Support NeoGAF

[faceless007]

you never purchased the game. you do not own the game. you purchased a limited licence to play 1 copy of the game. This is how all software works. You dont own your windows, you only purchased a licence to use it.

And I reject that that should be the case. What you describe is not yet settled case law (though some recent decisions seem to go disturbingly in that direction). Just because it's what the corporations want doesn't mean I'm just going to go along with it.

 

[Nemo]

i approve

.

I hope someone takes pics of these peeps at court :lol

 

[faceless007]

No, we don't ignore it. People who are idiots are getting kicked and banned from severs for like forever now.

Yeah but nobody sues them.

You didn't answer the question, if someone created a program to do what I described, do you think Microsoft would be in the right to try to sue the makers of it for lost revenue?

 

[notworksafe]

Your proposed program has not very much to do with this issue. It is only partially about cheating/griefing. The other part is the hack author selling a hack that uses Blizzard's code.

Now if you sold a hack that auto yelled curses and such at people and it required loading up a copied version of the Xbox dashboard to accomplish its purpose, that would be a similar case.

 

[DrPirate]

I approve, and I hope Blizzard wins.

Then again: I'm against rights and anything that gives freedom to people.

 

[DrPirate]

Right. But to argue that these programs ruin the enjoyment of the game implies that the game is naturally enjoyable on a universal level and that the hacks/mods are malicious towards that enjoyment, and that then hurts their product which hurts their sales. The very existence of the hacks shows that the baseline product is not satisfactory for all and that people are going outside of the initial game to create an enjoyable experience. If someone cannot handle the nature of SC2 then SC2 is not universally enjoyable. It like many products are just put out there to be judged worthy or not by the consumer.

Some people take honest to god pleasure in rape and murder. We should just bend the law for those people because the constitution defends our right in the pursuit of happiness.

The point is: They're making an example of these hackers. It's their network, and they have the right to control it in the way they see fit. It does not give anyone the right to modify and change it (and then use their network) just because it's "most enjoyable for them".

I disagree with you completely.

 

[faceless007]

Your proposed program has not very much to do with this issue. It is only partially about cheating/griefing. The other part is the hack author selling a hack that uses Blizzard's code.

Now if you sold a hack that auto yelled curses and such at people and it required loading up a copied version of the Xbox dashboard to accomplish its purpose, that would be a similar case.

Not that I'm sure it would change it my mind, but I'm not clear on how the hack works. I thought a trainer is an independently-written program that just knows how to target certain variables in memory and modify them. It doesn't need to contain copyrighted code to do that. So my understanding of Blizzard's argument is that 1) you get one copy of the game to load onto your hard drive, 2) you are authorized to copy that copy into your RAM (gee how gracious of them), but 3) if you make any modifications to the copy in RAM (e.g. by using a trainer), that constitutes creating a derivative work which is unauthorized (even if the derivative work only exists in your RAM as long as the process is running). Is that not the argument? Are the makers of the hack really distributing a part of Starcraft II?

Then again, even if it did, I'd fight against that precedent as well. Every no-CD crack is a modified .exe so sites that serve them are basically serving up derivative works of copyrighted material. I'm not wild about a world where those are illegal as well.

 

[minus_273]

And I reject that that should be the case. What you describe is not yet settled case law (though some recent decisions seem to go disturbingly in that direction). Just because it's what the corporations want doesn't mean I'm just going to go along with it.

if you reject the terms of a contract, then dont sign it. When someone buys software the agreement is that they only bought the licence to use it. No one forced anyone to buy StarCraft II and accept those terms. Every individual who is sued for hacking accepted that when they bought it.

