Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning [LWN.net]

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 18:33 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
Parent article: On the defense of piracy enablers

The EFF has deservedly lost the cast against Blizzard, and I stand by my criticism of the EFF's (and CCIA's) siding with the bnetd developers.

It's absurd to apply the concept of interoperability to a computer game. No one who (i) plays computer games and (ii) knows how the games business works would view a game client and server the same way as two productivity applications.

The word interoperability contains two Latin roots: "inter" ("between") and "opus" ("work").

There is no "between" because, for commercial and conceptual reasons that should prevail over any fundamentalist perspective on "freedom", a game client and a server must be treated as a unity. Reverse engineering and interfering with a protocol between a game client and a server can lead to a variety of negative effects, such as:
- circumvention of copy protection schemes
- cheat programs (which take a lot of fun out of the game)
- denial-of-service attacks against the server
- security risks for other people on the service
- manipulations of the gameplay concept (scoring, rules etc.)

I am developing a client-server game myself, and I don't want any of the above to happen. I believe that people don't need to interfere with my program. I'm the designer and author and owner. It's everyone's choice to use it the way I offer it. Take it or leave it, but don't tamper with it. If I don't want people to play my game by other rules than the one that I believe, for design considerations, to be right, then that's the legitimate right of an author and designer.

No one in his right mind can make a case for a pressing need to interfere with a game. That leads to the second word, "opus", i.e., "work". Yes, interoperability is indispensable for a productivity application. That's where if you weigh the pro's and con's of reverse engineering of a protocol off against each other, the conclusion will be far more likely to be that the public interest in interoperability prevails.

An entertainment product, however, is not a productivity case like accessing PDF files.

I have to point out that I worked with Blizzard Entertainment as their German consultant and representative (1995 until 1998), and I know Blizzard's senior management. They want to give gamers value, and they were always reluctant to use traditional copy-protection schemes (such as errors on the medium). Some of you may remember that when battle.net was created (for Diablo I), there were those services like Mplayer and TEN that charged gamers a monthly fee. Battle.net provided a much more gamer-friendly business model (you buy the game once and never have to pay any fees), and that business model would have been irresponsibly destroyed if the EFF had succeeded in court.

(Log in to post comments)

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 18:48 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Hmm...I've written a network filesystem, and I think your reasoning applies to me too. I don't want anybody to get around the proprietary licensing on my filesystem client ("circumvention of copy protection schemes"). I wouldn't want any particular client to adopt techniques which might get it an unfair share of bandwidth out of the server ("cheat programs"). Denial of service is undeniably a bummer. Heaven forbid if a third-party client could find a way to get around file permissions ("security risks"). Etc. Clearly, the creation of alternative CIFS servers and clients (for example) should not be allowed.

For that matter, the same could be said for a web service. There's a good reason for IE-only web sites after all.

You know, the netrek people were faced with all this stuff fifteen years ago, and they coped with it. And alternative servers (remember "paradise"?) with new features resulted.

The right to create interoperable software doesn't go away just because the creator decrees that two sides of a protocol are a "unity." I must disagree, sorry.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 18:57 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

Your alleged analogies don't fit.

Have you ever seen any depictions of Justitia, the goddess of justice? Usually she's shown with scales in her hand. You have reasons for one position and reasons for another, and you put the weights on both scale pans and have to weigh them off against each other. That's how basically every judicial decision works except for some extremely simple cases.

I expressly said in my statement that the public interest in interoperability may prevail over those other considerations. The scale pan for interoperability may indeed be the one that goes down because it has more weight. However, that depends upon how legitimate the interest in interoperability is vs. the negative implications of reverse engineering. And that's a question of the application category. Comparing Samba, OpenOffice etc. to a game doesn't take into account how disparate entertainment software is from productivity software.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:04 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

So you are saying that the "legitimacy" of interoperability is dependent on the opinion of some third party. Who? Could you possibly codify that "legitimacy" test into law? I believe your claim is that the right to create interoperable software is subject to the whim of the original vendor, which, to me, is the same as saying that this right does not exist at all.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:14 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

I don't blame you for probably having had fewer conceptual debates on statutory law and case law than I've had over the last 16 months in the European software patent debate. So I'm trying to explain those fundamental concepts.

I never said nor implied that "the whim of the original vendor" is the decisive criterion. The goddess of justice, or less metaphorically speaking, the judicial system has to decide, and the court decided the right way in this case.

Again, it's a matter of weighing one set of considerations against another. You have the interest of the author vs. the interest of the public. Anyone who denies that reasoning of the scales of Iustitia lacks understanding of legal concepts or is a blind fundamentalist (or both). You can't only claim certain consumer's rights without comparing their validity and legitimacy to the author's rights. And that comparison is genre-specific.

