and could have had somone log in for you (hope your head is better). That wasn't Blizzards fault, they give very good notification EVERY time a character is created that it must be played for 2 hours within the next 48 hours of creation and be logged in to every 90 days or IT WILL BE DELETED. I don't feel the least bit sorry for you on that one (but i do hope your head is better).
On another point, there is nothing wrong with open source programs as long as they don't enable the use of pirated software. A ruling on this case would do nothing to affect Counter-Strike and the other Half-Life Mods because Valve ENCOURAGES and WORKS WITH the mod makers (very much unlike Blizzard). Valve software has no desire to stop mods on their Half-Life product. In each case it is entirely up to the software creator as it should be. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 14:36:55 EST | I've been searching around this site but can't find a contact email. Can someone give me an email to contact the individuals of this site? In this case preferably Ernest Miller since he did the research on this case... |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 1) by DarkHawk on Thursday, February 28 @ 18:41:06 EST (User Info | Send a Message) | I just wanted to point out that they ARE correct in saying that it modifies files which they own copyrights to at a certain extent:
"The letter also claims that software hosted by bnetd "modifies and/or alters Blizzard Entertainment copyrighted software ... thereby infringing upon Blizzard Entertainment copyrights." Problematically for Vivendi, no software provided by bnetd altered or modified any Blizzard software." says that no software was modified, but just above that you specifically state that the team that made the WCIII BNet emulator made a program that modifies the WCIII DLL files:
"The WarCraft III beta works a little differently than previous Blizzard games. The CD-Key for WarCraft III seems to perform the same function as previous games, but with one addition. Having validated the CD-Key, the Battle.net server will return an encrypted response to the client (challenge-response). Without this response the client will not function. Warforge surmounted this by creating a program that changed a single byte in one of WarCraft III's Dynamic Linked Libraries (DLL) so that the client no longer expected a response."
So technically they are correct in that form. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 19:29:03 EST | I simply wonder what Blizzard is going to do to the makers of game "Mods", which are specifically Modifications of existing Blizzard code, and in some cases Graphics, they make a concerted effort to Modify the game very purposefully, so I wonder if anyone else sees a slight double standard ? Techincally Mods are Dirivitave works, and even Games like Unreal Tournament, and Quake III contain statements in there EULA's to the effect that it is illegal to modify their games in any way shape or form, These are two of the most heavily modified, and easily modifieble games in existance.
|
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, February 28 @ 20:13:05 EST | Plz ppl remember bnetd has nothing to do with warcraft3 .... the lawsuit is to bnetd and they do NOT support warcraft3 .. all your arguments are nothing.
2nd. The patch program is client side ... any user could mod the .dll - they just made a program so n00bs dont stuff it up. (NOT MADE BY BNETD , this was made by Warforge an entity seperate from bnetd)
3rd. America is not the only country in the world. Bnet is pretty much exclusive to you people and u haveto consider that bnetd is very benficial to users in other countrys where bnet is just not an option.
4th. Bnetd do not ENCOURAGE piracy, theyre just not doing anything about it. Besides wouldnt implementing CD-key protection be infriging privacy AND copyright because of the encryption on the CD-keys, they would needto be decrypted and therefore it woud be editing the game and whatsnot, as well as making them visible to all witch would damage the overall protection system MUCH more - besides how are a third party meant to gain access to blizzards CD-key database, its kind of something they cant help.
5th. internet play over TCP/IP doesnt need CD-key authorization either. If Bnetd isn't a copy of Bnet software then it could be classified as just a Bnet mimicking (with added extras) community where people can easily find opponents and chat? All it does is make ease of use of non battle.net internet play and making it appear like battle.net and using similar methods that the official system uses.
6th. Battle.net gets money from advertising. If people play in non battle.net servers b.net arent getting money.
Pretty much blizzard are having a cry cos they're happy joy joy dream was everyone would play on their exclusive add-containing servers and some mofo came along and spoiled it. The CD-key thing is quite secondary :/ ~ Blizzard are just making a big huff and puff to try and scare them off. Throwing bigass legal mumbo-jumbo around to scare away the competition. - its very common nowadays. |
[ Reply to This ]
Reverse Marketing??? (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Friday, March 01 @ 00:42:11 EST | With all this wondefull stuff going on, I still believe bnetd is helping Blizzard show more people what WC3 plays like. People see the game looks good and will end up purchasing it. I will most certainly purchase it and many of my friends will too.
OK, I agree that it is still in Beta, that's another argument! I feel that Blizzard should have predicted that this would have happened. I also feel that in no way that this whole issue will show negatively against their revenue when Warcraft 3 gets released.
Give it up Vivendi! you'll make your money when the game gets released! |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Friday, March 01 @ 00:42:25 EST | I only gave the article a once-over, but several problems stand out glaringly.