 

[notworksafe]

Not that I'm sure it would change it my mind, but I'm not clear on how the hack works. I thought a trainer is an independently-written program that just knows how to target certain variables in memory and modify them. It doesn't need to contain copyrighted code to do that. So my understanding of Blizzard's argument is that 1) you get one copy of the game to load onto your hard drive, 2) you are authorized to copy that copy into your RAM (gee how gracious of them), but 3) if you make any modifications to the copy in RAM (e.g. by using a trainer), that constitutes creating a derivative work which is unauthorized (even if the derivative work only exists in your RAM as long as the process is running). Is that not the argument? Are the makers of the hack really distributing a part of Starcraft II?

Then again, even if it did, I'd fight against that precedent as well. Every no-CD crack is a modified .exe so sites that serve them are basically serving up derivative works of copyrighted material. I'm not wild about a world where those are illegal as well.

Blizzard is saying that in order for the hack to work, it has to copy much more of the code than would normally be used in the normal use of the game or mod tools (which is what the license allows). There's nothing in there about the modifying of said code, because the normal mod tools and map editors provided let you modify the game.

As mentioned before, Blizzard allowed almost unlimited access to the game files. Users can modify story maps, custom maps, create their own maps, use their own models and assets in the game, change heath/damage amounts for units, and many other things. I don't think they have an issue with people messing about with their game. Heck, Blizzard even has a system set up where you can legally sell mods, maps, etc.

It makes me wonder how much of the game code is copied with this hack.

if you reject the terms of a contract, then dont sign it. When someone buys software the agreement is that they only bought the licence to use it. No one forced anyone to buy StarCraft II and accept those terms. Every individual who is sued for hacking accepted that when they bought it.

It seems the big stink is more from the selling of the hack, not the hack itself. But it is hard to tell. Blizzard doesn't like people reselling their code, that much I am sure of.

 

[Talon]

I'm sure these kids will settle out of simple fear.

 

[Open Source]

I'm all for Blizzard stopping multiplayer hacks, but I dislike their tactics for two reasons:

1. I believe they could resolve this problem without the help of the courts. It's like killing a weed with napalm. And using the courts as enforcers in stopping online cheaters is a horrific waste of public resources.
2. The ramifications if the court accepts their argument are not good - companies could sue for single-player trainers, fan patches, any mods that affect the .exe, all sorts of stuff if they wanted to. I would not be surprised to see the EFF jump in on the other side.

 

[bistromathics]

Not that I'm sure it would change it my mind, but I'm not clear on how the hack works. I thought a trainer is an independently-written program that just knows how to target certain variables in memory and modify them. It doesn't need to contain copyrighted code to do that.

I'm guessing they use some of blizzards shared libraries or dlls. In open source software licensing there are legal hurdles based on what you use from other people; maybe its something like this, but I also don't know how the hack works.

 

[faceless007]

Blizzard is saying that in order for the hack to work, it has to copy much more of the code than would normally be used in the normal use of the game or mod tools (which is what the license allows).

I'm not a programmer so this might be a dumb question, but how is that possible? In order to do anything with any file, doesn't it need to be loaded into RAM at some point? Over the natural course of playing the game, isn't every asset included in the game going to be loaded into RAM (except for I guess deleted material that's still hidden in the files)? If the hack relies on material that's included in the game but never actually called by it, that would be....interesting. But again, that would basically mean that if a game ships with files it doesn't actually use, it's apparently copyright infringement to load those files. Even opening them in a viewer would apparently be copyright infringement under this argument.

 

[notworksafe]

I'm not a programmer so this might be a dumb question, but how is that possible? In order to do anything with any file, doesn't it need to be loaded into RAM at some point? Over the natural course of playing the game, isn't every asset included in the game going to be loaded into RAM (except for I guess deleted material that's still hidden in the files)? If the hack relies on material that's included in the game but never actually called by it, that would be....interesting. But again, that would basically mean that if a game ships with files it doesn't actually use, it's apparently copyright infringement to load those files. Even opening them in a viewer would apparently be copyright infringement under this argument.

I will have to read up more on this hack before I can say for sure. Perhaps some files/contents are "locked" when going into an MP match (like unit health or map view) and the hack "unlocks" them to be modified?