As for the "whim", computer games are pieces of art, which is not a quality judgment, just a fact. I'll give you an example: When the two professional soccer clubs in Munich wanted to modernize the Olympic Stadium with its world-famous tent-like design, the architect vetoed some (not all) of their plans for conceptual reasons. It's an inalienable originator's right. They had to build a whole new stadium in the end. That's the way it is.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:48 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

You have the interest of the author vs. the interest of the public.

100% wrong, of course. We have two interests of the public. The public have an interest in its own freedom in using published works; depending on circumstances, public may also have an interest in encouraging creation of such works through some kind of incentive system.

Can Blizzard prove that availability of programs like bnetd will make it impossible fior them to create new works ? If not - then public sold its freedom for nothing.

Anyone who denies that reasoning of the scales of Iustitia lacks understanding of legal concepts or is a blind fundamentalist (or both).

Of course. Anyone who says something I do not like to hear is dirty fundamentalist. Greeeat argument.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 20:15 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

It's obvious that everything in a law is for some reason deemed to be in the public interest. Still there are rights that the public gets (interoperability is a right to everyone who uses some software) and rights that an individual gets (an author's right).

Trying to impose the burden of proof on the creators may be en vogue in some fundamentalist circles. However, it's just not accepted in the world of political realities. Anyone who says that an author has to justify his ownership in his creation (and has to prove that otherwise he'd go out of business) positions himself in a way that is unacceptable for politicians anywhere right of the Greens and the far left. There's no majority support for that approach.

I've talked to many conservative and center-left and (neo)liberal politicians, and like it or not, their approach is that the burden of proof is on those who want to restrict IPRs.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 22:03 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

What you may be missing is that under US law the only legitimate motivation for copyrights and patents is the good of the public, unless and until the Constitution is ammended. This has nothing to do with burden of proof (in fact, that mostly favors the copyright - if registered - or patent holder). Also, the discussion isn't about ownership. Blizzard owns the copyright to their games and to Battle.net. I do not challenge that. I don't think anyone else did. To attack our statements based on that argument is just tearing up straw men. Also, it isn't about "majority support", though now that you mention it, in technical circles, I think your position would be in the minority.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Sep 1, 2005 12:32 UTC (Thu) by biehl (subscriber, #14636) [Link]

... and rights that an individual gets (an author's right).

Yes, but it is a fair argument that a society/public giving rights to individuals that are out of line with benefit to that society/public is just a bunch of bad merchants - pay lots - get little back.

Anyone who says that an author has to justify his ownership in his creation (and has to prove that otherwise he'd go out of business) positions himself in a way that is unacceptable for politicians anywhere right of the Greens and the far left. There's no majority support for that approach.

Maybe - but that "there is not support" is not reason that it is not true! And it is important to stress that nothing is taken from authors the work is theirs always, what is in question is what "rights" they can enforce through a public legal system after they release it - it is all about what OUR tax-money are spent on. Why must our tax-money be spent on a judicial system that gives us, (society in general) a bad deal?
Should we also support a system of rules that gives the original makers of Samsung televisions the rights to raid private homes and destroy their television product, at any time they see so fit? Maybe we should have a publicly funded police unit to stand by so Samsung just has to make a call?

I've talked to many conservative and center-left and (neo)liberal politicians, and like it or not, their approach is that the burden of proof is on those who want to restrict IPRs.

Yes - it is important to remember how the arguments you present makes you look. But saying that something is right because you can find a group of people (conservative and center-left and (neo)liberal or whatever) that think so doesn't make it so.

-Anders

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 22:07 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

I don't blame you for probably having had fewer conceptual debates on statutory law and case law than I've had over the last 16 months in the European software patent debate.

Then I don't blame you for being a little condescending, but I may not be quite as ignorant as you seem to think.

I'll give you an example: When the two professional soccer clubs in Munich wanted to modernize the Olympic Stadium with its world-famous tent-like design, the architect vetoed some (not all) of their plans for conceptual reasons. It's an inalienable originator's right. They had to build a whole new stadium in the end. That's the way it is.

That's the way it is in Germany. But bnetd is a U.S. case, and the U.S. does not give "artists" the same sort of lingering rights over their creations. Your stadium example could not happen here in the absense of explicit, contractual rights given to the architect. It is, thus, not an appropriate precedent for the bnetd case.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 6:42 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

QUOTE: That's the way it is in Germany. But bnetd is a U.S. case, and the U.S. does not give "artists" the same sort of lingering rights over their creations. Your stadium example could not happen here in the absense of explicit, contractual rights given to the architect. It is, thus, not an appropriate precedent for the bnetd case.

