[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Blizzard / Battlenet FAQ
Many of the most vocal capitalists are really against competition in
the marketplace....monopolies are a much more efficient way to make
money than having to compete.
Date sent: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 13:50:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Tim Neu <tim@tneu.visi.com>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Blizzard / Battlenet FAQ
Send reply to: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>
> Isn't that the same thing as competition?
>
> One service vendor takes business away from another. (even if one is
> non-commercial).
>
> You're right that that may be their legal theory, but would it have a
> chance? I don't know. One would think that a competitive economy would
> be impossbile if this "theft of service" argument held.
>
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
>
> > 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 --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> ______ _ __ Military Intelligence
> / ' ) ) -KC0LQL- Honest Politician
> / o ______ / / _ . . Intellectual Property
> / <_/ / / < / (_</_(_/_ -- tneu@visi.com / http://www.visi.com/~tneu --
>