[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] Blizzard / Battlenet FAQ

They still might have a theft of service argument because the the clones 
are taking "service" away from the non clones...not saying that I'd buy it 
but it may be their "legal theory" to try to use as a club over somepeople 
who were smarter than they.




Tim Neu <tim@tneu.visi.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
03/08/02 02:08 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Blizzard / Battlenet FAQ



As I understand it, the opposite is true.
Blizzard charges for the game, then provides the service for free.

The only exception to this is their latest game, Warcraft 3, which has
been released in beta form for free.  Blizzard's concern with bnetd is
probably based on their inability to "turn off" the beta version of this
game on all users which use bnetd as their server when they go production
with it.   Interestingly enough, the original bnetd project does not
support Warcraft 3 - but a fork of the earlier bnetd source has been
improved to support it.


On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Michael A Rolenz wrote:

> I was wondering if any of Battlenet's computers, networks etc were
> involved. As in they give out the software for free but you pay to use
> their system (e.g., AOL) . If so, then they may have a claim on theft of
> service but not otherwise.
>
>
>
>
> Tim Neu <tim@tneu.visi.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 03/07/02 08:28 PM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
>
>
>         To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
>         cc:
>         Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Blizzard / Battlenet FAQ
>
>
>
> Theft of service?   I don't know how you would define that.  Both bnetd
> and blizzard's battlenet are free.
>
>
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > Seems like another case of estoppel. RE is legal. Having been given
> > the opportunity and declined they cannot now claim FOUL! Although,
> > theft of service may be an issue.
> >
> >
> > Date sent:                     Thu, 7 Mar 2002 20:19:49 -0600 (CST)
> > From:                          Tim Neu <tim@tneu.visi.com>
> > To:                            "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" 
<dvd-
> > discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> > Subject:                       RE: [dvd-discuss] Blizzard / Battlenet
> FAQ
> > Send reply to:                 dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >
> > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: tneu@smithmicrotech.com [mailto:tneu@smithmicrotech.com]
> > > > ...
> > > > > The Intellectual Property Peddlers did it again.   They got
> > > > > me riled up
> > > > > enough to write another anti-FAQ.
> > > > >
> > > > > As usual, please post any recommended improvements.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.visi.com/~tneu/blizzard.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Q: How do CD keys help reduce piracy?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Blizzard: Blizzard uses two main methods to combat piracy:
> disc-based copy
> > > > protection and CD keys. As part of the login process, Battle.net
> > > > authenticates the user's CD key and prevents people from logging 
in
> with the
> > > > same key or an invalid key.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > tneu: These precautions are typical of software products, however,
> they have
> > > > no legal bearing on the matter. Assuming someone has purchased a
> copy of the
> > > > software in question, they are free to use it - even if they 
choose
> to
> > > > access an emulated server rather than the company's own.
> > > >
> > > > rmh: this is what makes the battle.net clones a "circumvention
> device" under
> > > > the DMCA.  if the clones performed the same authentication, then 
you
> could
> > > > run
> > > > under the free market competetion w/ far less chance of Blizzard
> being able
> > > > to pursue a _successful_ lawsuit.  The question is: how important 
to
> the
> > > > BattleNet clones to bypass the CD key authentication?  Is it worth
> being
> > > > shut down?  If all you want to do is compete, you may as well do 
so
> with
> > > > less
> > > > legal exposure.  If you want to make a statement about the DMCA 
and
> become
> > > > the next poster child in court (and we _do_ need one), keep on
> truckin'
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if this is an old email, or not (it seem vaguely
> familiar).
> > >
> > > The battlenet clones offered to implement CD-authentication, only to
> have
> > > blizzard refuse to co-operate.  So, it would seem that if bnetd is a
> > > circumvention device, it is so only because reverse engineering the
> > > CD authentication would be illegal under the DMCA and blizzard did 
not
> > > provide any other means of implementing it.
> > >
> > >
> 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > ______         _ __                          Military Intelligence
> > >   /           ' )  )        -KC0LQL-         Honest Politician
> > >  / o ______    /  / _  . .                   Intellectual Property
> > > / <_/ / / <   /  (_</_(_/_  -- tneu@visi.com / http://www.visi.com/~tneu --
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> ______         _ __                          Military Intelligence
>   /           ' )  )        -KC0LQL-         Honest Politician
>  / o ______    /  / _  . .                   Intellectual Property
> / <_/ / / <   /  (_</_(_/_  -- tneu@visi.com / http://www.visi.com/~tneu --
>
>
>
>
>

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
______         _ __                          Military Intelligence
  /           ' )  )        -KC0LQL-         Honest Politician
 / o ______    /  / _  . .                   Intellectual Property
/ <_/ / / <   /  (_</_(_/_  -- tneu@visi.com / http://www.visi.com/~tneu --