My point about the stadium was that if such a right exists (on whatever legal grounds), and you can't modify something that someone else owns, then you have to build something to your liking from scratch. If you want a game server with certain features, write your own server with its own protocol (and then a game with that proprietary protocol), or a server for an open protocol, or take an open-source program that you are allowed to modify, but don't disrespect someone else's rights.

I can't really see how that logic is specific to whether it's statutory law, case law or an agreement under which that right exists. In any of those scenarios, if the right does exist, then you have to build your own thing instead of infringing upon someone's rights.

As for U.S. law and rights of artists over their creations: U.S. law doesn't systematically dinstinguish between the originator's right and copyright like German law does. However, any reasonable interpretation of copyright law takes the interest of an artist in the integrity of his creation into account (unless the rights of the artist are sufficiently well protected anyway, even without that aspect).

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 8:09 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

So, I guess, your argument boils down to the idea that American (US) copyright law is unreasonable and "communistic". Exactly how does that have anything to do with bnetd?

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 8:23 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

U.S. copyright law is not communistic. It's under a constitution of a free market economy. I'm only against any communist interpretations of it, and as you've seen in your case, the courts tend to look at those rights from a perspective in which a profit motive is legitimate (which doesn't say it's the only motive nor the only legitimate aspect).

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 9:46 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

No decision on copyright was made in the case, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, so I don't know why you continue to insist that it somehow was. The case was about: a) circumvention vs. interoperability (not copyright but DMCA) and b) EULAs.

About your rights and ours

Posted Aug 25, 2005 11:46 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

If you want a game server with certain features, write your own server with its own protocol [...] but don't disrespect someone else's rights.

That is a self-appointed right. Nobody gives you the right to decide how your "creations" are used: not the law, not reason, not common sense.

Yes, others have said it before, but as you don't seem to grasp it, let me reiterate. Under international copyright law, you only have the right to control distribution of your work; and the right to control derivative works. Here you are talking about controlling the uses of your work, which is not a right. And, as developers, we are talking about the right to interoperate, which is explicitly recognized under US and EU law.

Let's see about reason. As our favorite editor and others have suggested, some software houses might complain that open source programs like Samba destroy their business model; still it does not give them the right to control interoperating works. And if it is not a right for them, it is not for you either. It seems that in the bnetd case judges thought otherwise. I don't know the particulars of the case, but from what I have read it is pretty clear to me who holds the high moral ground.

And for common sense, here's a hyperbolic example: an author might like to restrain people from using her book as toilet paper, because it diminishes its value and is a disrespect to the integrity of the work; but she would probably not succeed, and you would probably not like her to succeed.

Inalienable Rights.

Posted Aug 24, 2005 22:56 UTC (Wed) by grantingram (subscriber, #18390) [Link]

It's an inalienable originator's right. They had to build a whole new stadium in the end. That's the way it is.

"Inalienable rights" are important things like not being subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Some concern for the integrity of an artistic work is hardly on the same scale.

The debate about "intellectual property" and Copyright would be a lot clearer if we stopped thinking about "intellectual property" as "property" and Copyright as a "right" and thought of them instead as legal mechanisims for encouraging progress in various fields.

Inalienable Rights.

Posted Aug 25, 2005 15:42 UTC (Thu) by maderik (guest, #28840) [Link]

Inalienable only means that the right cannot be surrendered or transferred. It has nothing to do with the importance of the right -- or if these rights have been endowed by some Creator. Some countries/courts have found that artists' "moral rights" to works are in fact inalienable. However, even then moral rights usually have been discussed with respect to alteration, defacement, or destruction of a work and not mere usage.

Inalienable Rights.

Posted Sep 1, 2005 20:49 UTC (Thu) by zakaelri (guest, #17928) [Link]

How would that bear on the example posed above, then? If I purchase a book, and then proceed to use it as toilet paper... Is that then defacement? What if I purchase, say, a picasso painting and do likewise? Does my purchase of that picasso come with some archaic form of an EULA whereby I can't do what I want with it?

These are but questions... I don't understand how these unalienable ('moral') rights work.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:20 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

As for "codification", even if the written law doesn't say anything, then some very generable standards of reasonableness will be applied if one right (the right to interoperability) stands against another right (the author's right).

If the law says "in the public interest", which I personally believe should be a criterion for interoperability, then it's a somewhat higher standard, but it would really be left to the judges. Many fundamental terms and standards are left to case law because they change over time and are too difficult to codify. German criminal law only says that you get up to X years in jail for "insulting" someone, and it's just case law what an "insult" is and what it isn't.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:54 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

If the law says "in the public interest", which I personally believe should be a criterion for interoperability, then it's a somewhat higher standard.