First, I was troubled by the author's analysis of the DMCA and its relation to the Copyright Act. He stated, "Bypassing anti-circumvention technology may be a violation of section 1201 of the DMCA. However, violating section 1201 is not an infringement of copyright — it is a violation of the DMCA."
The fact of the matter is, a violation of Section 1201 is a violation of the Copyright Act. Section 103(a) of the DMCA states that "Title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter...." and the chapter added is Chapter 12, which includes section 1201. Title 17 of the United States Code is the Copyright Act. Basically, this means that the DMCA amends the Copyright Act by attaching Section 1201.
Stating that a violation of Section 1201 only violates the DMCA and not the Copyright Act is clearly incorrect. The DMCA adds Section 1201 to the Copyright Act. Thus, a violation of Section 1201 violates the Copyright Act.
Second, the author states, "In general, copyright infringement consists in copying or distributing another's work without authorization." This is a gross oversimplification of copyright. The rights of a copyright holder are listed in Section 106 of the Copyright Act. The reproduction right is only the first right listed. Other rights include the right to prepare derivative works (Section 106(2)) and the right of public distribution (Section 106(3)). A thorough analysis of this issue would require an investigation into each of those rights. The author does not do so. He focuses only on the reproduction right of the copyright holder (Section 106(1)). The copyright holder also possess other rights which could be infringed.
Third, I am not sure that the author is clear in his distinction between (1) an infringement of copyright as defined under Section 501 and (2) a violation of section 1201. It is possible, under the language of the statutes, not to violate Section 501 but still violate Section 1201.
That is, to prove a violation of Section 1201, Vivendi does not have to prove a simultaneous violation of Section 501. BNETD and others may not be infringing on any of Vivendi's rights as a copyright holder, but they may still be circumventing copyright protection systems created by Vivendi. This circumvention alone is a cause of action.
Fourth (and I apologize for the length of this response, but the post included many points), Section 1201(a) and 1201(b) are indeed complicated statutes. I do not think that they have been fully fleshed out by the courts yet. Certain summary statements that actions are "unlikely" be to violations of Section 1201 are premature and highly speculative.
The factual questions for the courts to decide consist of what "work" is being protected, what are the "technical measures" being taken to protect it, and are these "technical measures" being circumvented (and that's just for Section 1201(a)! Section 1201(b) will involve another set of issues). Until these questions are shaped by Vivendi, this legal discussion will only consist of hypotheticals. Vivendi did not have to state explicitly its claim in its "Cease and Desist" letter, though we all wish they would have done so.
I do not mean to discourage discussion on this issue. The Copyright Office itself invited public response to Section 1201 and its effects, and a quick search of that site (www.loc.gov/copyright) will show the strength of the public debate. However, we must approach this topic rationally, with reasoned arguments and conclusions that will protect both software developers and users.
I personally believe that BNETD and others do violate certain copyrights of Vivendi, but just because a legal right can be asserted does not mean that it should be asserted. I believe that Vivendi depends entirely on its community of users for its continued survival. Maintaining good relations with BNETD and other sites that host games that Vivendi and Battle.net no longer support would be an excellent idea for Vivendi. I also believe that Warforge and other sites that host Warcraft 3 games lean perilously close to contributory infringement (which helped shut down Napster). They, perhaps, should be shut down.
However, users can and should enjoy old games for long after their shelf-life, and Vivendi could build up good will by cooperating with BNETD to reach a reasonable resolution for all. |
[ Reply to This ]
Historical Precedent (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Friday, March 01 @ 10:19:57 EST | Though I may be wrong, I am pretty sure that BnetD has historical precedent on its side. Back when IBM used to be the only "IBM-compatible" PC's, a group of engineers, hoping to recreate the BIOS of the IBM pc, where given the equivalent of packet dumps - chunks of data sent to the IBM Bios and the corresponding output. By examining the data the engineers were able to design a Bios with identical functionality. Though IBM fought this, because the engineers weren't actually working with the code/schematics of the IBM Bios, they were not in violation of the law. BnetD is exactly the same situation.
(I stress that this is only my recollection of the situation, and i could be wrong) |
[ Reply to This ]
BnetD has few uses except for piracy (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Friday, March 01 @ 18:48:43 EST | Battle.net allows for private chat rooms, with the ability to kick any person which is not wanted. If a band of friends wants to play StarCraft for example, and have no outsiders they can do it at battle.net. Since battle.net is only a match-up service, and the games are played peer-to-peer there is no benefit in using BnetD. The only benefit of using BnetD is when your CD-KEY is invalid, since you own a pirated copy. No other reason what-so-ever.
-Great Wizard |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Saturday, March 02 @ 16:02:32 EST | "I only gave the article a once-over, but several problems stand out glaringly," is the start of my original post. If you will, I have more comments.
I have indeed read the original article again, and I admit that my first post may have been a bit hasty. I only wish that I had more time and space in which to respond to the author’s arguments. Nevertheless, I am still unconvinced of the underlying soundness of his reasoning.