I do know that to be allowed to sell mods and such in the SC2 store, one of the rules is that the mod can't use Blizzard art assets or models. Stuff that uses Blizz art/models must be given away for free. So maybe they are breaking the license in reselling this content without the permission of Blizzard when it is loaded into memory?

EDIT: I also know that Blizz are not big fans of stuff like WoW Model Viewer, which lets you access and view any WoW model stored in local files, or sites like MMO-Champion that datamine WoW files for models. However WMV and MMO-C don't sell their programs/content, so Blizz hasn't really messed with them. They did complain to MMO-C for breaking an NDA on Cataclysm content, but that was it.

 

[faceless007]

if you reject the terms of a contract, then dont sign it. When someone buys software the agreement is that they only bought the licence to use it. No one forced anyone to buy StarCraft II and accept those terms. Every individual who is sued for hacking accepted that when they bought it.

My problem is that the mere act of using legally-purchased software shouldn't be subject to the terms of a contract at all. Software was the first type of consumable media to include a license agreement that directly violates the first-sale doctrine, and now we're seeing the effects of it spread through every other content industry. Can you imagine having to sign a contract to read a book you just bought from the bookstore? The book is shrink-wrapped and there's a sticker on the outside saying you're not allowed to lend the book or sell it to anyone else, and if you break the sticker you agree to these terms? Can you imagine that happening with CDs and DVDs?

Of course, there's no need to imagine it because that's what's happening. You have to sign a contract to buy anything for your Amazon Kindle. You have to sign a contract to buy anything from the iTunes or Amazon MP3 store. Buying media is now a matter of contract law.

Why the fuck should software get its own special class of legal protection just because 30 years ago some software developer was smart enough to draft up 5 pages of legalese that completely waived away the consumer rights of anybody who bought it, and hoped consumers would be too stupid to notice? Why are we perfectly OK to go along with this completely radical (and unenforceable) shift in the way property rights work just to play a fucking video game?

 

[RurouniZel]

if you reject the terms of a contract, then dont sign it. When someone buys software the agreement is that they only bought the licence to use it. No one forced anyone to buy StarCraft II and accept those terms. Every individual who is sued for hacking accepted that when they bought it.

There's one (possible) flaw in your logic. You state that when I buy the software, I'm only buying the license to use it. However last I checked I've neither seen this supposed contract on the box itself, nor been given the contract before purchase. It's only after I've opened the box, inserted the disc, and begun the installation process that this "contract" comes into view. And last I checked, most stores won't allow you to return a PC game once it's opened under any circumstances.

In my eye, this would be a bait and switch. Baiting a customer by luring them into thinking their buying a product, only to reveal after they bought it that it's only the license.

However, if this is shown anywhere on the StarCraft II box (or any other), please correct me.

 

[teh_pwn]

I'm against big brother over zealous anti-piracy software like DRM, but if people are hacking online games and reducing the value of Blizzard's product by making games imbalanced, then Blizzard is well within their rights to sue these hackers.

 

[notworksafe]

There's one (possible) flaw in your logic. You state that when I buy the software, I'm only buying the license to use it. However last I checked I've neither seen this supposed contract on the box itself, nor been given the contract before purchase. It's only after I've opened the box, inserted the disc, and begun the installation process that this "contract" comes into view. And last I checked, most stores won't allow you to return a PC game once it's opened under any circumstances.

In my eye, this would be a bait and switch. Baiting a customer by luring them into thinking their buying a product, only to reveal after they bought it that it's only the license.

However, if this is shown anywhere on the StarCraft II box (or any other), please correct me.

I only know because it was brought up in the last thread. In the Quick Start guide there is a message stating "If you disagree with the terms of this license you may call 1-800-something (can't remember) to get a full refund".

EDIT: http://www.starcraft2forum.org/images/news/sc2manual.pdf Page 19 at the top.

