Legal Analysis Critical of Blizzard v Bnetd 389
anewsome writes "As reported previously
several times,
Blizzard has sent a cease and desist letter to the ISP of bnetd (which develops an open source
Battle.net emulator). Lawmeme.org (from the Yale Law School) has
published a long piece with lots of background and legal analysis on the
case. Conclusion: Blizzard has an uphill legal battle."
Blizzard does have a point though... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, to my understanding they're doing this largely as a reaction to the WC3 beta. It was cracked within days of release, using bnetd and other "fake" bnet networks that don't check cd keys. This is allowing many people who shouldn't be playing the beta to play the beta.
"Big deal" you say. And part of me is inclined to agree, as it doesn't hurt Blizzard to have a few extra thousand people playing the beta.
Well, I'm a beta tester, and I can tell you that the "official" beta network is sorely underused. Of the 5000 beta testers there are probably only 30-60 games going at any given time. I know, you might think that is a lot, but it's basically the same people over and over. From the buzz I've heard, a lot of legit beta testers have even been going to the bnetd networks, just because there are more people there (easier to find big 3v3 and 4v4 games, etc.).
So yes, DMCA bad. Making reverse engineering bad. Open source good, bnetd good. But Blizzard still does have a point, and perhaps some sort of compromise needs to be reached...
It's all about the Benjamins (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm making an assumption here, but I don't think the guys running the bnetd project don't have piles of money to take this thing to court. The ISP isn't going to burn tons of cash for these guys, and ignore Blizzard.
It's unfortunate that a company with deep pockets and a shaky legal footing can shut down projects it doesn't agree with. I used to play DII like a fiend, but got sick of the cheating/tradehacks/etc., so I don't have anything to gain from this project. I do, however, think it's a real shame that a nice project like this is getting squeezed. I hope the bnetd team can weather the storm.
I also wonder if maybe Blizzard's time and energies might be put to better use by focusing on things like Realm stability, and getting rid of the cheaters that are bringing the realms down, looking for the next duping method.
Wait ... whos software is this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is every one here really thinking that all those funny EULA statements are really legal
So companies can put whatever they want in a EULA , and it does not mean u have to follow them or even look at them
How far have we gone
Conclusion: Blizzard has an uphill legal battle (Score:3, Interesting)
How so? No matter how much you want to estow the virtues of open source yada yada, blizzard will probably win.. hell they probably won't even have to go to court to win.. the bnetd guys will probably appologize and settle out of court just to keep from losing millions of dollars trying to fight this.
Conclusion: Money talks. Period.
It wouldnt matter (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if Blizzard did allow pass-through authentication to battle.net and even if the bnetd people did implement it one of the problems here is the Open Source nature of bnetd. It would be a trivial task for a lot of people to remove this authentication from bnetd so the problem still remains.
Also implementing high level crypto for real time strategy games that you want to provide access to for free on servers would at the very least greatly increase the computing horsepower required by those servers (thats assuming that sort of real time high powered encryption is even possible). Blizzard wants to provide a free service to anyone who wants to play their games online, but they can only continue to do that while it is economically viable. Anything that increases the cost of this service will also have a knock on effect on its quality.
Finally if you check the licence agreement that comes with your Blizzard games you will see:
you are not entitled to:
(iv) host or provide matchmaking services for the Program or emulate or redirect the communication protocols used by the Licensor in the network feature of the Program, though protocol emulation, tunneling, modifying or adding components to the Progran, use of a utility program or any other techniques now known or hereafter deceloped, for any purpose including, but not limited to network play over the Internet, network play utilising commercial or non-commercial gaming networks or as part of content aggregation networks withoug the Licensor prior written consent.
Unless all the people involved in the bnetd project have never purchaesd and played a Blizzard game they are violating this licence agreement.