Regarding a violation of Vivendi’s copyrights, the author simply understates the scope of a copyright holder’s rights. He focuses solely on copying: "The developers have never had access to Battle.net software, so it would be impossible for them to have copied it. As there is no copying there is no infringement" (emphasis added). Without an analysis of the public distribution right (Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), the adaptation right (Micro Star v. Formgen, Inc), or the theory of contributory infringement (A&M Records, Inc. v. Napter, Inc.), a statement that there is no infringement of Vivendi’s rights simply because no software has been copied is simply misleading. A more thorough analysis is demanded.
Regarding Vivendi’s "Cease and Desist" letter, there do indeed appear to be issues with it, but the issue is still more complicated than the author asserts. The letter was sent to BNETD’s ISP. It was sent in accordance of Section 512 of the Copyright Act. Section 512 was added to the Copyright Act by the DCMA to limit the liability of ISP’s regarding the copyright infringements of people using those ISP’s. That is, it was designed to protect ISP’s. Section 512 involves only infringements of copyright, and those infringements are indeed defined by Section 501. Section 501 does not list a violation of Section 1201 to be an infringement of copyright. A violation of Section 1201 is not a violation of copyright.
There exists an inconsistency between Section 512 and Section 1201. An ISP could possibly violate Section 1201(b) merely by hosting a site that distributes a file that violates Section 1201(a)(2) or 1201(b). However, this is contrary to the purpose of Section 512, which was designed to help ISP’s limit their liability for infringements not their own. Courts try to read statutes so that they are consistent with each other. This is conjecture, but an ISP should be able to rely on a Section 512 procedure to limit their liability to a Section 1201 violation. If they could not rely on Section 512 in such a situation, then Section 512 is effectively meaningless. Courts do not like to make statutes meaningless. This is possibly why Vivendi sent the ISP a Section 512 letter, even though Section 512 does not cover Section 1201 violations.
The letter still presents serious issues. The letter indeed states that it is sent pursuant to the DMCA. A reading of the DCMA reveals that it amends Title 17 of the United States Code, Title 17 being the Copyright Act of 1976. Section 512 and Section 1201 were among the sections added. The letter is sent pursuant to Section 512. Other than that, it does not state exactly what violations of the Copyright Act are being claimed. A violation of Section 1201 is inferred from the claim that BNETD distributes software that "bypasses anti-circumvention technology, thereby infringing upon Blizzard Entertainment copyrights." The author includes this quotation.
However, the author correctly notes that Blizzard claims two (2) violations with its letter. First, they are claiming an illegal modification and/or alteration of copyrighted software. Second, they are claiming a bypass of anti-circumvention technology. The second claim is clearly a Section 1201 claim. The first claim, an illegal modification and/or alteration of copyrighted software, is unclear. I share the author’s bafflement with the source of this first claim. Section 1201 does not mention modifications and/or alternations. Section 1202 does not apply. Clearly, some other right is being asserted by Blizzard. Is it Section 106(2), the right to prepare derivative works, the adaptation right? Is it Section 117, which deals with limitations on exclusive rights regarding computer programs? The letter does not say, nor is it required to say. The author states, "Nowhere does the copyright law say that copyright holders have the exclusive right to ensure that their works are free from modification or alteration." The right to prepare derivative works/adaptation right could be involved, but this will be a complex point to litigate. The adaptation right has evolved beyond the mere language of Section 106(2), and, as with many statutes, just strictly reading the language of the Copyright Act does not fully reveal the full scope of copyright and its interpretations. One must study the case law. The author does not appear to have done this.
If you’ve read this far, congratulations. I hope you find this issue as fascinating as I do.
Finally, we reach the question of whether or not there is a Section 1201 violation in this matter. Of course the author provides caveats that his analysis is conjectural, but he doesn’t stress how speculative his conclusions really are. Simply put, they must be accepted with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the author’s analysis of this issue is crisp enough or sharp enough.
If I were the lawyer for Blizzard, I would focus all of my energy on the WarCraft III beta and its multiplayer functionality. In fact, the entire analysis that now follows is based on Warforge and its activities. As the author’s background information states, it was shipped to beta testers with only Battle.net play enabled. It is not designed, at this point, to operate under any other multiplayer protocol. To access Battle.net, the client must provide its encrypted CD-Key. Then, the server replies with an encrypted challenge-response, which is needed by the client to access the software’s Battle.net functionality. Certain members of the BNETD development team, Warforge, have designed software that allows multiplayer functionality outside of Battle.net. The precise issue in this matter is whether or not Warforge’s software code circumvents measures of Blizzard.
I hope that no one reading this post would doubt that the WarCraft III beta and its associated software are copyrighted material. The Warcraft III beta is protected by the Copyright Act. All of its software is protected by the Copyright Act.
Section 1201(a)(2) states that "circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" is a violation. "Title" refers to the Copyright Act, as amended by the DMCA.
Section 1201(b) states that "circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects the right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof" is a violation.
