LWN: Comments on "On the defense of piracy enablers"

Inalienable Rights.

zakaelri — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:49:34 +0000

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

biehl — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 12:32:44 +0000

... 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

quintesse — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:48:03 +0000

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.

The question is who missed the key points

FlorianMueller — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:43:36 +0000

OK, thanks for the information about the reopening of the discussion.

I had already left the discussion and I don't intend to comment too much here now that it has reopened, but let me say this: I don't think we disagree on the question of whether IPRs *can be* and *indeed are* misused by some. Also, I don't see any comments here that consider every form of IPRs automatically something illegitimate, but references to the gnu.org manifestos are dangerously close to that with respect to software.

I, personally, think it's more difficult to challenge the patent system in a field like pharmaceuticals where there is no other proven form of protection, and clearly a high up-front investment required for R&D. I know that there are cases of misuse, and spurious and fraudulent patents, even in that space, but it's a tall order to demand the replacement of the patent regime with something completely different in that field.

As for software-related legislation, my approach in discussions with politicians is that intellectual property is generally a good thing and authors (like me) should receive a maximum level of protection, but let's look at where IPRs run counter to their purpose. For instance, if patents can be used to expropriate a copyright holder, then there's a conflict even within an IP-is-great framework. In my experience, the only basis on which politicians (except a very few on the left margin) are prepared to discuss the idea of abolishing software patents is if at the same time the benefits of copyright are highlighted.

There are some signs now that the European software patent debate may restart. A vice chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, Rainer Wieland MEP (a German conservative, but unlike other German conservative MEPs, he's not completely unreceptive to our points), has published a column in a German magazine in which he says he's going to push for a new attempt at clarifying the status of software patents in Europe. Some MEPs show symptoms of severe battle fatigue and would rather not touch that hot iron again, so it remains to be seen what will happen and when. However, in case it does restart, my preference would be for a legislative project that addresses software patents and copyright, and possibly even a sui generis protection, in a holistic sense in order to have more structural flexibility to meet the needs of creators while ensuring that the market stays competitive.

The question is who missed the key points

Wol — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:29:15 +0000

The reason the discussion has re-opened is because (if you hadn't noticed) I'm not a subscriber. This article has been available for me to view for, what, about 9 hours.

As for the US being the "constitution of a free market economy", isn't it BY DEFINITION not a free market economy if it involves copyrights, "droit d'auteur", or patents?

And I'll add, while I am unaware of Blizzard's EULA or TOU, hopefully this case, when appealed, may declare things like EULAs to be "contracts of adhesion" and therefore void. One of the big problems with UCITA was that it declared EULAs valid whether or not the customer had the opportunity to read it before voiding their refund rights by opening the package...

Cheers,
Wol

Dangerous anti-IP terminology and philosophy

Wol — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:21:58 +0000

At this point in history, IPRs are considered a major success story, the foundation of the modern economy, and also the only major area in which the U.S. has a trade surplus vs. Europe and Asia.

As man_ls said, "burden of proof". The patent system is getting to be fundamentally broken - why else is Florian fighting it? And how come that all of the fastest growing world economies basically ignore patents? China, the "tiger economies", and for good measure I'll add "early 20th Century US" to the list as well. Oh - and I'll add the pharmaceutical industry to the list of examples of a pathological patent system too - there's a LOT of evidence that it belongs there.

Copyrights - I think "Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act" is pretty much all that needs to be said there, although I'll add the film soundtrack industry to that too. No halfway decent (or pretty crap, even) composer is now that keen on writing film music. The studios demand "all rights", which means suddenly that if you then write another piece that even remotely resembles your earlier piece (something that's very hard NOT to do) you promptly get "approached" by the film industry for breach of copyright!

About the only IPR that, in my view, can be declared unambiguously good is trademarks. Who's purpose is merely to guarantee that when you shell out good money, you're really getting what you think you're getting. They don't stop you making cheap imitations. They don't stop you making expensive imitations. They just insure that if you make an imitation, your customer knows it's an imitation.

Cheers,
Wol

The question is who missed the key points

FlorianMueller — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:16:54 +0000

By entering late into a discussion that already seemed closed, one always has the risk of saying something pointless because it's been addressed before. That may just have happened to Wol.

I acknowledged the difference in legal systems, also between author's rights and copyright, about a week ago. However, it's totally irrelevant to this case because Blizzard had expressly reserved the rights that I was talking about, through its EULAs and TOUs, and the courts found those agreements valid, enforceable and perfectly reasonable, while the EFF claimed that they constituted "copyright misuse". (And in that context, all of the questions that I raised come up: Does the copyright holder, because of a profit motive or for other reasons, impose too restrictive terms or is it in his right to do so?)

The thing is that if someone has a right, he has it, whether it's the constitution of the respective country, some other written law, case law or an agreement on the grounds of which he has that right.

Even the case with the German architect served the purpose for which I mentioned it. A U.S. architect may have to reserve that respective right under an agreement, but does it matter? I just said that if someone has that right and insists on it, those who want to modify his work have to rebuild something new (if they can).

As for the U.S. Constitution, I've previously explained that it's the constitution of a free market economy and not of a communist state. Consequently, the progress of science and the useful arts must always be viewed against the background of a free market economy. You won't find judges today that believe people, let alone companies, only contribute to science and the useful arts on a pro bono basis. The profit motive is clearly viewed by politicians and judges as key to the progress of science and the useful arts. That doesn't mean to say that there would be no progress without commercial ambitions, but the general line of thought is that in some areas there'd be a lot less progress. Consequently, no one has to change the U.S. Constitution.

No community mandate

Wol — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:57:21 +0000

As the success of open source shows, there are always authors who are willing to cede some of those rights and publish their works under more consumer-friendly licensing terms, but within reason, they should be given the choice.

No disrespect to Florian, but he seems to miss two points. The anglo-saxon judicial code is exactly opposite to the Napoleonic Code (which also explains why the UK is such a difficult member of the EU). The Napoleonic code says "if it isn't explicitly permitted, then it's forbidden". The Anglo-Saxon code says "if it isn't explicitly forbidden, then it's permitted".

Florian also seems to have missed that pretty much ALL of the "rights" he is trying to defend, are invalid under the US constitution. The only justification for copyrights is to ensure that "creative works" pass as quickly as possible and in as large a quantity as possible into the Public Domain. Given this requirement, juxtaposed with the fact that if Blizzard shut down their servers this game would become unplayable, I just cannot see how what Blizzard is doing is justifiable under the constition.

It's all very well Florian saying "we are a minority view", but in order to impose his view on America he will need to change the constitution. I don't see how his view is going to gain the necessary majority to do that ... Oh - and I also find it "difficult" to take him seriously when he goes on about "America should ignore American legal precedent when discussing a totally American case, but should bow down to a German precedent" (when German law doesn't even recognize the concept of precedent - certainly not in the Anglo-Saxon "binding case law" sense!). Florian - when discussing a foreign case, DON'T drag your own law into it (other than as a "compare and contrast" or "we do things differently here" example). Just because you're different doesn't mean you're right - especially when your viewpoint is at odds with the highest law in the relevant land - namely the US Constitution.

Cheers,
Wol

Hallelujah!

grouch — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:14:20 +0000

Does this mean I won't have to wade through any more of your pseudo-religious, condescending pontifications about your superior right to control us peasants?

Dangerous anti-IP terminology and philosophy

Ross — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:40:27 +0000

Another interesting aspect of the idea that the client and server are the same program comes up when the server interacts with more than one client program. So are Starcraft, Warcraft, Diablo, etc. all the same program? They all connect to the same Battle.net server.

Does Blizzard also claim ownership of bots which connect to Battle.net, or are those somehow different because they are not games? What if one was part of a game?

Won't make further contributions to this online debate now

dvdeug — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:32:10 +0000

"Negating author's rights that politicians (and judges) consider to be beyond reasonable doubt" is begging the argument. The author has no rights in the US once he's signed away his copyright. Moreover, the Blizzard case is far from something that politicians and judges consider to be beyond reasonable doubt; it was unprecedented and debatable, and I suspect many judges and politicians would agree with bnetd's side.

Dangerous anti-IP terminology and philosophy

dvdeug — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:22:07 +0000

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.