It's the other way around: any and all rights granted to authors must "promote the progress of science and the useful arts". If we can be reasonable sure that availability of programs like bnetd will bancrupt all companies who produce online games - then we probably should stop this nonsense (obviously online games are "usefull arts"). If not... then I fail to see your point.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 20:06 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

QUOTE: It's the other way around: any and all rights granted to authors must "promote the progress of science and the useful arts".

I'm slowly but surely getting tired of responding to ever more comments that take a one-sided perspective on things. In every one of my comments, I've talked about why one set of considerations would or would not outweigh another, and I keep getting comments that turn a blind eye to one side of the equation.

Today's world - and I'm speaking of free economies, not communist states - undoubtedly views intellectual property rights as a necessity to provide an economic incentive for investment. That's not in contradiction to the idea of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. However, it's not like an author's right needs more justification than a restriction of an author's right needs. There has to be a balance, and that balance is genre-specific.

If you can make a case that you save human lives by reverse engineering some software that is used in a hospital, and that it's the only reasonable way of saving those lives, then you'll certainly find the judges to be more sympathetic to your case than if you say you want to interfere with someone else's computer game.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 5:47 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

It's strange that you blame Jon and others for failing to see both sides of the argument. It's pretty clear to me that they see the point you're trying to make, it's just that they strongly disagree with it. Alas, it doesn't appear to me that you've managed to understand their side of the argument. The scales swing both ways you know.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:41 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Comparing Samba, OpenOffice etc. to a game doesn't take into account how disparate entertainment software is from productivity software.

Ok, let's compare two cases for my friend in small town.

1. BattelNet vs bnetd. He can use the "buy the game once and never have to pay any fees" model. $100-$150 per year (~1 hour per day: there are only dial-up in town and it's not cheap; Internet Cafe is cheaper but there are no way to install it's own game there) for one user. Or he can install bnetd and play with it's friends - not as fun but $0 for all. If there are 10-20 we are talking about $1000-$3000 here.

2. Windows 2003 server vs samba. He can use Linux with samba ($0) or he can buy Windows 2003 server for ~$1000 for 10 users and for ~$1500 for 20 users. Or he can use ftp to transfer files (no need to reverse-engeener protocol at all).

Why we should forbid to do reverse engeenering in first case and permit in second case ? In Russia, for example, unlimited traffic planes are only available in Moscow and St. Petersburg, so for 85-90% or users "a monthly fee" and "buy the game once and never have to pay any fees" models are indistinguishable...

So no, I do not think there are any difference between Battle.Net servers, ICQ and samba. In all cases it's pure convinience (you can live without ICQ and samba at all, right? ntalk and ftp are there, you know and if in doubt there are Web-based ICQ as well), in all cases we are modifying data produced by programs and return data back and we never modify program itself.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:55 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

The first example is unrealistic WRT the cost of Internet access of the USA (where the bnetd decision was made), but even if it weren't, it doesn't take into consideration that all Blizzard games provide for LAN play.

The difference between a game and a file system:
- For a game, the interest of the designer in controlling the conceptual integrity and of his piece of art must be rated higher than for a file system.
- For a file system, the interest of the user in heterogeneous access is a more valid one than of someone to tamper with an entertainment product.

The combination of those two factors is why the comparison might have a different outcome in the end.

As for instant messaging like ICQ, I generally would agree that there's no pressing need to access them except if one dominates the market. Interoperability can be mandated for anti-trust reasons (as is just happening to Microsoft in the European Union).

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 21:59 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

The very idea that you consider this "tampering", "interference", and a threat to the "integrity" of the game speaks volumes. I don't see where those concepts are coming from. They certainly aren't in US copyright law.

The interoperability argument comes from a defense to a claim of circumvention. Because copyright carves a chunk out of freedom of speech, and becuase copyright exist for the specific goal of increasing the progress of the arts and sciences, when the exclusive rights interfere with that goal or place an undue burden on freedom of speech they are effectively neutralized. The interests of the public are the ultimate justification for copyright -- not to reward authors or to preserve artistic integrity. Blizzard claims that non of the protections of copyright law (like fair use) come into play with the DMCA. But there is a very specific and clear statement in the DMCA that allows interoperability. Furthermore it says that it isn't intended to mandate implementation of DRM. I do not see how what Blizzard is asking for is not both a restriction of interoperability or a mandate to implement their copy control mechanism in any interoperating work.

