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

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 2:52 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
In reply to: Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning by FlorianMueller
Parent article: On the defense of piracy enablers

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.

(Log in to post comments)

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Posted Aug 25, 2005 7:17 UTC (Thu) by hingo (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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.