Dangerous anti-IP terminology and philosophy
Posted Aug 27, 2005 3:22 UTC (Sat) by dvdeug
In reply to: Dangerous anti-IP terminology and philosophy
Parent article: On the defense of piracy enablers
You assume that this is a restriction of existing copyright. It's not; the case was completely unprecedented. To claim that we're trying to restrict existing copyright is specious. In the analogy for women's suffrage, it's like claiming that the Equal Rights Amendment was just one part of women's suffrage, when it clearly was not.
"The chance of someone coincidentally writing a game server that happens to have the battle.net protocol is far lower than that of winning every lottery in the world during someone's entire lifetime." So what? The protocol is not copyrighable.
As for your claim that the client and server are one program, let's consider MS-DOS. If the client and server for Warcraft are one program, then command.com and cp.com and the rest of MS-DOS are one program. Are you claiming that I can't replace cp.com or command.com with my custom, original, programs? Does the law prohibit selling alternate "window managers" for Microsoft Windows?
More directly to client and server, when I buy a program on a disc, I expect it to be complete. And lo and behold, people stuck Warcraft into their computers and it ran just fine. How can some piece of code somewhere else be part of the same program?
"You can't force Blizzard to allow interference with its software that you are perfectly allowed to do with an open-source program." If you've been around lawyers, you should know the importance of using clear language. I can interfere with Blizzard's software in many ways, perfectly legally and ethicially. I'm not forcing Blizzard to do anything; I'm demanding Blizzard don't interfere with me using the program the way I want.
to post comments)