Your argument, I guess, is that the defense should not be valid when applied for game client or servers because they are "only" entertainment products. What is special about those which reduces the public's interest? (I see none.) Is entertainment not one of the fastest growing areas of consumer spending? (It is.) Does it not define many aspects of our culture? (Yes, it does.) Are not the vast majority of products protected under the DMCA entertainment products. (They are.)

You seem to think the theoretical "artist's rights" trump the legally real interests of the consumer. And yes, there are other areas of law like anti-trust which intersect, but those would tend to increase the public's right to inter-operate despite the wishes of the copyright holder in order to preserve competition. You see copyight is an inherent grant of monopoly. It makes sense, but you have to give it limits, otherwise the grant can be extended to cover any number of unrelated items... such as independently-created works which interoperate.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 17:45 UTC (Thu) by riel (subscriber, #3142) [Link]

For a game, the interest of the designer in controlling the conceptual integrity and of his piece of art must be rated higher than for a file system.

Did you just say that level editors are immoral?
Do I have to remind you that some of the most successful games became that successful because people could create levels themselves and get involved more than they could do just playing? One example here would be the game Doom.

Creating a different server (with slightly different game play, I assume) would be along the same lines as creating new game levels and can help make a game more popular.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Sep 1, 2005 9:48 UTC (Thu) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569) [Link]

For a game, the interest of the designer in controlling the conceptual integrity and of his piece of art must be rated higher than for a file system

To use "conceptual integrity" in this case is just playing the system, Blizzard is telling you that client and server are one inseperable product just like Microsoft said that IE was inseperable from Windows.

You gave an example about the German stadium before. I'm pretty sure that the changes they wanted to make were pretty obvious that the architect didn't agree with them. I guess that if the problem had been in the quility of the plumbing and they wanted to remove the tubes and replace it with a new better ones the architect wouldn't even have tought about objecting about the conceptual or artistic integrity, don't you think?

Well the Blizzard case is the same, they don't want you to believe that, they're trying to make you believe that what they have made is Centre Pompidou and that in this case the plumbing is an integral part of their product while it is not. It's the plumbing or foundation of a building, the wall the painting is hanging on, the plastic that makes the CD that contains the music etc.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:43 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

Mr. Mueller,

I replied to a very similar message from you on this subject via email, and you failed to address the points I made rebutting your statements.

First of all, I do not view a game server and a game client as a single work. Therefore there is a very real reason to be talking about "between". Saying that a game protocol doesn't communicate between two different things is astoundingly silly -- that's the very purpose of network protocols.

You seem to want to apply different rules based on the domain of the communication. I see no need to do so. Remember, we are talking about copyright over computer programs. What the programs do have nothing to do with the legitimacy of their copyright. Unless you are claiming that things like office applications have no creative or expressive value, which I personally do not.

Your laundry list of "negative effects" is moot. I could address each of them but there is no point. The "negative effects" have no legal force in the debate. I could say that Microsoft puslishing Windows XP has had dozens of negative effects. That does not and should not allow me to use the legal process against them.

Things like cheating are problems, but they are not something which copyright is designed or intended to prevent. Trying to bootstrap the temporary exclusive rights granted by a copyright to include things outside of those rights is not only unfair, unworkable, but is abuse of copyright. As I explained copyright protects the work (your client and your server), but does not guarantee protection against other works by forbidding them to exist.

I fail to see the point about Blizzard's relunctance to use copy protection technologies (I see you have corrected your statement since writing it in email), but they have used them, for example, forcing the CD to remain in the drive at all times during game play for absolutely no reason. Copy protection is not user-friendly. Saying that Battle.net is both a de-facto copy control and that it was intended as one are mutually exclusive statements. And if it was intended to be one or not is beside the point. If I say that the lack of a certain Web browser to read this site is a control over who can read this comment I do not suddenly get the force of law to prevent that browser from being fixed or for other browsers to be used. Copyrights are not to protect business models, they are about the progress of the arts and sciences through the growth of the public domain through incentives via the grant of temporary molopolies. Bad business models will eventually be replaced by better ones, and will fail with or without the additional rights granted in your proposed law.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:49 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

Another point in regards to your post. You have suggested repeatedly that Blizzard is most interested in protecting gamers. First, the Blizzard you worked for no longer exists. Second, any company exists to pursue the interests of its owners. Vivendi's shareholders presumably are most interested in profits, so any care about gamers is secondary.

Also, you never did clarify what definition of "piracy enabler" you are using or how it doesn't cover things like emulators, CD burning applications, Samba, WINE, Linux, ftp, TCP/IP other than it something to do with the way the game industry works.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 21:06 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

With the greatest respect, would you (and everyone who agrees with you) please appreciate that I can't spend all of my time in online discussions, be it here or via E-mail. Maybe there will be an opportunity to have this kind of debate at greater length, such as at a conference somewhere.