Your are correct

jvotaw — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:03:59 +0000

I hadn't thought of this (and I have never heard of anyone who has), but I believe it would work.

You should patent it. ;)

-Joel

On the defense of piracy enablers

jzbiciak — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 18:12:40 +0000

Let me be a little more clear:

I'm saying it's possible to achieve Blizzard's aims IF they modify their protocol and the behavior of the client.

The client needs to insist on receiving a time-stamped "token"--the time stamp's there to prevent replay attacks--that it can determine easily came from an official Blizzard server. Digitial signatures such as RSA can achieve this.

The Blizzard servers enforce the "one copy of a given CD-Key online at a time" policy by being the only source of these tokens.

A 3rd party server (such as bnetd) can still exist, passing through auth requests to Blizzard's servers and passing back replies to the clients. The 3rd party server can't fake the auth token because it doesn't have Blizzard's private key.

Such a system works because the client insists on getting a time-stamped token signed by an official Blizzard server. Now if someone hacks the client, then you're back to being a pirate. But the bnetd authors certainly cannot be blamed for others hacking their clients.

Now, you may wonder what value bnetd would have if you still needed to contact the Blizzard servers. Easy: The Blizzard servers are only handling authentication. Once the client is satisfied that Blizzard blesses its existance, the local bnetd can run the whole game. That could offer latency benefits etc.

I don't know how I could make this approach more clear. Like I said, for it to work, it requires the client to insist on reaching a Blizzard server, and for the Blizzard server to produce auth tokens that no one else can fake.

Latest in a long history

madscientist — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:11:13 +0000

By far, the best post in this thread.
Congrats!

On the defense of piracy enablers

jzbiciak — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:32:26 +0000

Right, but neither the client nor Blizzard's servers are. In this protocol, the client refuses to talk to a server unless it verifies that it can get ahold of Blizzard's servers indirectly via that server. That is, bnetd can do whatever the hell it wants. But, if it can't get the specially signed auth token from Blizzard's servers for the client, the client simply refuses to talk to it.

Like I said, this would allow any 3rd party server to work, as long as it passes through authentication requests between Blizzard's servers and clients. The bnetd server would not be able to break this due to the fact everything going each direction is cryptographically signed and thus tamper proof.

On the defense of piracy enablers

mebrown — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 05:40:23 +0000

Duh... maybe I'm missing something, but isn't bnetd open source? What is to prevent Evil Pirate(TM) from just commenting out your checks?

On the defense of rational debate

bignose — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:05:36 +0000

Please, can we stop playing into the hands of the "intellectual property" cartel with use of the word "piracy" to mean something it's not.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy

Piracy is a terrible crime: attacking ships on the open sea, doing violence against those on board and robbing them. It is a morally reprehensible crime, with little possible defense.

Copyright infringement is a far lesser crime: no violence is done, no property is stolen. It is far less clear how morally culpable (as opposed to legally culpable) a person guilty of copyright infringement is.

Please stop promoting the conflation of the two terms; it only defeats rational debate on the topic. To mis-use "piracy" to refer to copyright infringement pre-supposes a moral equivalence of the crimes that is completely unjustified, and only helps those who want extreme measures enforced.

Pity, no false dilemmas

man_ls — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:14:44 +0000

Thanks for further explaining your points. Unfortunately, they are still completely bogus, so let me quickly rebate some logical fallacies (using skepdic.com's mini-lesson, Nizkor's and Atheism Web catalogues) contained in your message. This is an important task since it shows not only that your thoughts are not well articulated, but also where they fail.

I've seen a terminology for, and an approach to, IPRs that is problematic to say the least.

Lack of clarity. I don't really know what IPR stands for (although Google says it's Intellectual Property Rights); the use of the misleading term "intellectual property" is compounded by the overused acronym IP and with further qualifications is really mystifying to me.

I've been criticized by an Ericsson patent attorney after a debate for referring to what he thinks is legitimate ownership as a "monopoly". I disagreed with him because many software patents are bound to be inadvertently "infringed" upon during their 20-year term.

Red herring. A monopoly is not defined by how easy it is to fall into its clutches inadvertently.

the notion of a monopoly is biased communist rhetoric that puts the collective above the individual creator.