But the really sad thing is that if Blizzard feel that the public beta is lending itself to piracy in such a manner that it is affecting sales then that will be the end of their public betas. I also find it really depressing that Blizzard have been unable to find a group of 5000 people to test, whom they have trusted with their beta versions and who have no doubt signed all sorts of non-disclosure agreements, but who are willing to abide by that and not release the games to warez sites. Regardless of what happens to the bnetd project I really hope that the people who released the warez versions of the WC3 beta feel the full strength of Blizzards laywers brought to bear on them.
Re:EFF & bnetd (Score:4, Interesting)
letting them know how displeased you are that they didn't even contact us first
or try to work anything out, but rather just hammered us with legal threats and
the DMCA.
I tried this. I sent an email to the sales dept telling them how they lost me as a customer because of what they were doing with the DMCA to a project that was basically started in good faith.
I received this:
----------------
Hello.
Certain programs have been developed that allow users to bypass Battle.net's
CD-key-authentication process. Although these programs might have been made
with good intentions, they directly promote software piracy by allowing
users who have illegitimately obtained our games to play them as if they'd
been legitimately purchased. Furthermore, because these programs allow
access without a CD key, they render malicious users unaccountable, thereby
eliminating Blizzard's ability to protect legitimate consumers. Therefore,
Blizzard has taken an aggressive stance opposing the use of these programs.
Please take a moment to read through our FAQ regarding these issues at
http://www.battle.net/support/emulationfaq.sh
or concerns about Blizzard's stance on software piracy.
{WR655}
Thank you for your email,
Kenny Z.
Technical Support
Blizzard Entertainment
PS. If you plan to reply to this message, please include all previous
messages between us.
--------------
I assume this is word-for-word what other people would have received if they've sent in a similar complaint. Something tells me that giving me Kenny Z. is Blizzard's way of saying "screw off". I sent a response that basically reiterated my position and made a suggestion about how the two projects could work in harmony, and even mentioned how much of Half-Life's popularity had to do with Valve embracing the developer community instead of slapping the CS boys with "cease and desist"s. Blizzard didn't bother replying.
I'm not sure what else to do at this point. I'm not going to buy their games because of this, but I'm way outnumbered by those who will. Hopefully the EFF can make a major stink about this and either win the case, or better yet, learn to work the mainstream media so that Blizzard gets a bunch of bad press because of it.
Re:Blizzard does have a point though... (Score:5, Interesting)
Battle.net is a good reason to NOT buy a Blizzard game, especially for games like Starcraft and Warcraft3 that aren't ongoing (Diablo 2) and don't require a persistent universe.
By going with Battle.net you get a whole bunch of jerks, cheating, lag, and a generally lousy experience.
Compare this to Quake3 where you can join any of a thousand servers, or create your own. You get to play with people you want, find a server that doesn't lag, and otherwise customize the experience.
Re:Blizzard does have a point though... (Score:1, Interesting)
The time has come to squash bnetd. What a pity _they_ didn't play nice with Blizzard. Kind of STUPID, like poking a snake until it bites you.
But the CD KEYs *are* working. (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose you have a software package, and the CD KEY is used to allow you to install the software. Presumably, it takes some encrypted form and mutates it into a useful version. Alternately, such a code might be used to alter program logic to affect software behavior -- whatever. The point here is that the CD KEY is a protection mechanism at the client end.
Like the rest of the /. majority, I too find the DCMA an example of knee-jerk legislation produced by the uninformed and easily lobbied. But in this, suppose you even agree with it...
According to Tim Jung's post the gripe expressed was that the bnetd.org server does not do CD KEY checking. My point -- it shouldn't have to.
It appears that the design of this product is such that invalid CD KEY prevents people from stealing battle.net server resources. Apparently, that is working; good for Blizzard.
As I understand it, people aren't forging false CD KEYs and inappropriately using battle.net server's resources -- doing so would make the case more plausible. Yet in this case, it would an individual service hijacking player who should be the focus of legal attention.