The way this discussion here goes reaffirms my concerns that a number of members of the open-source community have a value system that, right or wrong, is not compatible with that of a political majority. We were able to build majorities against software patents in some parliaments (in some even unanimity) because it's a very special case, but there's no majority for anti-IP fundamentalism.

The point that everyone, including you and the LWN editor, misses is this: If Blizzard doesn't even create a game like Starcraft, then there's no need for anyone to "interoperate" with it. If, however, someone wants to build a Starcraft-like game with his own server, then he's free to also write an entire client-server game itself.

You (the bnetd team) may have lacked the skill, the resources, the time, the energy or several of those factors to write your own game. It's obviously easier to just hack a simple protocol. That, however, is no justification for interfering with the game of those who have all of those factors in place.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 21:39 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

Fine, you don't have enough time to answer every email or to rebut every point. But you did start the discussion with a press release. You had enough time to write that.

And as to your argument, you continue to conflate what you believe is "how the game industry works" with what the law is. You suggest how things should be and then argue things as if that is how they are. So we are not making any progress in the discussion of why the EFF should have lost. You apparently see what I consider reasonable and even-handed as "anti-IP fundamentalism". Obviously that's a difference of opinion, but it must be based on your belief in the idea of something like an artist's right to have their work viewed "as they intended". Such a thing doesn't exist here, at least not in a legal sense based on copyright. Morally, creating such a right offends my sense of freedom. Copyright gives control over duplication, public display, derivative works, etc. Copyright does not (and should not) include additional rights like absolute control all aspects of the use of the protected work.

Saying that not wishing to extend copyight to those extremes (which it thankfully hasn't yet been extended to, though the DMCA moves in that direction) is "anti-IP fundamentalism" smells like a political soundbite. You must have been around the politicians for too long :) Maybe giving the IP-industry lobbyists something to be happy about will quench their thirst for software patents, but I doubt it. Besides, though you protest this is all about the need for a "balanced" treatment of copyrights to offset the image of the EFF to the politicans in light of the battle against software patents, it seems you are really the one which sees the EFF, myself, and others as "anti-IP", and that it would primarily make you feel better, not the politicians.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 5:15 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

If Blizzard doesn't even create a game like Starcraft, then there's no need for anyone to "interoperate" with it.

Sure. If Microsoft didn't create Windows, we wouldn't need Samba. If mp3 compression wasn't invented, we wouldn't need LAME. Every market has its rules. If rules are too tough for some players, others will fill the niche. Maybe they will have less money to make a quality product. Maybe it will take them longer. The same applies to software patents too - some companies could not function without them.

But let's see what is on the other pan of Justitia. It's freedom to develop compatible products. The damage from restricting this freedom cannot be limited to entertainment products, because almost every software has some entertainment applications, whether it's a game, a video codec or an operating system.

As for cheating, it works the other way too. What if the creator of software allows some cheats in its server and refuses to patch them (e.g. because it wants everybody to buy a new version of the game that uses a different protocol and server)? Some of the customers would prefer to use an alternate server known not to allow such cheats.

An open source server could provide transparency that no close source code can provide. I could inspect the server to see that my opponent cannot cheat, and so can my opponent. Sure, we have also a problem of verifying that the game server is running exactly that software. It's a totally different question, but it's easier to insure when no marketing departments are involved.

Disclaimer - I'm neither gamer nor lawyer and I have never played Blizzard games.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 7:41 UTC (Thu) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]

If $foo doesn't create $bar, then there's no need for anyone to interoperate with $bar. That's not just true for games.

Not only does your phrasing of "anti-IP fundamentalism" speak to your personal bias, I think you're wrong about it being a political impossibility. In the US, Congress hass passed laws permitting home users to edit movies to suit their tastes, no matter what Spielberg thinks about it, to install and use a program without requiring a copyright license, and to make copies of audio tapes for personal use. The attitude that the IP owner has complete control does not rule even in the political world; there are no laws in the US that would let the architect of a building stop the owner from making whatever changes the owner wanted to.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 7:47 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

All of the examples that you give relate to "fair use", and fair use is a different story when you do something in the privacy of your home vs. when a server software is made available for public use.I never said that consumers have no rights.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 8:19 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

If it is fair use is an interesting question, one which hasn't been discussed much. However your description is too narrow. Fair use can and does encompass public uses of copyrighted works.

For example in reviewing, studying, and commenting on a work, you are permitted to make and distribute quotes from it. If the work is short you can distribute the whole thing. If a work is the subject of public inquiry fair use has been found to go beyond that (things like the memos from electronic voting company). Fair use also applies to software, even wholesale copying, in cases where it is required for interoperability and there is no other way to accomplish the task. This would usually mean that the software wasn't very expressive (otherwise there would probably be alternate ways of obtaining the same result).