Argumentum ad hominem. The notion is simply descriptive; if you find that the negative connotations it carries nowadays are a burden, then you should not use the word "monopoly" yourself as you did with the attorney.

You don't infringe upon copyrights inadvertently in our field.

Selective thinking. You perfectly can, as was shown after the SCO accusations by the 200 lines or so inadvertently introduced by SGI, in the Linksys router affair and many other unwanted GPL violations, or in Moglen's discussion about proprietary kernel modules; and that is only in the reduced field of Linux kernel development.

Taken in context, you might view places like sourceforge an invitation to infringe inadvertently -- an unexperienced developer can take some code and put it inside a proprietary program, thinking it is OK since it is "freeware".

[...] you know when you breach a copyright. The chance of someone coincidentally writing a game server that happens to have the battle.net protocol [...] Therefore, it's not a monpoly.

Non sequitur. Protocols are not protected by copyright; as Ross explained above, in the bnetd case copyright law was not invoked, but the DMCA.

In fact, a profit motive is a major reason for some forms of progress, while it's none (or a hinderance) to others. In case of computer games, it's very clear to any unbiased person that cinematic games are developed by huge teams of full-time people with a substantial budget.

Begging the question. It is clear that expensive proprietary games are expensive and proprietary.

For the rich Blizzard-style computer games that are like cinematic productions, it's clear that the open-source approach doesn't work.

Hasty conclusion. In 1990 you could have said "For a rich kernel that supports thousands of devices, it's clear that the open-source approach doesn't work"; in 1995 equivalently "For a rich operating system that provides services for big corporations...".

At this point in history, IPRs are considered a major success story, the foundation of the modern economy, and also the only major area in which the U.S. has a trade surplus vs. Europe and Asia.

Burden of proof. Considered by whom? You do not show your sources and only give a vague reminiscence of unnamed authorities.

About 100 years ago, our great-great-grandmothers had to fight for their suffrage. Today, women's suffrage is unquestionable in the western societies.

Appeal to emotion (and to the gallery for good measure). The argument is just included to induce emotions and sympathy for your cause, since it has nothing to do with copyright or computers. In fact, the opposite might be argued: in women's suffrage a restriction was lifted, while here restrictions are being expanded.

Politicians and judges alike, with a very few exceptions, share the absolutely firm belief that an author is entitled to a variety of things that some of you here may not like.

Appeal to authority, if I ever saw one. Qualified sources support your position.

In other application categories, you can combine a profit motive with an open-source model (Red Hat, MySQL AB...). In games, it doesn't work for now.

And another hasty conclusion, combined with biased sample. There are actually very good games licensed under the GPL, but you obviously do not consider them "cinematic"; there are actually inferior proprietary games, but you are obviously not talking about them. Also, consider that today's free software games are plainly superior to commercial games of just 15 years ago.

The dangerous effect of a ruling in favor of bnetd would have gone way beyond computer games.

Appeal to fear. You want to make the audience believe your point of view by deriving horrible consequences from the opposite.

Interfering with modules that are technically separate, but must be viewed as legally/commercially parts of the same, would have the same effect as letting people interfere with modules of a single piece of executable code.

Slippery slope. It has nothing to do, and I don't see the evil effect of interfering with modules.

[...] considering that bnetd breaks a business model and enables piracy [...]

Anecdotal evidence. The case that worries you is so relevant that it defines the situation of "intellectual property".

I hope that the EFF has learned its lesson from this defeat in court, and that they will take on more honorable and meritorious cases in the future.

Appeal to ridicule. They were defeated in a pitiful cause, so they should learn the right and true way: yours.

You need lawmakers (in such fields as patent legislation), you need governmental authorities (such as in anti-trust proceedings), and government use of software is strategically important.

This one is difficult to catalogue; I'd say burden of proof. It is not clear that we need them since free software has grown nicely without them; it is clear that they need us, they will be the users.

However, I do hope that some (possibly even a silent majority) understand this strategic worry.

A very clear appeal to popularity, similar to the hilarious "lurkers support me in email".