Section 1201(a)(2) will be discussed first. As defined in Section 1201(a)(3) "a technological measure ‘effectively controls access to a work’ if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work." The measure in this case is the dual CD-Key provided by the client and the challenge-response provided by the server. The challenge-response is the application of information, with the authority of the copyright holder, to gain access to a work. The author believes that the work being accessed is the multiplayer functionality. However, I do not think that this definition of the work being accessed is correct. One cannot copyright "multiplayer functionality." If one could copyright it, then one could effectively bar everyone else from ever implementing "multiplayer functionality." This would result in one company (probably Microsoft) controlling all "multiplayer functionality" for all time, and this would be contrary to the best interests of the American public. I do not think that multiplayer functionality is the work being accessed by the protection measures. The work being accessed is the unique software code that enables the program’s multiplayer functionality. Software code can be copyrighted, and Blizzard has certain rights to control access to that software code.
It is of no relevance whatsoever that previous Blizzard games have not attempted to limit access to multiplayer software code. It is of no relevance whatsoever that the final version of WarCraft III will probably enable full access to the multiplayer software code. At this point in time, the WarCraft III beta, a unique work, does not grant access except through the measures created by Blizzard. This is what the court would examine.
Does the Warforge software circumvent technological measure taken by Blizzard? Section 1201(a)(3) states, "to ‘circumvent a technological measure’ means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." The Warforge software alters a DLL of the WarCraft III beta to make it ignore the challenge-response that it expects from the server. This is clearly not descrambling or decrypting. However, the author states, "[the Warforge software] does not avoid, bypass, or impair, it ignores. Ignoring is not circumventing." This is an extremely tenuous, even humorous, statement, and a judge would probably laugh if he or she heard this in court in this context. The Warforge software is "removing" the Blizzard software code that expected the challenge-response from the Battle.net server. The Warforge software is also causing the Blizzard software to "avoid" the usual way it would react if it did not receive the challenge-response. The Warforge software is "bypassing," "deactivating," and even "impairing" the Blizzard software that expects the challenge-response.
Section 1201(a)(2) contains different ways in which it may be violated. 1201(a)(2)(A) contains a violation if Warforge "is primarily intended or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." 1201(a)(2)(B) contains a violation if Warforge "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." These separate clauses are connected by an "or," not an "and." One only has to violate one of the provisions above to violate 1201(a)(2). Warforge probably violates 1201(a)(2)(A) because it seems to have been developed primarily to bypass the server’s challenge-response measure developed by Blizzard. That is, the Warcraft III beta was designed to support multiplayer only through its Battle.net software. Warforge was designed primarily so that users could access the multiplayer software throug
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Saturday, March 02 @ 20:35:53 EST | What was it, 300,000 people who signed up for the beta and only 5,000 were allowed in? It's not hard to imagine why the "losers" use bnetd... everybody wants a chance to play the game. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Monday, March 04 @ 13:59:06 EST | The only persons involved who might properly be the legal targets of Blizzard would be Warforge, as they are the one who released the patch which modifies the Warcraft 3 Beta's binaries to work with their modified bnetd server. And that would be the ONLY way in which they broke any laws. If beta testers were under NDA's to not send packet information then THEY are at fault, not those recieving the packet dumps. If making an emulator from packet information sent to you by another person is illegal than every computer manufacturer that makes an IBM compatible "clone" (all of them) is breaking the law. If Blizzard shuts down bnetd.org for not checking cd keys they must also shut down Kali and Microsoft for making Virtual Private Networking software, which enables internet play without Battle.net (and without checking cd keys). bnetd.org claims that they attempted to contact blizzard about being able to check cd keys and were totally ignored. If this is true then it is Blizzard's fault for not creating an external cd key checking server ala id Software and Return to Castle Wolfenstein. I own a legitimate copy of Wolfenstein, but some of my friends who do not and would like to warez it (I don't judge them for it. they would buy it if they could afford it or thought it was worth the money.) cannot play online without purchasing it because of the cd key system. It would be very simple for Blizzard to implement such an external method for authenticating cd keys (other than requiring a patch to all released games. which they do rather often anyway). In my opinion the root of the issue is that Blizzard wants to control the environment in which people play their games. Even if that environment, frankly, sucks. Perhaps if they did a better job of providing a fun place for people to play, no one would feel projects like bnetd were necessary. It is impossible to play a game on battle.net without being slandered, cursed, or randomly player killed (in Diablo 2) with no provocation. Not to mention the massive cheating that goes unchecked. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Monday, March 04 @ 17:10:43 EST | If people have legally purchased software and play it on an emulated bnet, what's the problem? they may WANT to host thier own servers, or they may lack the capability to go online on bnet. But for whatever reason that is the user's reason. Now what if the software they used is illegal? So they use illegal software on an emulated network, should the emulator be held responsible? Of course not, they made a emulator to facilitate other users needs without violating any standing copyright laws. If a person decides to use an illegal copy to play then it is that person who should be held responsible.
