Letter to Editor: Response to Florian Mueller's Release re: "Anti-IP" [LWN.net]

Letter to Editor: Response to Florian Mueller's Release re: "Anti-IP"

Posted Aug 26, 2005 18:48 UTC (Fri) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link]

Game play and authentication can be kept separate. Retaining the integrity of the client against hacking is a problem completely separate of the server. There are companies that specialize in that.

I disagree that "fair use" is a "copyright carve out." Copyright is an artificial right, and as I've said elsewhere, Fair Use defines one of its boundaries. It is thus an integral aspect of copyright. In other words, arguing from a position of Fair Use is arguing for copyright as it's currently defined.

Now, if you were to argue "fair use is wrong" and wish to change the definition of copyright, you'd be arguing against copyright as presently understood and you'd be arguing for a different, larger notion of copyright that does not currently exist in the American system.

Letter to Editor: Response to Florian Mueller's Release re: "Anti-IP"

Posted Aug 26, 2005 18:54 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link]

Even if we agree, at least for a moment, that arguing on the basis of a copyright carve-out is not identical to acting "against copyright", it's still not a self-sufficient argument for saying "the bnetd case is not against copyright". At the most, the reliance upon the Fair Use definition is neutral with respect to the concept of copyright.

The bnetd case as a whole is "against copyright" because, as the courts also concluded, bnetd can be, and has actually been, used to "circumvent copyright protection". That is the basis on which I called bnetd a "piracy-enabler" and made my statement in the press release that it looks like being "against copyright", not based on the details of the arguments that the EFF brought forward.

Letter to Editor: Response to Florian Mueller's Release re: "Anti-IP"

Posted Aug 26, 2005 19:01 UTC (Fri) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link]

bnetd is a piracy enabler just like the "SUBST" command in DOS was back in the day.

For you kids out there, SUBST would let you map a directory to a drive letter. Some games that did CD checks (to verify you had the install media) were easily fooled by a copy of the CD's files in a SUBSTed directory.

Letter to Editor: Response to Florian Mueller's Release re: "Anti-IP"

Posted Sep 1, 2005 22:15 UTC (Thu) by Differance (guest, #18916) [Link]

> Even if we agree, at least for a moment, that arguing
> on the basis of a copyright carve-out is not
> identical to acting "against copyright", it's still
> not a self-sufficient argument for saying "the bnetd
> case is not against copyright". At the most, the
> reliance upon the Fair Use definition is neutral with
> respect to the concept of copyright.

Bunk again. Copyright is an exception to Fair Use, not the other way around. The statute describes both fair use and the particular rights accorded to authors.

Letter to Editor: Response to Florian Mueller's Release re: "Anti-IP"

Posted Aug 26, 2005 19:59 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

If it doesn't make sense in the negative how does it in the positive?

How, exactly, is the case, bnetd, or the EFF against copyright as evidenced by this case?

Can you never argue fair use without being "against copyright"? Or are you "against copyright" whenever you say something different than a large "cinematic" game company?

Letter to Editor: Response to Florian Mueller's Release re: "Anti-IP"

Posted Aug 26, 2005 20:05 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

If you are looking for a perfect technical solution when you can't trust the client you are going to be looking forever. The closest thing you can come to it is with something like the hardware copy protection in hardware like on the X Box.

Don't think the "the server is the copy protection" model doesn't rely on trusting the client. If you think about it for a while it does as well.

Letter to Editor: Response to Florian Mueller's Release re: "Anti-IP"

Posted Aug 26, 2005 20:21 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link]

It's a fundamental difference whether you control the server or not. Of course you can never rule out the possibility that a patched client (or a third-party client) connects if that unauthorized client uses your protocol. However, you can completely control whether the server grants access. The server has an account database for that purpose. That way, you at least control the commercially relevant part. Sure, there are ways to get access codes, but that's a problem that can be controlled or at least contained. If someone can program a number generator for access codes, then that's just poor design and can be avoided.

In the client-server software that I'm currently developing, a lot of code (it's .NET on both ends) is used on both sides. The client checks for certain permissions only to give the user the fastest possible feedback (or disallow certain actions in the first place), but it's just for convenience. The server has the final say and performs the same checks again. Typically the server has enhanced versions of the respective objects (by way of inheritance) so that the client code doesn't give away too much information that can be used to search for loopholes.

Letter to Editor: Response to Florian Mueller's Release re: "Anti-IP"

Posted Sep 1, 2005 22:06 UTC (Thu) by Differance (guest, #18916) [Link]

> I've had some more reasonable communication with Jason
> by E-mail, but the claim that reliance upon a copyright
> carve-out, an exception from copyright (and nothing
> that benefits the owner of a copyright), means it's not
> "against copyright" makes no sense, and I've explained
> my position and I've just seen someone else's comment
> further below that also explains why it's wrong.

Bunk. Read the law.