Overgearing a fight in order to beat it before more difficult mechanics come into play is not the same as jumping over the fence in AB and capping before the other team can or lifting the fog of war in SCII so you can see what the opponent is doing.

If we were talking about a completely offline game where cheating had no effect on others I would agree with you. But everything about SCII is competitive including the achievements in single player.


I believe he is talking about using a remote control car to reset the fight or using vanish/fd etc to bug the Hadronox achievement.

And yes I just linked to an image on another site in a discussion about copyright.

Which should be perfectly legitimate, as you aren't making a copy of the image, you're merely pointing to it.

As your attorney, I advise you to drink heavily.

You should listen to him, he's pre-med.

I do have major qualms about them bending copyright law to the breaking point in order to set a horrible precedent because they're butthurt over some guys breaking their game. Copyright was never meant to be used in that way, and it's a shame that they're trying to do so.

If you take the point of view that the game as a whole is a work of art and that others are profiting off it without the artist's consent, I'd say that's exactly what copyright law is meant to cover. The fact that they have to bend / reinterpret things in order to say that just points out that copyright law has a long way to go to catch up to the the facts of computer stored and generated art and an appropriate interpretation of fair use of it.

But twisting the law like they do to claim that the guys who programmed the hack violated Copyright? That's downright disgusting.


I was going to stay out of this now that it's really gotten going but.....


I personally feel that the way that society (especially younger society) looks at copyrights is disgusting. While I wouldn't say that I'd do the same thing in Blizzard's place, I really can't be convinced that they've gone too far. How else can you protect yourself from an entire generation that feels entitled to everything anyone has ever worked on.

I could go on and on about this because I see parallels between it and the movie and music industries (which I am very passionate about). I'll just say that I try not to criticize people that do things that I find objectionable until they bitch about being caught.

I do have major qualms about them bending copyright law to the breaking point in order to set a horrible precedent because they're butthurt over some guys breaking their game. Copyright was never meant to be used in that way, and it's a shame that they're trying to do so.

Usually this sort of stuff sits in my craw as well. And I see how Blizz's lawyers are bending this in a very, very strange way... but at the same time I think they are trying to make something that "ought to be illegal" and making it fit the best they can. It becomes the throw it at the wall and see what sticks, method of lawyering... "Lets see what we can get the judge to accept into the courtroom."

You know the same thing happened back-in-the-day with Napster and RIAA. If you read the copyright agreements on VHS tapes circa 1997 and earlier they clearly say that you may not redistribute for commercial use or monetary gain or whatever the exact words were. Post 1999ish the copywrite law was (very quietly) rewritten to prohibit copying of the material at all... because the RIAA lobbyists got to congress and exclaimed how bad it was going to be when the entire music industry was brought to the ground...

This was actually an interesting bit of discussion in my prior job in a Computer Crimes unit. The definition of "Piracy" changed and the cops had to adapt to it, too.

And really, ever since then, judges have been very, very, very liberal in identifying what is considered the violation of IP related laws, especially when it comes to any form of electronic media.

Also,

I personally feel that the way that society (especially younger society) looks at copyrights is disgusting.

I agree with this. The entitlement of youth is something that pisses me off to no-end. But the other side of the coin is that the new-way prohibits innocent copying as well as malicious copying, and I think that's a bit of a stretch.

For instance, in the States, prior to the change in the wording of Copyright, I could make a tape with a few songs from other albums I own and give them to my girlfriend and it was all cute and sweet, and romantic. Now its a violation of copyright law and I could be fined... seems a little strange huh?

My favorite part of the above paragraph, though, is that wedding planning materials still encourage you to "make a mix CD for your wedding guests of the songs you played at your wedding..." or Baby shower gift ideas to "Make a mix CD of songs about sons/daughters..." (Which my mom of course made and handed it out to all of my computer crime buddies when they came to the baby shower... Obviously, even the law thinks some of these things are a bit silly...)

dont even get me started on the music industry Fren.... every pop song out there would be stricken for the creative use and sampling of someone else's material. Are games different? Music is art and so far no one has classified games as Art (so far.)

Well, now we could just start going into a huge long debate over the purpose of copyright. Is it to protect content creators (and content owners, two different things), as the courts have made it over the past while with the extensions to copyright law, or is it to promote progress, as the founding fathers of the United States expressed in their constitution, or is it best used as a way to control markets, as the original copyright under the Statute of Anne in Britain allowed? Heck, we could even discuss how often copyright is used these days as a form of censorship.

But.... if we did that, I wouldn't get any work done this afternoon and this thread would balloon out of control.

Where's that drink Rastus was talking about?

Music is art and so far no one has classified games as Art (so far.)

I absolutely disagree with this statement. Go open WoW and look at that intro Cinematic again. Go look at Negrand, or Grizzly Hills, or even walk around in Ironforge or Orgrimar and tell me that all of the textures and modeling that were done by countless designers is not art.

But, art is protected under Intellectual Property laws in many ways, so either way video games, paintings, and written books can all be protected under many of the same legal rulings.

(I'm actually surprised they aren't trying to say that these "hacks" are unauthorized "derivative works." The argument for derivative works has been very, very successful in the direction of the creators lately and I think it would probably even be a more user-friendly sell...)

I absolutely disagree with this statement.

You can disagree all you want, but AFAIK, the courts have yet to recognize video games as an art form. Which is probably one of the reasons why Blizzard is having to use the convoluted reasoning it is.

honestly wow is pretty but it isnt beautiful. Go play the newest greatest final fantasy thats beautiful. not so great to play but its dripping with beauty.

The question is not whether WE think there is art involved, but the legality of it.

honestly wow is pretty but it isnt beautiful. Go play the newest greatest final fantasy thats beautiful. not so great to play but its dripping with beauty.

Arguing what is and isn't beautiful is only going to get you in trouble, WW. :)
And if you're trying to use beauty to justify whether something is art, that'll get you in even more trouble.

look man just cause you are a cake fan doesnt mean you can pull that elitest my frosting is better than yours crap. Or that frosting is in the eye of the beholder! RUBBISH :) now wheres that jack and coke?

Why would you put frosting in someone's eye? It sounds painful and unsanitary.

As opposed to other places you can put frosting which are much more....
Um....

So how about that copyright law stuff? What's up with THAT?

Well, you see, the Statute of Frosting says that a limited term squishy goodness encourages innovation by conferring chocolate squeezed on to...

Ah crap

This is where a lot of people make the mistake. Read your EULA sometime. You will find you did not buy the program (game or otherwise). You bought a license to install and use the program as it was presented to you. Even your operating system works that way. You don't own it. You own the right to use it on one computer. At least most EULA's are written this way. It is how the software companies protect their intellectual property. If they actually sold you the program, you would be right in believing it was yours to do with as you please, including reverse engineering it if you wanted. By only selling the right to use it, they can sue your ass if you try to alter it in a way they don't like. Then they can take your ideas an incorporate them in the next version. :)

Edited to add: Just realized I posted this after only reading the first page of 5... LOL Sorry if I repeated anything already pointed out....

Heh, no problem Ahn. It did get long and convoluted. I just have one question about your explanation... where does the frosting fit in?