Oh, and nice deflection BTW

Posted Aug 25, 2005 8:22 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

I actually responded without noticing you shifted the discussion back to piracy. But in this case we aren't talking about infringement on any of the rights granted under US copyright law so the topic is really mute with respect to bnetd, though it is an interesting discussion on its own.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 19:48 UTC (Thu) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]

I don't see the fundamental difference between selling a DVD player that enables the user to play the DVDs how they want over the interests of the copyright holder, and providing a BNet server that enables the user to play Blizzard games how they want over the interests of the copyright holder.

Idealogy versus fact

Posted Aug 25, 2005 2:50 UTC (Thu) by jmalcolm (guest, #8876) [Link]

This thread makes me realize that I am much more a stickler for reality in debate than I am for either side of this issue.

What I find most disappointing about Mr. Mueller's contribution to this thread is his refusal to engage on the suggestion that the law is not as he says it is. Arguing the superiority of an idealogy, or it's popularity, does nothing to establish it's credibility in law.

If we were arguing whether or not the law should be changed then Mr. Mueller's arguments would all be appropriate and welcome. They would at least be welcome as valid even if not popular on this forum. If, as I thought we were, we are are arguing the legitimacy of the BNet decision as a matter of law, I do not see anything in Mr. Mueller's arguments that suggests that the decision should not be overturned.

Perhaps somebody that agrees that the interoperability should not have been allowed in this case can explain why in the context of copyright law is it CURRENTLY exists in the United States.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 2:52 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

I happen to play Blizzard games and there are advantages to the Bnet style of play compared to the lan style of play (less load on a particular gameing machine for one)

however I can't use Bnet unless I agree to upgrade my game when they tell me I should. this is valid to make sure that all play that takes place there is on a level playing field.

but what if I don't want to upgrade, and I want to play against other people who don't want to upgrade?

Blizzard doesn't give me any way to do this.

however BnetD would let me do this.

and if Blizzard isn't generating any reveue from the Bnet play then what exactly is it that they are loosing from this?

and I did read all the fine print when I purchased and installed my game, nothing in there said anything about any requirement to only use the Blizzard servers.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 6:32 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

As for the revenue impact of battle.net: If you don't have a valid and unique key, which comes with the product as you buy it, you can't access battle.net. If you can't access battle.net, and if no (illegal) battle.net substitute is around, then you can still play against the computer or over a LAN, but you miss a significant part of the fun. Consequently, you have a major incentive to buy the game (such as in a situation in which you've made an illegal copy of the game client, which then becomes a teaser as long as it offers limited gameplay and only the real thing when you buy the box and get the battle.net key).

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 7:17 UTC (Thu) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link]

Florian, again you completely failed to address some very valid arguments. The argument was, that this person who has legitimately bought a copy of the game, no piracy involved, has several very good reasons why using the bnetd server is technically better than any of your alternatives. Your answer is, that bnetd can be used to play the game without a license key. But he has a license key. I'm really wondering why we are even listening to you anymore?

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 7:54 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

QUOTE: again you completely failed to address some very valid arguments.
The question is whether the impossibility of answering to each and every detail in scientific completeness and accuracy, in an Internet forum, can be equated to any "failure".

QUOTE: has several very good reasons why using the bnetd server is technically better than any of your alternatives
The courts weren't convinced of that bnetd claim of technical superiority.
Even if bnetd were superior in some way, then it's only superior because someone builds on the game itself, which in terms of the skill level and investment of resources (that are required to develop it) is a hugely greater challenge than hacking a rather simple protocol.
I've made my point in other postings: Interfering with a proprietary client-server architecture (unlike one based on open standards) is basically the same as modifying the code of a single executable, given how software has evolved from single executables over executables with DLLs to client-server, Internet-based and cluster architectures.

QUOTE: But he has a license key.
The question is not whether he has it, but whether it's ascertained that he has it. You can't abolish U.S. border controls because some or most of those who enter the country do have a valid passport and/or visa.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 8:32 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

Again, you are attributing things to copyright which just don't exist, at least in the law as I understand it (admittedly US-centric). In the US, it is perfectly legal to modify a binary on your computer. You can't distribute the modified binary (well, probably not), and you still need a license for it, but "destroying" the pristine vision of the work that the author had by changing the work is not a crime. In fact, in other examples in this thread people mentioned examples that are prefectly legal. Saying that bnetd effectively does the same thing (which I don't think is accurate) does not justify your claim that it promotes piracy, violates the DMCA, or that it is anti-copyright or anti-capitalist "propaganda".

