Blizzard wins lawsuit on video game hacking

Cnet News ^ | September 2, 2005 | Declan McCullagh

[Panerai]

A federal appeals court has ruled that computer programmers do not have the right to reverse-engineer Blizzard Entertainment's video games to improve their playability.

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.

Affected games published by Blizzard, a division of Vivendi Universal, include titles in its "Diablo," "Starcraft" and "Warcraft" lines.

In a 3-0 decision, the court upheld a trial judge's ruling from October, concluding the programmers' "circumvention in this case constitutes infringement."

The DMCA broadly restricts circumventing, or bypassing, antipiracy measures. Blizzard had included such measures to tie its games to the Battle.net site and detect pirated copies.

The defendants in the case, Ross Combs and Rob Crittenden, reverse-engineered the Blizzard protocol using tools like "tcpdump" to listen to the software's communications with a game server. Eventually, their "bnetd" project let Blizzard games connect with unofficial servers, yielding benefits like faster response times.

[avg_freeper]

With the DMCA present this ruling was assured.

[antiRepublicrat]

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.

[Jalapeno]

bump

[ShadowAce]

[The KG9 Kid]

Great. Now throw the gold farmers off the servers, Blizz.

[B Knotts]

DMCA needs to be repealed. The courts are not capable of determining the particular cases where interoperability is justified.

[RabidBartender]

For the Horde!

[Wright Wing]

Somebody called for an exterminator?!

Good to go!

[Bush2000]

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...

[antiRepublicrat]

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.

[free_at_jsl.com]

A contract is a binding agreement between two parties. It supersedes any law.

[SpitfyrAce]

All Your Servers Are Belong To Us!

[Starter]

Seconded. Blizzard, you know who they are. We players keep telling you. Get them out of there.

[antiRepublicrat]

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.

[twinzmommy]

OKay so ummm. . how many of you are WoW addicts!

Signed. . .

Chana, 00ber dr00d of Earthen Ring :)

[Jonah Hex]

Sorry, CoH hero here!

;-)

[twinzmommy]

*laughs* I played that too *thinks* I don't remember my server though. And DAoC (Albion Guin). . .

[glaseatr]

Here's an example: You hack Starcraft so that your ships can move twice as fast

That is a very accurate statement. I hate it when I run into guys playing Starcraft on another server. They build armies twice as fast as I can. And I hate losing.

[Spiff]

This is a terrible precedent. This ruling may effect how you can look at and change traffic on your own network. These guys used a simple thing like TCPDUMP to look at the traffic on their own network which was generated by a video game that they purchased. Then, they found a way to change where that traffic went on their own network and diverted it to a different location on their own network or on some other participating network. They essentially designed a proxy to handle the traffic themselves and not to connect back to the vendor's server. This ruling demands that you can't do that and that you must permit software that you purchased to be able to connect back to the vendor's servers whether you want it to or not.

Does anyone else see a dangerous precedent being set here?

[Spiff]

I forgot to add that from what I've read about this case, these guys never actually altered the software. They just altered the way their own network's traffic was handled.

[Nickname]

Me!

I saw this headline on FR the other day:

Napolitano: Let DPS stop vehicles bound for Mexico
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1473490/posts

I had to read it to see just how much Damage Per Second they were talking about! =D

[Spike Spiegel]

Show me my signature on that contract.

The preratrators of the DMCA have made a serious fraud. They should be jailed. Then lynched.

[melbell]

"Great. Now throw the gold farmers off the servers, Blizz."

ZUG ZUG!

[melbell]

Are you kidding me? The other night I had a dream that I was standing on a street with people dead all over...all the bodies had sparklies coming out of them and my first thought was, "man, I have GOT to loot those before the cops get here!"

*giggle*

I play on Blackhand...where do you play?

[twinzmommy]

*laughs*

I mostly play a dr00d on Earthen Ring -- Alliance -- her name is Chana. Sometimes I'm on a wee warrior lass though, Morgandy, on ER as well :)

I SO understand that dream! *laughs*

[zeugma]

The DMCA (and the current stat of copyright law) is proof that we have the best congress money can buy.

This particular case shows that the judge in question has no idea about computers or networking.

[melbell]

We should make a Free republic guild!

[twinzmommy]

OMG we so should do that! *laughs*

Which server? And which side? Somehow I *think* we would have to be Alliance :)

[melbell]

Actually, I don't agree. Horde are the good guys for the most part. If you know the story the reason the orcs and humans are at war is because the humans tried to take the orc's land.

wow...I'm such a geek...I need some friends...

[twinzmommy]

*laughs* Pick a server and let's do it :)

[rarestia]

WoW addict here! Lvl 50 Dwarven Hunter on Skullcrusher

[rarestia]

Do we choose PvP or Normal? I'd imagine Alliance would be the best choice for a Free Republic guild. I could provide a Team Speak server for us to use.

[Spruce]

Nerf Shamans!

[The KG9 Kid]

I'd like to hear of you making an FR guild on a server, but I couldn't leave my guild. We're the #1 guild on our server far and away: Ragnaros on farm status for months already, and now engaging Ebonroc in BWL. I have too much DKP and too many pieces of Netherwind to quit now. If I can get 8/8 Netherwind before the end of the year, I will be undisputed wtfpwnsauce Frost mage Gnome on my server.

[Wright Wing]

I'm already guilded on Dalaran (East Coast Server)...I might venture out..Horde only!

[Old Professer]

Good, a stupid law can do what parents can't - get rid of mindless games.

[Crazieman]

Hahahaha

[SShultz460]

I play on Medvih :)

Horde Side all the way!

[NCLaw441]

You said: A contract is a binding agreement between two parties. It supersedes any law.
***
That is demonstrably false. A contract to buy and sell illegal drugs does not supersed the drug laws. A contract for a paid Lewinsky doesn't supersede laws against prostitution. A contract to kill someone's spouse for money doesn't supersede laws against murder or conspiracy.

[free_at_jsl.com]

You said: "That is demonstrably false. A contract to buy and sell illegal drugs does not supersed the drug laws. A contract for a paid Lewinsky doesn't supersede laws against prostitution. A contract to kill someone's spouse for money doesn't supersede laws against murder or conspiracy."

My statement was terse and I apologize if you misunderstood it. I am guilty of over generalization. Most contracts are drawn up by lawyers. Most lawyers understand that one cannot create a contract in violation of the law. You are apparently referring to contracts that are not created by lawyers. Entering into such contracts is never a good idea.

JSL