Someone wrote:
"If drugs/prostitution was going down in a club, and the club didn't do anything to prevent it, the club would be shut down...How is this any different?"
IT'S ALOT DIFFERENT. The emulator makers don't own the network, they don't profit from it's use, and they sure as hell don't know if te users are using thier software for malicious reasons. I don't think the the complaning party can prove that the emulator makers' intention. They're just pissed that they can't stop piracy, and they have nobody to blame. |
[ Reply to This ]
DMCA is an unjust law (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Monday, March 04 @ 23:03:58 EST | That much has been agreed upon by many people. I would quote stuff for you guys but it's too much work. The lettering of the DMCA is such that if you have any connection to any type of software/hardware that could concivably let people use another piece of software/hardware without paying for it, you could be busted. |
[ Reply to This ]
Analogy (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Monday, March 04 @ 23:40:03 EST | Bnetd or Warforge may be breaking the law by allowing people with copied Blizzard games to play it. If TCP/IP was in all their games then Bnetd would not have much of a purpose. I believe that Blizzard does not want TCP/IP on their strategy games because it allows people to play pirated versions of the game and therefore they lose money. If Blizzard could make something like half-life's won.net cd-key check where it checks each time you connect then thats it, it would probably be better than battle.net.
Bnetd was created for the "purpose" of an alternative to battle.net. Whether this is true or not will be up for debate. However if it were true that means it has a legit use with a posibility of illegit use. This is like saying VCRs can be used to record stuff off of tv or from VHS to VHS. Or how about commerical VCRs that can BYPASSES circumvention technologies, shouldn't those VCRs be banned as well under the DMCA.
Bnetd can be used for LAN, VCRs can be used to record your missed shows, photocopiers to make copies or uncopycrighted stuff, and the point is that technology can be used for GOOD purposes and BAD purposes. Whether it's mostly good or bad is up for an opinion.
However this goes to show you that if you mess with corporation ability to make profits, they will get you.
Corporations care mainly for one thing, MONEY. If they know they can lose money, lots of money, they will "ruff ruff" to the government for a law.
This is ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!!! MONEY!!!! MONEY!!!!!!!!!
My solution for Blizzard would be to put TCP/IP in ALL there games and if possible, make a cd-key check when connect to ANY online game. Therefore there is no need for BnetD.
Good thing I live in Canada where the DMCA can't touch me.... muhahaha (yes i know canada is making their own "DMCA" law that they say will be SPECIFIC unlike the DMCA) |
[ Reply to This ]
- Re: Analogy by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Tuesday, March 05 @ 02:01:26 EST
ipx VS tcp/ip (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Tuesday, March 05 @ 21:08:07 EST | well i do not use ipx on my network and because of that i can't play starcraft in lan mode, but when i run bnetd I CAN.
And i get statistics of all the games a ladder and so on that is whuy bneted exists there are a lot of users who do not wan't ipx on their networks esacially when running w2k it's kinda bugy... it also allowes me and my friends join in and cahllange me and my brother on lan games. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Tuesday, March 05 @ 22:48:02 EST | I am the poster of the lengthy counteranalysis post. I am glad to see that this topic has precipitated a great deal of intelligent debate.
The main concerns regarding my post appear to be two:
1) The Cease and Desist Letter
2) BNETD Liability versus Warforge Liability
1) The Cease and Desist Letter
The central issue to this entire post, the one single event that ignited this whole issue, is the Cease and Desist letter. I with to make known right now that I essentially agree with the author's assessment that it is legally flawed. Section 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) states that a letter sent pursuant to Section 512 contain "identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled...." The Vivendi Cease and Desist letter did not contain such information.
In such a situation, we must refer to Section 512(c)(3)(B), which deals with situations when the 512 letter is deficient. A letter "that fails to comply substantially with the provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not be considered under paragraph (1)(A) in determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge or is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent." Section 512(c)(3)(B)(i). However, the above clause will apply only if "the service provider promptly attempts to contact the person making the notification or takes other reasonable steps to assist in the receipt of notification that substantially complies with all the provision of subparagraph (A)." Section 512(c)(3)(B)(ii).
What does this mean? If the service provider receives a letter that it believes is legally deficient, the burden shifts to the service provider to contact the sender of the letter in order to gain information that will make the letter legally sufficient. If the service provider does this, and the sender of the letter does not respond, or fails to provide the information that will make the letter legally sufficient, then the service provider will escape liability for infringing material that is hosted by its servers. On the other hand, if the sender of the letter responds with the necessary information, then the ISP must either remove the material listed or else it must be prepared to go to court to attempt to defend itself on an infringement action.
The subscriber who posts the material still has rights if the material is removed. He or she can issue a counter-notification to the copyright holder, the sender of the letter, that states that he or she has a good faith belief that the material was removed "as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material." Once receiving this letter, the copyright holder has a limited amount of time to seek judicial relief. That is, the parties must go to court to see who is correct. If this time lapses without judicial action, then the ISP must restore the subscriber's information and material. If the ISP does not do this then it could be liable for damages to the subscriber.