Then, you say this:

"The question is not whether he has it, but whether it's ascertained that he has it. You can't abolish U.S. border controls because some or most of those who enter the country do have a valid passport and/or visa."

*boggle*
So now people who purchase software are required to prove they own it at some undefined place and to some agency? You had just finished explaining about how Blizzard intended pirated copies to be able to play on LANs but not Battle.net as a teaser. Umm... isn't that basically admitting that it is authorized use? And isn't there a problem with your logic because a player may never connect to Battle.net even if they have a valid key. In that case how are they helping Blizzard "ascertain" they have a valid and unique license? They aren't. So are they protecting Battle.net or the game? It seems to me like the former, even if that was not their intent.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 12:20 UTC (Thu) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link]

The question is whether the impossibility of answering to each and every detail in scientific completeness and accuracy, in an Internet forum, can be equated to any "failure".

Sure. But why then do you have time to answer questions nobody is asking? If you are posting a reply to something, reply to that something. If you want to make your own comments, by all means, make it as a reply to the article, not to a specific question you don't intend to answer.

I'm repeating myself, but why are we even listening to you?

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 16:50 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]

I'm repeating myself, but why are we even listening to you?

Perhaps because he has taken the time to articulate the details of a point of view we oppose in a forum that is convenient for us? Don't get me wrong, I think he's full of beans for reasons you and others have spelled out already, but we will not build a political majority in support of sound laws without understanding the argument presented on the other side.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 15:50 UTC (Thu) by swiftone (guest, #17420) [Link]

absurd to apply the concept of interoperability to a computer game

You follow this comment with an analysis of why it is bad for business. You do not, however, explain why it is "absurd". If I purchase a client, and I want to sue it somewhere other than a given server, I have an interoperability issue.

In one of your statements linked elsewhere in the discussion, you make an important assessment of why someone would or would not need a product like bnetd. I'd like to address those:

People come up with all sorts of ridiculous pretexts as to why they say they need bnetd. They say they need it because they want to play at LAN parties -- however, the Blizzard games do feature LAN play.

Blizzard games do feature LAN play...if you are connected to the internet. (As I recall. it has been many years since I used Blizzard products -- I have boycotted them since they acted against bnetd.) Not everywhere you want to setup a LAN party has a handy internet connection.

They say they need it because the official battle.net servers have too much downtime -- I'm not sure the battle.net downtime exceeds that of most people's E-mail servers, and those are much more critical.

A straw-man. If I want to play a game I have purchased, I care only about whether I can play right THEN, not about whether my email server was down last week. (In fact, if my email server was down, I'd look into finding an alternative server that worked with my client...)

They say they want "choice" but don't understand that the client and the server is, in case of a Blizzard game, basically one product.

A claim you stand by, but you don't seem to support beyond maintaining the opinion. bnetd is worthless without a client. Starcraft (for example) is quite usable without a server. Should Blizzard vanish, or decide that it's not longer worthwhile to run the servers for a game, I would still have my client. And that is where choice comes in. I have purchased a product, and I should be able to (fully) use it, regardless of the state of Blizzard's current uptime, bandwidth, connectivity, attitudes, or existence.

I'm the designer and author and owner

All well and good...until you sell me a copy. Now I'm allowed to use this copy. Sure, you still maintain copyright, I'm not allowed to distribute copies...but I'm very much allowed (ethically and legally) to USE the product I have purchased.

Reverse engineering and interfering with a protocol between a game client and a server can lead to a variety of negative effects,

Everything you list except for copy-protection is not a legal concern, and is thus irrelevant. Were a server plagued by cheaters, it would be abandoned. As it is clearly not Blizzard's server, Blizzard has no concern.

that business model would have been irresponsibly destroyed if the EFF had succeeded in court.

Defense of buisness models is not the concern of the law (and would be a pretty bad idea, given the lessons of history). I note also that the business model in question has already been destroyed by market forces...or is World of Warcraft not a subscription game? What recent products from ANYONE are based on centralized non-subscription servers?

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 16:52 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]

While on the substance of the argument I agree with other posters that you have mistaken you own biases for principles of reasoning and are in other ways wrong, I have to say I admire the courage and patience you have demonstrated by expressing your position in this forum. Thanks for taking the time to have it out.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 17:07 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

Thanks for the kind words. Well, I think it was and still is an important issue. What I've written is based on extensive experience in talking to pro-business politicians in various countries. I didn't pretend to be a devil's advocate. I meant everything I wrote. However, there's also a risk that a disagreement on an issue like this defocuses from the fact that we share other positions and goals.