Blizzard sues StarCraft II hack developers

[Crispy]

Shortly after suspending or banning some 5,000 players for cheating on StarCraft II, Blizzard has sued individuals responsible for creating the hacks. The company has filed suit against three programmers known by the handles "Permaphrost," "Cranix," and "Linuxawesome," accusing them of developing and selling hacks for StarCraft II in violation of license agreements and copyright law.

Blizzard's suit claims that the defendants developed, marketed and distributed a variety of hacks for StarCraft II only days after launch -- though we imagine most if not all carried over from the beta. "On the very day that StarCraft II was released, representatives of the hacks Web site advised members of the public that 'our staff is already planning new releases for this game'," said the filing.

Besides the obvious violation of Blizzard's user agreements, the company accused the defendants of inducing copyright infringement. "When users of the Hacks download, install and use the Hacks, they copy StarCraft II copyrighted content into their computer's RAM in excess of the scope of their limited license, as set forth in the EULA and ToU, and create derivative works of StarCraft II."

Blizzard claims the harm from the hack creators is "immediate, massive and irreparable," damaging the value of StarCraft II and wrecking the fun of legit players. That apparently translates to lost sales, especially in future content, such as the two upcoming expansions for StarCraft II. We're not sure how much Blizzard seeks in compensation, but the company bagged $6m in a similar WoW suit.

Source: Blizzard sues StarCraft II hack developers - TechSpot News

 

[mckillwashere]

Reasons like that = Why I got out of piracy/cracking.

 

[DarkScorpion]

Blizzard is a horrible company now anyways, since they got merged with Activision, they just Sue people for sh!t reasons, and charge you money monthly to play their games. That's why I WILL NEVER BUY AND PLAY a Blizzard game EVER again. MY REASON IS NOT BECAUSE OF HACKS... Blizzard is just Spewing Excuses to make money.

 

[mckillwashere]

Blizzard is a horrible company now anyways, since they got merged with Activision, they just Sue people for sh!t reasons, and charge you money monthly to play their games. That's why I WILL NEVER BUY AND PLAY a Blizzard game EVER again. MY REASON IS NOT BECAUSE OF HACKS... Blizzard is just Spewing Excuses to make money.

I want you to spend a little over half a billion dollars developing a video game or any software, find out there is a day one activation hack.... Wouldn't you press charges as well?

 

[sygnus21]

I want you to spend a little over half a billion dollars developing a video game or any software, find out there is a day one activation hack.... Wouldn't you press charges as well?

Agreed.

 

[GeorgeB]

Blizzard is a very good company that writes good games. They spend a lot of money and time
creating these games.

They are right to sue and stop this illegal activity from happening.

 

[lorddenis]

Blizzard is a horrible company now anyways, since they got merged with Activision, they just Sue people for sh!t reasons, and charge you money monthly to play their games. That's why I WILL NEVER BUY AND PLAY a Blizzard game EVER again. MY REASON IS NOT BECAUSE OF HACKS... Blizzard is just Spewing Excuses to make money.

I want you to spend a little over half a billion dollars developing a video game or any software, find out there is a day one activation hack.... Wouldn't you press charges as well?

well im not sure but i think more than half of the money used to create a game goes into making it "hack proof" so the one who dont buy the game cant play it.

but lets be honest there is no way any expensive countermeasure will hold. i think i read a while back that after 3 years the protection on playstation 3 feel.

my advice dont use the money on somthing that will eventualy break. make the game with out it cheaper...sell it for less and more will buy it...

and besides do they think they will get the money they are suing for ? its not like they have that kind of money in ther pigs. i mean the ones where you put moeny it.. well atlest when you where litlle...

 

[madtownidiot]

I hope it ends up going to a judge with enough common sense to rule that when you pay for something you own it.

 

[mickey megabyte]

hang on, is the article about cracking or hacking?

it mentions the word 'cheating' rather than 'pirating', so i reckon hacking.

hackers (who cheat at the game) are a far lower form of life than crackers (who don't pay for the game).

 

[sygnus21]

I hope it ends up going to a judge with enough common sense to rule that when you pay for something you own it.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but you "never" own "software" someone else created. What companies are doing is selling you a license to use a "copy" of the software. Note the key word being "copy" - meaning the company maintains the sole source (original).

The other keyword is "license" - which is saying you can use our software provided you abide by our rules, basically the EULA agreement.

In short you’re paying is a licensing fee to use said software, and you obviously you can’t use the software without a "copy"

So when someone has copy of the software without paying the licensing fee, it’s considered theft. Sort of like someone having a copy of your social security number and using it without your permission.

My two cents

 

[mckillwashere]

In gaming
A hack is something in game(like cheats), cracking is creating a "crack" that lets you bypass activation, private servers etc.

I reread and it is in terms of whats this is over its hacking. Either way it removes from the value of gameplay, and well as the reputation behind the game.

I have had the misfortune of playing against several of these "hacks" and it made me stop playing online.....

 

[madtownidiot]

I hope it ends up going to a judge with enough common sense to rule that when you pay for something you own it.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but you "never" own "software" someone else created. What companies are doing is selling you a license to use a "copy" of the software. Note the key word being "copy" - meaning the company maintains the sole source (original).

The other keyword is "license" - which is saying you can use our software provided you abide by our rules, basically the EULA agreement.

In short you’re paying is a licensing fee to use said software, and you obviously you can’t use the software without a "copy"

So when someone has copy of the software without paying the licensing fee, it’s considered theft. Sort of like someone having a copy of your social security number and using it without your permission.