EDIT 2: I can't say how easy Blizzard makes this process. My only experience is with 2K. I requested a refund for my Bioshock PC game because of the DRM issues and they just asked me to mail them the game and sent me a check for the purchase price (minus tax) a few weeks later.

EDIT 3: When rereading the license I notice that it states you can't exploit the game for commercial purposes. You also can't make a mod that infringes copyrights. Perhaps these are the parts they are bringing to the court?

 

[RurouniZel]

I only know because it was brought up in the last thread. In the Quick Start guide there is a message stating "If you disagree with the terms of this license you may call 1-800-something (can't remember) to get a full refund".

EDIT: http://www.starcraft2forum.org/images/news/sc2manual.pdf Page 19 at the top.

Fair enough, however it's still pretty sneaky that you have to buy the product first before agreeing to and signing said contract. Any other respectable business makes it so that you cannot buy a product/service without agreeing to and signing the contract first (assuming there's a contract at all of course). Homes, cars, insurance, warranties, bank accounts, Costo memberships, etc., you cannot benefit from these products or services without first being presented with the contract/terms of service to agree to. Whether people read them or not is another matter altogether, but it's always presented first.

PC software seems to be the sole exception that I'm aware of, which is why I don't believe those contracts are legal or binding.

EDIT 3: When rereading the license I notice that it states you can't exploit the game for commercial purposes. You also can't make a mod that infringes copyrights. Perhaps these are the parts they are bringing to the court?

Which I have no problem with. I'm for Blizzard suing people profiting off of their work. I was merely addressing the "no one's forcing you to buy and agree to contract" argument above.

 

[faceless007]

EDIT 2: I can't say how easy Blizzard makes this process. My only experience is with 2K. I requested a refund for my Bioshock PC game because of the DRM issues and they just asked me to mail them the game and sent me a check for the purchase price (minus tax) a few weeks later.

Interesting. Out of curiosity, did you have to mail the entire game package back (with box+manual) or could you have just shipped the disc? I wonder if, since I bought the Collectors Edition, I would have to ship the whole thing back if I were to do this. Also, how did they know the purchase price?

 

[notworksafe]

Interesting. Out of curiosity, did you have to mail the entire game package back (with box+manual) or could you have just shipped the disc? I wonder if, since I bought the Collectors Edition, I would have to ship the whole thing back if I were to do this. Also, how did they know the purchase price?

I had to mail them the whole game including box, manual, etc and a copy of my receipt.

Which I have no problem with. I'm for Blizzard suing people profiting off of their work. I was merely addressing the "no one's forcing you to buy and agree to contract" argument above.

Yeah games and other software are the only products I can think of that do this. The alternative is to present the game buyer with a contract before they purchase the game, I suppose. That could be a pain in the ass for the retailer though.

 

[notworksafe]

dp sorry

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

if you reject the terms of a contract, then dont sign it. When someone buys software the agreement is that they only bought the licence to use it. No one forced anyone to buy StarCraft II and accept those terms. Every individual who is sued for hacking accepted that when they bought it.

Except in some countries, certain EULA's have been found to not be legal. Although it hasn't been tested in court YET, the Steam Subscriber Agreement states that Valve can lock you out of your account anytime they choose to. Now would they without reason? They haven't yet. What happens if you use a fraudulent credit card to buy 1 game and in response to that 1 purchase, Valve locks you out of your account and every other game you purchased legally. Is that acceptable? The SSA says it is but I'd be very curious to see how it would hold up in court. The point is the 'you agreed to it so they can do whatever they want' argument doesn't hold water.

 

[eosos]

Thank God.

 

[PataHikari]

you never purchased the game. you do not own the game..

YES. I DO.

And screw you for falling into that retarded bit of corporate propaganda aimed at stealing our rights.

 

[Jerk]

if you reject the terms of a contract, then dont sign it. When someone buys software the agreement is that they only bought the licence to use it. No one forced anyone to buy StarCraft II and accept those terms. Every individual who is sued for hacking accepted that when they bought it.

At best, the EULA can give more legitimacy to a separate valid claim, but otherwise...