The author suggests that Vivendi could not legally have sent a Section 512 letter because it deals only with infringements of copyright and not with infringements of Section 1201. I suggest that the letter claims both a copyright violation and a Section 1201 violation, and thus the Section 512 letter was appropriate. I also suggested that the copyright holder and the service provider must both be able to rely on a Section 512 letter, even in the case of Section 1201 violations, or else Section 512 becomes effectively meaningless. Courts will not make statutes meaningless, and will likely support the sending of the Section 512 letter.
Now that we have concluded that the Cease and Desist letter is legally deficient, what can we do? Essentially, nothing. The ISP has already removed the site that Vivendi wanted removed. The ISP could put it back up, but then they would just receive another letter. The ISP would then ask for more information, namely, what files are offending. Vivendi would provide a list. If the ISP disagreed with Vivendi's conclusions, they would go to court. Regarding a possible counter-notification, this must be sent within a short period of time (10 days). I believe that this time has lapsed, and so such a letter is not available.
The analysis immediately above is perhaps the precise legal analysis that the author of the original article could have carried out. It takes on the most glaring deficiency of the Cease and Desist letter and demonstrates that the ISP has a right to seek clarification from Vivendi. However, he attempts to go further. He attempts to find a deficiency under Section 512(c)(3)(v), which requires that the sender of the letter have "a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner...." The copyright holder does not have to prove, in the Section 512 letter, that it is more likely than not that his or her rights as a copyright holder are being violated. The courts do not force the copyright holder to provide the ISP with a full legal memo outlining its legal position and arguments. A mere good faith assertion suffices. I believe that the letter does meet this good-faith requirement.
The author does not believe that the good-faith requirement is satisfied by the letter, and he wants Vivendi to respond with a more precise formulation of its arguments. He launches into a legal analysis of possible copyright infringements and Section 1201 violations in order to preemptively respond to what Vivendi might say. I believe that this analysis was premature. His analysis was not necessary to determine the legal sufficiency of the Cease and Desist letter. However, once I read his analysis I could not ethically let his arguments go unopposed, as readers would possibly construe his conclusions for legal maxims without being exposed to any counterarguments. Also, as I'm sure the author is aware, once a legal argument is made it practically shouts out for counterargument. I am merely fulfilling my calling as a legal scholar by offering my own independent analysis of his conclusions.
2) BNETD Liability versus Warforge Liability
I am grateful for the number of posts that have set out exactly the relationship between BNETD and Warforge. This was not made exactly clear in the original article. I am especially glad to hear that a segment of the BNETD community did not support the development of Warforge.
I think it is very important to recognize what exactly BNETD and Warforge are: they are communities of developers. A legal action would not consist of "Blizzard v. BNETD" or "Blizzard v. Warforge." A legal action would consist of Blizzard suing certain individuals, individuals who either developed, used, or distributed the offending software. Though I may mention below "Warforge liability" or "BNETD liability" below, be certain that I mean "liability for people who developed, distributed, or used such software."
I believe that I have made a very strong case for Warforge liability under both theories of contributory infringement and a Section 1201 violation. This was not difficult to do, considering that WC3 is still in beta stage with only limited and controlled access to its multiplayer software code. I pointedly reminded readers that I was concentrating solely on Warforge. I chose this focus, quite simply, because it was an easy case to make. Perhaps this was a mistake, as more people are interested in knowing whether or not BNETD has any liability. Also, the letter was focused on BNETD. It is more at issue than Warforge.
I cannot conclude that BNETD has no liability in this matter. Liability would not be based on Section 1201 violations. It would not be based on unlawful copying or distribution of copyrighted software. It could be based on contributory infringement, but this would be rather difficult to prove. Vivendi's arguments would be based, I am sure, on the adaptation/derivation right of the copyright holder, listed in Section 106(2) of the Copyright Act, which states that a copyright holder has the right "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work." Section 101 of the same Act defines a derivative work as "a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted."
The adaptation right is, unfortunately, difficult to litigate. It can be even more difficult to identify an adaptation. Vivendi's lawyers would most likely argue that BNETD "transforms" or "recasts" some software code of Blizzard, probably Battle.net code. Please debate this as you will, but also note a recent case involving the derivation right, Micro Star v. Formgen. It concerned "Duke Nuken 3D," created by Formgen. The program included an editor utility that allowed the creation of new levels. Another company, Micro Star, collected levels off the Internet, burned them on a CD, and then sold copies of the CD. The court found the company in violation of Formgen's derivation right. The case is not really very analogous to the present issue, but it does demonstrate the lengths to which courts will go to protect a copyright holder's derivation right (If you are interested in learning more of the Duke Nukem case, simply type "Micro Star v. Formgen" in a search engine).