My two cents

I don't steal, pirate, or distribute copies of copyrighted software other than that licensed for free distribution, but regardless of what any eula says, I'll do whatever the h*ll I want to any software that's running on my computer. The concept that I'm only 'licensed" to use something I can't get a refund for, and that I don't have any right to improve it in any way for my own personal use is just as ridiculous as the idea of an architect telling me I don't actually own my house & I'm not allowed to remodel my kitchen. As far as I'm concerned, I'm only legally bound to whatever terms I agreed to when the vendor accepted my money, and nothing more.

 

[mckillwashere]

As far as I'm concerned, I'm only legally bound to whatever terms I agreed to when the vendor accepted my money, and nothing more.

Aren't you bound to the EULA for the item you are purchasing????

 

[Zidane24]

As much as I would love to believe that we should be able to do what we want with the software we pay for, thats not how life is and right now we can only bend over and take it as nothing in the near future is changing in that regards.

Arguing about it will not accomplish anything.

 

[madtownidiot]

As far as I'm concerned, I'm only legally bound to whatever terms I agreed to when the vendor accepted my money, and nothing more.

Aren't you bound to the EULA for the item you are purchasing????

Software companies seem to think so..

Do software vendors have a right to be compensated for every copy they sell? Yes. Do they have a right to be compensated by people who distribute copies of their software illegally? Absolutely. Is it wrong to create a hack or cheat for a game and distribute if it doesn't deprive the copyright holder of any money? Doubtful. Does a software vendor have a right to inspect my computer and tell me I'm wrong for modifying their product to make suit my purposes. Not A f'n chance.

Ever hear of bait and switch? EULAs basically amount to that.. a form of fraud. I don't agree to anything when I push that button, and neither do millions of other people. I'm just doing what has to be done to get what I paid for.

Most software purchases are non-refundable, but you don't have to agree to anything before they will accept your money. Therein lies the issue. What that means, IMO, any terms added AFTER the time of purchase have absolutely no legal standing. Its a basic legal concept that once terms of a purchase are agreed upon and the service is paid for, the purchaser is under no obligation to abide any further terms to get the service they paid for. Then there is the concept of ownership. Some people think End User License Agreements are artificially created legal hogwash that serve only to deprive the purchaser of the rights of ownership. I'm not a lawyer, but I know enough about the law to know when I'm being ripped off.

 

[mckillwashere]

The people the pressed charges against wrote a hack that manipulated there servers, the battle.net servers to give them an unfair advantage over the opposing players, hence why it was such a large issue. I am not condoning downloading illegal software or distributing it, but you have a greater change of getting busted if you are receiving than if you are sharing it... This is because if one person is sharing it the can bust everyone who downloads it, were if they bust the one person sharing it they can generate any more supplemental income... Its sad now when the expected revenue for a game also includes fines and fees for piracy and prosecutions.

 

[Trucidation]

Activision is the donkey's balls, but I don't get the outrage. They merely banned the users caught cheating (from their servers; it's not like you can't still play private games or singleplayer). The ones being sued, on the other hand, are the guys who created and sold the hacks.

What you do in the privacy of your own computer @ singleplayer is your own business. Multiplayer on the other hand is a different animal. Starcraft 2 comes with a comprehensive editor - have you guys seen it? You don't need to BUY these lameass hacks if you're just messing around for your personal enjoyment: the tools already built into the game let you do practically anything you want to. These hacks are purely for ruining multiplayer. And guess what, when you're playing multiplayer on Activision servers it's not just about you anymore. I may loathe Activision but they're just protecting the multiplayer experience. Cheat all you want in your singleplayer games, nobody cares. However, multiplayer cheaters are pond scum.

 

[madtownidiot]

Activision is the donkey's balls, but I don't get the outrage. They merely banned the users caught cheating (from their servers; it's not like you can't still play private games or singleplayer). The ones being sued, on the other hand, are the guys who created and sold the hacks.

What you do in the privacy of your own computer @ singleplayer is your own business. Multiplayer on the other hand is a different animal. Starcraft 2 comes with a comprehensive editor - have you guys seen it? You don't need to BUY these lameass hacks if you're just messing around for your personal enjoyment: the tools already built into the game let you do practically anything you want to. These hacks are purely for ruining multiplayer. And guess what, when you're playing multiplayer on Activision servers it's not just about you anymore. I may loathe Activision but they're just protecting the multiplayer experience. Cheat all you want in your singleplayer games, nobody cares. However, multiplayer cheaters are pond scum.

Well.. activision does have a right to determine how their own servers are used.. but if anyone is entitled to compensation in a lawsuit for the having their game ruined by cheaters that used hacks, the people who got cheated have just as much a stake in the lawsuit as activision, if not more, and should be entitled to refunds for anything for however much it cost for the multiplayer part of the game.. no clue how much that would be

 

[Crispy]

Blizzard is a horrible company now anyways, since they got merged with Activision, they just Sue people for sh!t reasons, and charge you money monthly to play their games. That's why I WILL NEVER BUY AND PLAY a Blizzard game EVER again. MY REASON IS NOT BECAUSE OF HACKS... Blizzard is just Spewing Excuses to make money.

Ya you can say that again, they do make good games but ever since WoW got brought in it just went to s*** after that.

 

[mckillwashere]

Well.. activision does have a right to determine how their own servers are used.. but if anyone is entitled to compensation in a lawsuit for the having their game ruined by cheaters that used hacks, the people who got cheated have just as much a stake in the lawsuit as activision, if not more, and should be entitled to refunds for anything for however much it cost for the multiplayer part of the game.. no clue how much that would be

When you sign up for the battle.net account it gives you a EULA stating what can and cannot be done on there servers and reason why they will ban you. They should net be refunded anything.