It really boggles the mind that some find the idea that one may be bound to a contract after purchase to be acceptable.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

At best, the EULA can give more legitimacy to a separate valid claim, but otherwise...

It really boggles the mind that some find the idea that one may be bound to a contract after purchase to be acceptable.

Its the same people who think its perfectly justifiable for Blizzard to be suing people for producing cheats. What are you going to do.

 

[notworksafe]

Its the same people who think its perfectly justifiable for Blizzard to be suing people for producing cheats. What are you going to do.

I agree with Blizzard on this issue.

Not just because the hack maker is making hacks for online multiplayer (that alone is not good but also not sue-worthy), but because he is using Blizzard's code to do it and is selling the hacks for a profit.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I agree with Blizzard on this issue.

Not just because the hack maker is making hacks for online multiplayer, but because he is using Blizzard's code to do it and is selling the hacks for a profit.

There is a difference with making a profit off of Blizzard's code than suing someone for producing hacks. Some here are supporting the latter while others the former. Like others have mentioned, there is a problem when someone believes that just because one agrees to a particular EULA, that it means the company owns you by your testicles. EULA's haven't always held up in court (perhaps people more familiar with such cases can expound on them), especially in other countries. Don't be so quick to bend over just because a corporation tells you that you have to.

 

[notworksafe]

Oh I agree with you. A overly harsh EULA alone is not a good reason to get reamed by a company. That said, I have agreed to many a harsh EULA. Windows, SC2, Steam, WoW, many other MMOs etc. I think everyone here has at some point. I always feel like there is the chance it could come back to bite me in the ass, but luckily I have been safe so far. People who defend this action based on EULA alone are just being silly at best, ignorant at worst.

I just was making sure that you were aware of the other parts of the lawsuit that have more traction (imo), like selling the hacks and using proprietary code.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Oh I agree with you. A overly harsh EULA alone is not a good reason to get reamed by a company. That said, I have agreed to many a harsh EULA. Windows, SC2, Steam, WoW, many other MMOs etc. I think everyone here has at some point. I always feel like there is the chance it could come back to bite me in the ass, but luckily I have been safe so far.

I just was making sure that you were aware of the other parts of the lawsuit that have more traction, like selling the hacks and using proprietary code.

Understood. As much as I love Valve and Steam (obviously lol), I really am waiting AND hoping that someone takes Valve to court one of these days over their ability to disable ones ENTIRE account due to one chargeback or an issue with ONE purchase. I find those rules extremely objectionable.

 

[etiolate]

Some people take honest to god pleasure in rape and murder. We should just bend the law for those people because the constitution defends our right in the pursuit of happiness.

The point is: They're making an example of these hackers. It's their network, and they have the right to control it in the way they see fit. It does not give anyone the right to modify and change it (and then use their network) just because it's "most enjoyable for them".

I disagree with you completely.

You just compared modding to rape and murder, and missed the point as well.

Double Stars for you.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

You just compared modding to rape and murder, and missed the point as well.

Double Stars for you.

I'm thinking most people ignored his post because, well, its worthy to be ignored. Its posts like that that make me think GAF needs to have a common sense test before your account is approved.

 

[ZealousD]

YES. I DO.

And screw you for falling into that retarded bit of corporate propaganda aimed at stealing our rights.

Look, I prefer it whenever I actually purchase a game rather than license it too. But facts are facts. PC games are under a license. You agree to a license whenever you punch that button that says "I Agree" during game installation. The courts know the difference.

It's one of the reasons I'm vocally against a 100% DD future, because that moves us away from purchasing games and we'll all end up licensing everything.

 

[Interfectum]

etoilet, you manage to shit up the WoW threads, the SC2 threads and generally any and all Blizzard threads. Guess what, we get it... Blizzard sux. You win. Triple stars for you.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Its posts like that that make me think GAF needs to have a common sense test before your account is approved.

Why do you want to kill GAF?