I will simply not attempt to dissect or identify any of Blizzard's possible derivation rights at this time. As noted, it would be a difficult case to litigate. The arguments would border on the metaphysical and I would no doubt frustrate many readers with the murkiness of the issue. Seeing as how the case will probably never be litigated, it is merely an interesting academic discussion. At best Blizzard's chances of succeeding on such an action are 50/50.
3) Conclusions
I have received numerous requests seeking my own personal, non-legal, conclusions regarding this entire issue.
I believe that the Section 512 letter was sent hastily. Blizzard representatives were concerned about the piracy of WC3 and the creation of Warforge. They approached Vivendi lawyers, who then drafted and sent the Cease and Desist letter. It is a classic example of overkill and haste on the part of lawyers. They did not bother to gain a full understanding of the differences between BNETD and Warforge (although they did know that they were associated in some way), and they targeted BNETD as the more visible branch. This is a moot point, nevertheless, as BNETD was removed from its server. If a BNETD developer is serious about asserting his legal rights, then he should start his own server, repost the BNETD software, and then be prepared for legal action. The preceding sentence does not represent my
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Saturday, March 09 @ 18:05:13 EST | To qualify as technological protection measure under section 1201(b), a device must in the ordinary course of its operation, prevent, restrict, or otherwise limit the exercise of a right of a copyright owner." The only right at issue would seem to be the right to copy. But it is difficult to claim that bnetd undermines this as one must already have a copy of a Blizzard game (legitimate or illegitimate) in order to use bnetd. In other words, any copying occurs prior to use of bnetd.
The issue at hand isn't copying of the game. The issue is Blizzard's right to expire the beta when the beta test is over. If Blizzard does not have control over all possible game servers, then Blizzard has no way of stopping people from playing the beta forever. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Sunday, March 17 @ 04:49:57 EST | I run a BNetD server behind my university firewall. Know why I do? Because the nerds who set the damned thing up closed every bloody port except for 80. (OK, maybe telnet's open.) Network security is so anal-retentive about their firewall you could ram a lump of coal up their asses and get diamonds in a week.
If I want to run BNetD - f*** you, Blizzard - I'm going to run BNetD. And if there's 4 people in my dorm floor in the W3B program - f*** you again, I'm running Warforge. (By the way, your invisible/invulnerable creeps in v1.12 can suck my left nut. They're GONE now. Good try though.)
Thank you. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Sunday, March 31 @ 07:46:38 EST | Just a few things:
1: Remember Napster? Anything that peole get for free, will eventualy turn out to cash. I play WC3b on BnetD and in LAN. I WILL BUY THE GAME because it is great. If i didn't lay my hands on leeched beta, i would never see the game, and would probably get it illegal (copy, warez ...)
2: Why would it hurt Blizzard if people were aware of WC3? Why not make it free download? It will raise awarness of it, and more people will buy it. Let's face it, there will be more illegal copies of WC3 than any other game in universe. And by giving out somehting for free to people they could prevent this. I am 99% sure that all people playing illegal Beta now WILL BUY GAME.
3: And ofcourse, BnetD/warfoge ... will appear in week or so in it's reincarnation, someone else will do it. Blizzard is mega cool, their games rule, but a) people cannot buy every cool game; b) people will always push limits to see if they can just crack that byte more. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Monday, April 01 @ 16:26:40 EST | I own several LEGAL copies of Bizzard products and in my opinion, the piracy is not my issue. One question on that note though, why does Blizzard allow you "SPAWN" copies of the game on several networked computers, if they worried about loosing money and want you to purchase them?
Being able to play MY game where I want to is my main issue. Why MUST I play on Blizzard's Bnet when there are other's available (even private)? I do not like the abusive language and behaviour found on the public Bnets. I do not like the congestion found on the public Bnets. To my knowledge Blizzard (or FSGS.com) has not found a way to eliminate either of these problems. Therefore, I (my friends) play on a my private network (graciously programed by and downloaded from FSGS.com) Why can't blizzard do the same (with thier anti-piracy included)
Besides, how do the whiners and complainers know about this site (FSGS.com)....if they haven't been here before? Why aren't you using only Blizzard's Bnet?
In summary, I know Blizzard (and the whiners) could do a better job with anti-piracy, that's if this is the ONLY issue. As long as there are computers and people, there are going to be hackers that may be able to overcome whatever comes out. To simply allow a site to be shut down because it looks like another is wrong. How did we progress, if the wheel wasn't continually being reinvented? |
[ Reply to This ]
Morality of the law? Give me a break... (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Tuesday, April 02 @ 17:18:22 EST | Anyone that decides that bnetd is illegal since it is immoral please go home (also please check your collection of mp3's on the way). Morality in this case is based on a capatalistic system, which is inherently immoral in the first place. Any social security net that leads to increasing amount of the population living in poverty and wealth based on family background is obviously not a "moral" system, and therefore any breach of law within the system (I'm not saying there was a breach in this case) cannot be constituted as immoral since there are no moral fibers to compare it to. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard - Frustrations of an online gamer (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Sunday, April 07 @ 03:18:50 EDT | This is just my opinion and I am not a lawyer by any means.
