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

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 24, 2005 19:43 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065)
In reply to: Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning by FlorianMueller
Parent article: On the defense of piracy enablers

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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.