So what was designed and built by Blizzard is something that actually says "show me your receipt and I'll let you use our systems." Rather than forge CD KEYs to do something illegal like steal Blizzard's service, the user community has provided their own resources, built their own software, and opted not to check for a "receipt" to use those services. Technically, it's not duplicated Blizzard's server then either, since it's a subset.
True, this does let people try an approximation. However, it isn't the actual golden master -- by definition it's build with low confidence, and possibly broken with missing features. Blizzard wasn't passing out free copies of a production game, it passed out something else with the expectations of comments.
About the only real complaint Blizzard has is that they aren't getting as much beta feedback as they could had they expanded the beta base. However, if Blizzard's servers are locked out via a CD KEY except to only a few, then they weren't going after that data because they wouldn't be getting that data anyhow -- so there's no loss, other than potential they forgot to go after. That was a business mistake.
Blizzard's true error then is not designing the software to require something only their servers could provide.
However, I can tell you as a software consumer, if I purchase a product that depends on someone's website being up and around, I get jittery about them going out of business or no longer supporting it and wouldn't make the purchase.
I suspect if Blizzard kindly asked for it, anonymous beta testers would happily provide feedback. Feedback that would make the game much better, improving overall sales. Blizzard actually has a very positive opportunity here, if they can get past the shortsightedness.
Threats first, talk later? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the real problem here is Vivendi/Blizzard's knee-jerk reaction to threaten to sue the bnetd folks into oblivion. Why not just pick up the phone and call them? Maybe talk it out, rather then fight it in the courts? This situation reminds me of the old saying, that if all you have is a hammer than every problem starts to look like a nail. Maybe if you have too many lawyers then every situation starts to look like a legal problem... If Vivendi/Blizzard had done even a little thinking beforehand, instead of whipping out the lawyers as their first salvo, they might have avoided the unfortunate publicity this controversy is generating. They might have reached an amicable solution for everyone. Now, that's a remote possibility at best.
As soon as you start by threatening with attorney's there's only two possible outcomes; you scare off your opposition and they concede or you guarantee that the only solution to the problem will come months or years later and that it will come from a judge's bench. In a way, using lawyers is like starting a war with atomic weapons: Great if you can win immediately, not so good if you can't. And purposeless if you could have gotten what you wanted with a few phone calls instead. The corporate world is increasingly using this tactic of threatening first and talking later and I can't help but believe that it will ultimately generate nothing but animosity and ill-will in the for them. When will someone wake up?
Truthfully, if you look at the issue impartially, I think that Vivendi/Blizzard do have some real concerns. They've invested several years and millions of dollars in developing their products and frankly, I doubt they really know what effect bnetd will have on the Blizzard franchise or their ability to make a profit from it. Let's face it, they're scared and rightfully so. Wouldn't you be in their place? It's hard to know what to do with an unknown and easy to desire to rollback the clock so you don't have to deal with yet another unknown variable. Instead of condemning Vivendi/Blizzard, we should convince them to sit down with the community and figure out together what to do with the emulation projects. Hell, there might even be some profit opportunities! Who knows? I can't say much for Vivendi but Blizzard has a reputation of working with their customers (anyone that was around for the WarCraft II days and Kali support will remember) and it's certainly a better approach then a protracted legal battle.
I can't help but think how ironic it is that Vivendi/Blizzard and their customers are about to enter a legal battle over this 'Battle.net' situation. Maybe we should all stop acting like the characters in the games and start acting like reasonable human beings.
Zug zug! And that's all I'm saying on the issue.
Question about using illegially (Score:2, Interesting)
Crappy Laws Should Be Disobeyed (Score:1, Interesting)
This as of itself is a clever rule. Crappy laws SHOULD be disobeyed, that's why I smoke marijuana.
However, this only applies to sensible people, really. Think if every Tom, Dick and Harry started disobeying laws he didn't like? We'd have complete anarchy.
Hey, it don't make sense that I'm not allowed to take that guy's car! He's got truckloads of money and I'm broke!
Heh, see what I mean?