I would say that if you want people to listen to you, you should not resort to these fallacious arguments, but state your case plainly instead. Also, since you have been and still are closely related to Blizzard, your motives are highly suspicious in the bnetd case; you might just be trying to score a point with current management. Therefore you should use a different example.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

dvdeug — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:48:43 +0000

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.

Copyright vs. Author's Right

maderik — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:20:00 +0000

if someone has that right...

There are three parts to this "if" to cause it -- and thus the premise that follows it -- to fail:

That there is such a right recognized in the US. The best example I can give of why such a right is not an inherent right in the states is the issue a while back w.r.t colorization of B&W movies. This required new law in the US. As I recall the discussions, European nations did not feel the need to pass similar laws because of their artists' rights traditions were sufficient protection.
That the bnet server violates the artists' rights even as European countries typically see them. Your stadium analogy fails because that is a modification of an original such that the original no longer exists. Your case would be stronger if a new and different stadium was proposed using the modified design and that was rejected. Even then, you've not made any convincing argument that the bnet server changes any of the game's artistic attributes -- as opposed to functional attributes -- that are the domain of artists' rights. Does it violate an artist's right if the new stadium is identical in external appearance but uses a gravel foundation instead of a sand foundation?
Even if such a right exists, that no other rights superceed it. Specifically the rights of use and interoperability. If the changes are so subtle that the impact to the artist's rights is minimal, then do the user's rights (e.g. first sale, etc.) outweigh the artists rights in this case?

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

riel — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:45:46 +0000

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

FlorianMueller — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:07:15 +0000

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.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

GreyWizard — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:52:08 +0000

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

GreyWizard — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:50:14 +0000

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

swiftone — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:50:55 +0000

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?

Inalienable Rights.

maderik — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:42:24 +0000

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.

On the defense of piracy enablers

ajcpi — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:42:57 +0000

I have only one issue. The use of the term "piracy" for copyright infringement is way out of line.

'U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea ... defines the crime of piracy as "any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends."' http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2005/featu...

Using the term piracy to describe copyright infringement both diminishes the meaning of the term for actual pirates, and overstates the harm and seriousness of copyright infringement.
a.

No community mandate

gallir — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:18:27 +0000

> I'm not a selected nor an elected leader. I've played a role in a
> political process of major strategic importance (the EU software patent
> directive). I've contributed to a debate, and I can continue to do so
> without any mandate from any community.

It was half joke, half serious. But it seems you forget to recognize that
FLOSS communities gave the strongest support to anti software patent
campaign. Also you were a respected person in tose communities.
Few weeks later you starts to accsuim them of fundamentalist. Just very
strange.

> There are politicians on the right wing whom the term "open source"
> makes want to puke,

And?

> and some of those are in favor of software patents despite my
> persuasive efforts,

So, is a fault of the FLOSS communitry? What do you mean?

> while others have understood from me that one can be pro-IP and
> anti-swpat at the same time.

Your arguments are contradictory and does noty pass any logic analysis.
Why IP laws must have a limit in the case of patentes but not for
copyright?

> There is no way to have any constructive dialog with them on the basis
> of an anti-IP ideology.

Where did you get our basis is "anti-IP"? You are using exactly the same
discourse of the people that promoted software patents in Europe.

The rest of your comment is again very condescending. Thanks for the your
insightful recommendations. But don't spread FUD like accusing of
"anti-IP" --some people in the community are against IP laws, others
think they have to be modified to match the social interest, others don't
care-- or "fundamentalism" just because you don't have coherent
arguments to defend your biased opinion about a specific case: your
friends' company against software developers.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

hingo — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:20:33 +0000

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?

About your rights and ours

man_ls — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:46:11 +0000

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.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Ross — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:46:44 +0000

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.

Won't make further contributions to this online debate now

FlorianMueller — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:36:31 +0000

This almost makes me feel like a New Year's resolutioner who resumes smoking on January 2nd ;-) but it's a different topic now, swpats, so just one more reply.

The fact is that we have swpats in Europe. The European Patent Office and national patent offices have granted tens of thousands of them.