What is wrong with "Innocent until proven guilty?" Why can't the bnetd project continue to distribute their software until a court actually says they aren't allowed? I can understand that if they were blatantly breaking a law by distributing their software openly to everyone, then they should remove it. In the best case against the Bnetd project, this is a "grey" area. I can see no blatant law breaking going on with this project. I think they should be allowed to openly continue their project until such time that it is proven that there is a violation of some sort.
I am a user and loyal fan of many Blizzard Entertainment games and have come to love playing them with my friends over the Internet. One of the biggest challenges that I personally face while using a "real" battle.net server is that I have a very difficult time finding the game server that one of my friends has created on the battle.net server! It is a great challenge to actually find them. However, if I use a bnetd server which my friends are also connected with, then the task of finding their game server becomes quite simple and we can play many games without the frustrations of finding each others game servers.
I think that one of the biggest frustrations of using the battle.net servers is while I can create a game character of any name that I choose and play this character in a "local" or "single player" game, when I try to connect to the battle.net server, I must rename my character's name, that I have already picked and happen to like, to something entirely different. Because there are so many different people who have accounts on battle.net it becomes difficult to create a character of my own with a unique name that isn't already being used by some other person who has already registered that name on battle.net. The Bnetd server easily lets me pick a name that is not already taken by someone else. Then I can make a Diablo game character called "Master Wizard" or similar without having to change it to "Master Wizard 496449" on the Battle.net servers. Doing this permanently changes my characters name even while playing local or single player games with that character.
This is why I am a big fan of the Bnetd project and if I have to always use a "real" Battle.net server, then I will certainly play Blizzard games less frequently because of all the hassles associated with doing so.
It is my strong opinion that the Bnetd server project is a great asset to the online gaming community and I support them 100 percent!
If Blizzard Entertainment does not allow the Bnetd project to continue so that I, as a user of Blizzard software, cannot continue to connect to bnetd servers and play private games with my friends over the Internet, then I will probably not be interested in purchasing any future releases of Blizzard software.
Sincerely,
A Loyal Blizzard Entertainment Fan
( isludywjh )
|
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Tuesday, April 09 @ 21:35:47 EDT | i dont see the issue as finding a law to say BNetD violated, the issue is that Blizzard made a product and BNetD is making blizzard lose money by drawing people away from Battle.net which blizzard makes money off of through banner adds. Even though BNetD may not be making any money off of it, Blizzard is losing money, that means they are spealing blizzard profits, reguardless of wether or not BNetD choses to claim the profits or not.
The only way this would be legal was if BNetD was a private product, but its not. They took actual Battle.net code, altered it and rereleased it.
That just plain wrong and if there isnt a law prohibiting that dont be suprised if there is soon. Vivindi is not going to tollerate a bunch of hackers to steal millions of dollars of add profits.
People have copies of war3 beta and play it on warforge. They weren't seletect for the beta test, the thousands of people downloaded an illegal copy of war3, installed it using a cd key bypassing utility. All because they knew they could play it because of BNetD. At the very least BNetD promotes piracy and can not be tollerated. Everything else is legal technicalities. When this much money is involved, grey areas quickly turn to black and white, Vivendi does not get beat by a few little hackers, pardon the stereotype. |
[ Reply to This ]
Why Blizzard made a mistake....... (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Thursday, May 09 @ 18:50:51 EDT | I have always loved blizzard games..... never questioned that they are the best there is, and bought warcraft 2 and starcraft. I honestly planned on buying a copy of Warcraft III, no questions asked........ then i download the Beta and learn all about the troubles of BnetD because of blizzard. It has really made me consider just copying my friends warcraft3 cd when it finally comes out. Im not saying this is just or whatever...... thats just the way i feel.
I think this point justifies both sides stand, why blizzard wants them gone(because they do, in a way, promote piracy), and why BnetD was created(because blizzard/battle.net isnt as great as it could be).
Its just sad that blizzard had to go and screw their reputation (in my opinion). I will still probalby buy WarcraftIII when it comes out............
All information is free..........In the end, and just as irrelevant |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Sunday, May 19 @ 23:16:38 EDT | Well, looking up the reason for the bnetd project, I see that many of the "drawbacks" of battle.net have since been fixed, particularly the issue of firewalls and NAT. Even if it once did, I don't think bnetd has a place anymore, except to circumvent the CD-key validation. (It _does_ circumvent it, BTW. Ignoring is circumventing if its intended use/server doesn't do that.) |
[ Reply to This ]
|
Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die
All stories, comments and submissions copyright their respective posters. Everything Else
Copyright (c) 2002 by the Information Society Project.
This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set
forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later
(the latest version is presently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).
You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php
|