BnetD Case Decided

Soul Taker · October 03, 2004, 09:48 PM

Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on October 03, 2004, 09:06 PM
Couldn't you plead the 5th if you pirated software?

What if the software license says you have no right to not incriminate yourself, and the judge agrees with that

Too many retarded possible outcomes of all this.

muert0 · October 04, 2004, 02:28 AM

I'm saying trying to stand there and say you didn't read the EULA from a game because you downloaded an illegal copy of the game and didn't realise it was pirated and had a EULA before it was ripped or saying you didn't read the EULA because you just so happened to delete it before you installed the game is ignorant.

And if you actually went to trial for pirating software it would be because you would have been pirating tons of software and they would have hard evidence against you in most cases so you could plead the fifth all day long and it wouldn't help you.

Soul Taker · October 04, 2004, 02:45 AM

Quote from: muert0 on October 04, 2004, 02:28 AM
I'm saying trying to stand there and say you didn't read the EULA from a game because you downloaded an illegal copy of the game and didn't realise it was pirated and had a EULA before it was ripped or saying you didn't read the EULA because you just so happened to delete it before you installed the game is ignorant.

And if you actually went to trial for pirating software it would be because you would have been pirating tons of software and they would have hard evidence against you in most cases so you could plead the fifth all day long and it wouldn't help you.

So you think being legally bound to a contract you never knew existed/signed is perfectly alright?

muert0 · October 04, 2004, 03:28 AM

No I'm saying it's stupid to try and say erasing a contract and pretending like it doesn't exist should cover your ass if you got in to a legal situation...

I'm probably not posting to this thread anymore because it's turning into an infinite loop of retradation.

MyndFyre · October 04, 2004, 03:40 AM

Quote from: Soul Taker on October 03, 2004, 09:48 PM
Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on October 03, 2004, 09:06 PM
Couldn't you plead the 5th if you pirated software?
What if the software license says you have no right to not incriminate yourself, and the judge agrees with that
Too many retarded possible outcomes of all this.

No, you can't plead the 5th if you've pirated software. The situation that while arise is whether or not you give testimony at your own trial; if your attorneys question you, then the prosecution has the prerogative to cross-examine you. Once you have entered testimony at a trial you have waived your legal rights.

Soul Taker: you're a moron. You're talking about a million-to-one exception in an otherwise cut-and-dry situation.

Note that someone had to actually *own* the game before they could hack it. That person would be liable for his actions. You would be liable for your ignorance.

Adron · October 04, 2004, 05:58 AM

Quote from: muert0 on October 04, 2004, 02:28 AM
I'm saying trying to stand there and say you didn't read the EULA from a game because you downloaded an illegal copy of the game and didn't realise it was pirated and had a EULA before it was ripped or saying you didn't read the EULA because you just so happened to delete it before you installed the game is ignorant.

You can read the EULA and not accept it, yet play the game. If you do that, you're violating copyright, but you're not bound by anything in the license agreement. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do - only one person has to do this, and could do it in some country where the copyright violation isn't illegal. Then the information on how to produce bnetd could be exported from there.

Kp · October 04, 2004, 11:49 AM

Consider the case where the author's supplied installer is so braindamaged that it doesn't even work. For instance, at least for a while, ID's Doom3 installer refused to install on Win2003 because it had been told to find Win2k || WinXP or fail out, when the designers really just mean to find "Win2k or better." Any Win2003 user who wanted to install Doom3 then has to wait for the authors to fix the installer, or hack/bypass the installer himself since he knows the game really will work. The situation is even muddier if the author refuses to fix his installer (or is unavailable to do so).

Obviously, most people expect some sort of EULA, but if you're forced to bypass the installer to get the game onto your system, have you agreed to a EULA that never even attempted to show itself (due to installer dying messily before even offering the EULA, and manual install of course doesn't try to show it)? If you have not agreed to it, what then? Some countries may consider you to be bound by it anyway, others might say you're violating copyright (as Adron mentions), and others - well, there's many countries out there, and their laws are not very consistent.

iago · October 04, 2004, 12:05 PM

I dont know much about the legalness, but if it's true that the EULA is binding, then what happens if some company includes, "And you must pay us a daily fee of $100 as long as you own this game" somewhere in the middle. Most (all?) people don't read the EULA, so they would click agree. Does this mean that everybody who doesn't send in their money can be legally responsible for it?

MyndFyre · October 04, 2004, 02:23 PM

Quote from: iago on October 04, 2004, 12:05 PM
I dont know much about the legalness, but if it's true that the EULA is binding, then what happens if some company includes, "And you must pay us a daily fee of $100 as long as you own this game" somewhere in the middle. Most (all?) people don't read the EULA, so they would click agree. Does this mean that everybody who doesn't send in their money can be legally responsible for it?

Probably, but I would think that the company would rather disallow the use of the software than try to collect that.

Also, this is also a very obscure and (again) unlikely situation. If you guys actually look at what *did* happen rather than oddball hypotheticals, then you'd see the crux of the issue.

Again, I'm on the side of BnetD. I think Blizz is lame for pursuing the matter. :-/

Banana fanna fo fanna · October 04, 2004, 02:26 PM

I don't. BnetD would _kill_ Blizzard. To tell you the truth, if there was a stable bnetd server network, I could download all the games I want off of suprnova, put in a fake CD key, and play.

Perhaps they should go after people who host bnetd servers?

Skywing · October 04, 2004, 02:31 PM

Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on October 04, 2004, 02:26 PM
I don't. BnetD would _kill_ Blizzard. To tell you the truth, if there was a stable bnetd server network, I could download all the games I want off of suprnova, put in a fake CD key, and play.

Perhaps they should go after people who host bnetd servers?

Ah, but you see bnetd was probably years away from getting anywhere near something like that. Their architecture was really only suited to standalone servers.

Arta · October 04, 2004, 04:18 PM

Blizzard would never have won this case in the UK, thankfully. You can't just waive anything you want in a contract here - you can go to court and argue that the contract was unreasonable in the first place, and thus unenforceable.

To me, some of the things settled in favour of Blizzard here are crazy. While I think it's fair for people and companies to enjoy the financial rewards of their work, but I also think that whatever is on my computer is mine. The hard drive is mine, hence the data is mine. Thus, I can do whatever I want with it. Commercially exploiting that is an entirely different matter - were Blizzard to simply say "This server software will harm Battle.net's financial viability" (and be required to prove it), I would be a lot more sympathetic - but some of the stuff they've come out with so far with here is just outrageous. I have a right to reverse engineer software on my computer. I have a right to observe, study, understand, and replicate any transmission sent by my computer, and any transmission recieved by it. If I wish to, I have a right to share the fruits of my labours with others.

I don't have a right to rip off other people by copying their work and selling it, but that's about the only right I don't have, imho.

Meh · October 04, 2004, 04:23 PM

Does this mean TestBNCS is illegal in the USA but maybe not in the UK?

Grok · October 04, 2004, 04:24 PM

Agree with everything Arta said, but adding an example.

Ford motors manufactures and sells parts for its cars. Other companies examine those parts and make similar parts with equal attributes, performing the same or better as the OEM. Why can we not do this with software?

Arta · October 04, 2004, 04:33 PM

Quote
Does this mean TestBNCS is illegal in the USA but maybe not in the UK?

According to knowledgeable people I spoke to about it, I can do pretty much whatever I want as long as my motivation is academic. If I tried to sell TestBNCS that would be extremely dodgy. Giving it away is rather more of a grey area, but still a bit dodgy, because even a free product can be construed as being commercial (for some reason).

One thing's for sure: If Blizzard were to bring this type of case in the UK, it would be much harder for them to win - presuming they don't have any relevant patents they could bash me with.