Skip to comments.
Blizzard wins lawsuit on video game hacking
Cnet News ^
| September 2, 2005
| Declan McCullagh
Posted on 09/02/2005 7:54:42 AM PDT by Panerai
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
1
posted on
09/02/2005 7:54:47 AM PDT
by
Panerai
To: Panerai
With the DMCA present this ruling was assured.
2
posted on
09/02/2005 7:58:21 AM PDT
by
avg_freeper
(Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
To: Panerai
In a 3-0 decision, the court upheld a trial judge's ruling from October, concluding the programmers' "circumvention in this case constitutes infringement." This is BS. The DMCA, even as bad as it is, allows reverse engineering for purposes of interoperability. In this specific case, interoperability with other game servers.
Ever since it came out, the DMCA has been used as a cudgel for big business to restrict competition and fair use. Even though it hasn't been legally effective in every case, it can still be used as a deterrent -- not everybody has the money to defend themselves.
To: Panerai
4
posted on
09/02/2005 8:07:05 AM PDT
by
Jalapeno
To: rdb3; chance33_98; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Bush2000; PenguinWry; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; ...
5
posted on
09/02/2005 8:39:11 AM PDT
by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: Panerai
Great. Now throw the gold farmers off the servers, Blizz.
6
posted on
09/02/2005 8:40:53 AM PDT
by
The KG9 Kid
(Semper Fi!)
To: Panerai
DMCA needs to be repealed. The courts are not capable of determining the particular cases where interoperability is justified.
7
posted on
09/02/2005 8:50:41 AM PDT
by
B Knotts
To: Panerai
To: RabidBartender
Somebody called for an exterminator?!
Good to go!
To: antiRepublicrat
This is BS. The DMCA, even as bad as it is, allows reverse engineering for purposes of interoperability. In this specific case, interoperability with other game servers.
Do you bother to even read these articles? They're not talking about interop. They're talking about "reverse engineering Blizzard Entertainment's video games to improve their playability." In other words, to gain an advantage over other players and essentially compromise the integrity of Blizzard's service. Here's an example: You hack Starcraft so that your ships can move twice as fast or hyperjump to random locations of your choosing. Because you've taken an advantage that isn't available to other players, those players would consider it cheating and wouldn't want to play. Why would they? It isn't fair. Consequently, Blizzard is arguing that they will lose money when people start defecting in frustration.
Ever since it came out, the DMCA has been used as a cudgel for big business to restrict competition and fair use. Even though it hasn't been legally effective in every case, it can still be used as a deterrent -- not everybody has the money to defend themselves
This isn't about restricting competition and fair use. It's about protecting Blizzard's ability to provide a service that its customers would want to use. Hacking that service in order to cheat causes Blizzard's offering to be devalued. Only the most strident anti-business bigots can't see that...
10
posted on
09/02/2005 9:14:37 AM PDT
by
Bush2000
(Linux -- You Get What You Pay For ... (tm)
To: Bush2000
They're not talking about interop.
"The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis ruled Thursday that federal law--specifically, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act--disallows players from altering Blizzard games to link with servers other than the company's official Battle.net site."
That's interoperability. Also,
The 8th Circuit also cited a contractual agreement that Combs and Crittenden OK'd when installing Blizzard software. That agreement prohibits reverse-engineering.
That prohibition should not be enforceable since it conflicts with current law allowing reverse-engineering for interoperability or research purposes.
To: antiRepublicrat
A contract is a binding agreement between two parties. It supersedes any law.
To: Panerai
All Your Servers Are Belong To Us!
To: The KG9 Kid
Seconded. Blizzard, you know who they are. We players keep telling you. Get them out of there.
14
posted on
09/02/2005 10:07:43 AM PDT
by
Starter
To: free_at_jsl.com
A contract is a binding agreement between two parties. It supersedes any law. No it doesn't. All contracts must be within the law. Of course depending on the decision of a court, in general you cannot sign away your rights under law (and that's for real signed contracts, not just shrink-wrap license quasi-contracts). For example, if your state has consumer protection laws, SAM's Club can't state as a condition of membership that you waive those rights.
To: Panerai
OKay so ummm. . how many of you are WoW addicts!
Signed. . .
Chana, 00ber dr00d of Earthen Ring :)
Comment #17 Removed by Moderator
To: twinzmommy
Sorry, CoH hero here!
;-)
18
posted on
09/02/2005 10:14:45 AM PDT
by
Jonah Hex
(Go. Hunt. Kill Skuls.)
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: Jonah Hex
*laughs* I played that too *thinks* I don't remember my server though. And DAoC (Albion Guin). . .
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson