| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Blizzard vs BnetD Lawsuit Decision |
|
A little off-topic but having discussed the implications of Fair Use rights vs EULA on various boards, this item is interesting. <a href="http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=51861" target="_blank">Bluesnews</a> is reporting on a <a href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2004/bnetd_30sep.pdf" target="_blank">decision</a> that has been handed down in a Blizzard vs BnetD (makers of an alternative Battle.net service) suit that seems to set a precedent on EULAs:<blockquote><em>According to the interpretation of this: "A clickthrough EULA isn't unconscionable (and thus enforceable); Fair Use rights can be waived in a EULA; First Sale rights (!) can be waived in a EULA; The DMCA's interoperability provisions are not a defense." Both the /. article and the EFF article have further opinions on what this means going forward, and word is the EFF is planning an appeal.</em></blockquote> |
Mon Oct 04, 2004 1:15 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
An electronic document has long been established as legal and binding. That's why you can file your taxes over the internet now, as well as shop online. When you click 'I agree' you enter a legal contract to not do anything that would violate it.
I don't know why BnetD even had a shot at this. |
|
Mon Oct 04, 2004 1:18 pm |
|
|
Lucky Day
Guest
|
The decision rendered by the judge admits there are times when an EULA are unconscionable based on precedented ruling but decides in this case its not.
Waht I severely dislike is his his decision that the provisions in the EULA that tell the licensee that they can not reverse engineer the software are binding. The judge admits that reverse engineering is fair use by precedent.
He finishes his decision by concluding that the defendants were not Reverse Engineering for the purpose of understanding the code but points out that they even left the Banner Ad system intact . Having not played on Battle.Net and seeing the way even this website has been choking us with pop up ads lately I assume they were selling ads on the thing.
The way the Judge rules against the defendants for Reverse Engineering based on them agreeing to the clickwrap agreement seems weak. He does this in light of the Judge continuing to feel he has to define that their Reverse Engineering was also not Reverse Engineering that could be considered fair use. Why should he have to point this out if unless he considers that his decision on EULA's overriding Reverse Engineering as fair use would not hold up on appeal. |
|
Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:57 am |
|
|
Daeric
Guest
|
Can you return an opened piece of software after it's been opened and you realize you disagree with the EULA? No.
Can you read the EULA before you buy the software? No.
This ruling is bullshit and anyone with half a working brain can see that.
When I buy I book, publishers don't get to put a "EULA" at the front prohibiting me from selling it to a used bookstore. Why do software publisher think they get special rights on their copyrighted work? Hopefully this crap gets overturned. |
|
Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:11 am |
|
|
Moriendor
Black Ring Leader
Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 1306
Location: Germany |
quote:
This ruling is bullshit and anyone with half a working brain can see that.
I don't know about that, Daeric. But I think that anyone with "half a working brain" can see that reverse engineering code to alter a software that you have not originally created yourself is just not right. There shouldn't even be an argument about that.
I also read most of that document last night and the judge said that the main reason the EULA is binding (regardless of whether you can see it before installing the game or not) is that you do not acquire the software itself when purchasing the package but that you only acquire a licence to use the software. The EULA does not affect the purchase of the box in any way but only what you do with the software once you install it at home. There's also a warning sticker outside on the box that informs you that you can only make use of your licence if you agree to the EULA.
Anyway, the "corporate haters" will probably continue arguing that these Bnetd guys did nothing wrong but if you look at it from an objective point of view, I think it's more than obvious that we're talking massive copyright infringement here if people reverse engineer Blizzard games, then use 3rd party tools to analyze the packets that are exchanged between the Blizzard game and Battle.net and then go and build their own Battle.net from it. |
|
Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:56 pm |
|
|
Lucky Day
Guest
|
I would remind Moriender that even the judge knows there is precedent for Reverse Engineering as Fair Use.
By ruling that since the company that produced bnetd agreed in the EULA not to Reverse Engineer that they were bound to it I believe that the judges ruling violates this law. At least this part of the decision will be overuled.
However, since its obvious that bnetd used this for commercial reasons as was made obvious by the companies decision to incorporate the banner ads at least part of his ruling stands.
This is my point: the judge is going out of his way after the fact to point out that bnetd is a commercial product in case a company's EULA is ultimately found unconscionable for violating a user's Fair Use of the product by Reverse Engineering it. |
|
Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:09 am |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