Right now, however, their legal basis is rather weak since article 52 of the European Patent Convention expressly excludes "programs for computers [as such]" from the scope of patentable subject matter. VP Cheney's former employer Halliburton just lost a case in the High Court of England and Wales, which declared a software patent invalid, and the judge explained in his ruling that the EU directive would have softened up the criteria (in other words, it would have legalized many swpats that the courts can overturn right now).

It's true that the pro-swpat forces won't quit, nor will we. Right now we have the statutory law that we want and they have the case law at the level of the EPO (not in national jurisdictions) that they want. Sooner or later, a point will have to be reached at which either the EPO changes its practice and fully complies with the law (that's what we want) or national jurisdictions accept the EPO approach (that's what the pro-swpat forces want).

The fact of the matter is that the other camp has now had two failed attempts at changing the statutory law in their favor. They held a diplomatic conference in the year 2000, and the FFII (and others, but primarily the FFII) mobilized some resistance. The EU directive was just a fallback plan of the other camp because of that earlier failure, and now that Plan B has failed as well, so there'll be a "Plan B2" (a new attempt at pushing that kind of directive through, which is what they did when they didn't get gene patents the first time) or a "Plan C" (a different approach, such as through the community patent directive).

The European Parliament will return from its summer break on Monday, and that's when the debate will basically be continued in one way or another.

However, a legislative process which for the first time in the history of the European Union resulted in the outright rejection of a proposal of the EU Council (i.e., EU member state governments) by the European Parliament, and which produced a variety of interesting and funny anecdotes, deserves to be chronicled regardless of if and when the issue itself will make it back on the political agenda.

On the defense of piracy enablers

dvrabel — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:23:20 +0000

It should be pointed out that Battle.net is a player matching service with some bells and whistles (and if it's anything like Gamespy's 'service' it is or has been poor). Thus to claim it's an integral part of the game is a bit of stretch.

bnetd FAQ

Blizzard should have gone the route that Bioware went with Neverwinter Nights: make the authentication server separate from the (optional) player-matching service. This would permit third party player matching services without them having to circumvent authorization checks.

Won't make further contributions to this online debate now

cross — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:58:41 +0000

You don't think that book is somewhat premature? You really don't think that we won't get software patents in Europe next time round?

No community mandate

Ross — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:36:55 +0000

"As the success of open source shows, there are always authors who are willing to cede some of those rights and publish their works under more consumer-friendly licensing terms, but within reason, they should be given the choice."

You make it sound like we are asking for companies to be forced to open source their software or put it in the public domain. I don't want that. I believe in the utility and purpose of copyright. But you and I disagree on what that purpose is and what rights it encompasses. To me, I am not asking them to give up any rights, but to quit insisting they have rights over things which they do not own (in this specific instance, bnetd).

Won't make further contributions to this online debate now

FlorianMueller — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:36:38 +0000

Sorry, but things have to come to an end, and it doesn't look to me like the navigation on an HTML page like this benefits from ever more contributions. We've already had a couple of cases in which something was stated by someone to "correct" my statements while I had previously said the same, more or less.

Now that I've explained my thinking at great length, I'd rather devote the same time to the book that I'm writing on how we prevented the ratification of the European software patent directive. That book will also contain a variety of programmatic statements on software patents (and on IPRs in general).

To me, the important thing is the starting point of all of this: Negating author's rights that politicians (and judges) consider to be beyond reasonable doubt can position the entire open-source movement (even if only a vocal minority of radicals is responsible) outside of the consensus area of a vast political majority, and the price for that is really high.

By issuing a press release that commented on the bnetd case in a very short format, I may have inadvertently provoked the kind of reaction that came from Jon.

I'd be happy to talk about this interesting set of issues some more, but this is neither the time nor the place for more of that. Maybe there will be an opportunity at some FOSS or IP or digital consumer rights conference. If I happen to participate in such an event, any of you can contact me there, or if you organize such an event, I might be available to participate as a speaker (for logistical reasons, that's far more likely to work out for a conference in Munich or Brussels than in San Fran or Tokyo).

Think about what I said because it's essential to the future success and proliferation of open source. So long.

Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning

Ross — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:32:58 +0000

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

FlorianMueller — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:23:18 +0000

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).

Oh, and nice deflection BTW

Ross — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:22:17 +0000

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.