Flat out, Scientology sucks. Those folks spook the hell out of me. I'll be sure to blog about them later tonight and include links to any dirt I can, hopefully I can think of a way to include the words "Britney Spears" in the story, so as to better entice google searchers...lol. I only get about forty hits a day but if just one googler gets the idea that Scientology is stupid, that's good enough for me. :)

Edited by author 03-21-2002 06:49 PM
"They have forced Google to remove from its database links to materials that the Church claims are infringing."

after reading the section of the dmca in question, this sounds like complete bullshit to me! so all anyone has to do is write a letter that meets certain legal requirements to force someone/thing to stop exposing people to a third party's (supposed) copyright infringement? my first question was - "don't they have to prove xenu was infringing to begin with?" but i guess that is answered by the fact that without google, xenu would just be a word of mouth site. so in effect the exposure that google gives along with the fact that they cache the (supposed) infringing materials makes google a contributory infringer. it still doesn't sound right though.

i'm disappointed that google didn't call the bluff. from what i've read, the church has had ample time and opportunity to sue xenu in the past and has not. what are the chances that they would actually take this to court? google has now shown they can be bullied. on the other hand, if they had gone to court and lost, it would be devastating to the service. what's the difference between this and a "i hate pepsi" (with the corporate logo and literature) site coming up higher in the ranks than pepsi.com? what about being able to search servers for mp3's? without a definitive ruling, google is not knowingly breaking the law and can continue in somewhat normal operation by dealing with issues on a case by case basis. i wish someone would challenge this though. there should be some kind of proof/judgment required that the original material infringes copyright.

Clearly I'm not understanding what "pulled their links"
means in practical terms, since, when I google either
"Scientology" or "Operation Clambake," I get hits on
the Operation Clambake site. Color me confused.

Um. Innovation typically does not require the theft of the intellectual property of someone else. If the bnetd guys want to innovate instead of steal they should write their own damn client. To say that they are doing nothing wrong is like saying the locksmith who let the burglar into your house played no part in the theft of your tv.

Actually, all tech innovation involves working from the inventions of those who came before you. Viz. Isaac Newton and "shoulders of giants."
Your locksmith analogy is badly flawed. It's more like saying that someone who makes a better keymaking machine for your loss-leader lock where you make all the money on a proprietary keying system is "stealing from you."
If I make a mailserver that interoperates with Outlook, but doesn't crash and filters virii, am I "stealing" from MSFT by giving consumers an alternative to Exchange Server?

Yes. If your mailserver directly builds on MSFT technology and they have not provided you a license to do so you are stealing from MSFT. If you were "standing on the shoulders of giants" you would create your own COMPLETE technological solution and spend a good chunk of your profits defending your products from the people who will steal from you and claim they are "innovating". I am all for building a better mousetrap. The problem with that is that stealing is cheaper and easier.

What good is the "innovative" bnetd without the client that was developed and licensed to you by Blizzard?

Btrost, I'm sorry you feel that way. It's a very interesting and unusual position to take, one that is at odds with the historical and Constitutional basis of intellectual property. With that attitude, a car vendor who also controlled gasoline distribution could enjoin others from making gas-powered cars. More ot the point, the Internet wouldn't exist if everyone were required to either a) get permission before extending someone else's technology or b) invent complete, end-to-end solutions.

The Doctrine of First Sale says that I can do what I want with your technology after I buy it from you. There are limits -- such as those imposed by copyright (can't copy your code), trademark (can't trade on your name), and patent (can't use your original and substantial inventions) law -- but those limits are the exception, not the rule.

The right to reverse-engineer and interoperate has been universally good for technology, consumers and vendors, starting with the suppliers who made interoperable IO devices for IBMs mainframes (after winning that right in court) and continuing to today, as tachnologists reverse-engineer Microsoft's deliberately obfuscated document formats and ship
word-processors, spreadsheets and presentation engines that can itneroperate with their documents.

The key here is "The Doctrine of First Sale says that I can do what I want with your technology after I buy it from you."

Purchase the technology from Microsoft. Do with it what you will. Innovate to your heart's content. Just remember to do that first part. Maybe I missed the part where the bnetd guys purchased Battlenet client technology from Blizzard? Sorry, buying a copy of Starcraft IS NOT purchasing said technology.

You misunderstand. Having bought and paid for the client CD, bnet was free to reverse-engineer it and make a new, better server (an important point -- bnetd has more features and is more stable than the Blizzard server, IOW, it is better for gamers, an almost unviersal outcome of reverse engieering).
Just as the people who made new, unauthorized peripherals for IBM mainframes in the 60s didn't have to license the mainframe from IBM (a license IBM never would have granted, given their stake in expensive aftermarket peripherals).

No one is asserting that the targets of the bnetd takedown didn't buy their copies of the game.

No. You misunderstand. Having bought and paid for the client CD they were free to paint said CD blue, add mag wheels to it, or fling it against the wall. Buying most software gives the user free will to do what they will with the media, not the content, which is only to be used in a manner consistent with the license agreement for that software. Technology theft and piracy IS NOT good for gamers or anyone else except the pirates and thieves. If there is no legitimate money to be made in software development, legitimate software development will stop. Good luck getting tech support and timely upgrades from Bobby the Hacker.

Brost, case law, the Constitution and copyright law does not support your position on the Doctrine of First Sale. You are simply wrong.

As far as "Bobby Hacker" supporting software, I think you'll find that there's a wealth of hacker-supported software, from Apache to shareware apps.

I must have missed that "Every citizen shall have the right to plagiarize, counterfeit and steal." Article to the Constitution. I will just assume you never intend on making a living as a programmer, artist, musician, or author as your twisted view of "consumer rights" places your rights to steal their work above their right to earn an honest living plying their trade. I am neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional historian, but I do know the difference between right and wrong. But I wish you luck. Keep sticking it to the man. I could care less whether you personally pirate or hack or turn in someone else's homework. Just be honest about what you are really doing. And don't try to pretend it is the "right thing." The "right thing" is harder to do than that, and the people who do it deserve ALL the credit and reward. I am sorry if I come off like an ass but this is a battle that artists have been fighting for centuries.

Well, I guess I should do my research before I post. I see that you are indeed a professional author which makes me understand your position on this even less.

Look at it this way:
Suppose Blizzard had never created battle.net, and these guys had come along and written, out of the clear blue, a server that did everything their server now does. Would that have been infringing?
Clearly, no...all their copies of Starcraft would have been purchased legally, they just would have put together a way for them to talk to each other. You're allowed to do that with your property.
Now...and this is the tricky part...the fact that Blizzard DID write a server intended for just such communication doesn't change the situation at all. Just because they wrote it doesn't mean nobody else is allowed to.
Sure, nobody's allowed to steal Blizzard's code, but that's not even being alleged (I believe), and as long as you write the whole thing yourself (or design and construct it yourself, in terms of meatspace inventions), it's perfectly legitimate to create a "new something" that mimics the function of an "old something".
That's why the distinction between reverse engineering and copywrite infringement is so important. One is a clever act of invention, the other is theft.

Ok ok.. My button is pressed for some reason tonight.. and I am in 5th-gear smartass overdrive..

Let’s pretend for a moment that the Xerox machine didn't exist. I have now invented a machine that’s ONLY function is to duplicate the Collected Literary Works of Cory Doctorow. Not only does it duplicate his writings exactly but it ACTUALLY IMPROVES the writing in a few places. So I go down to my local bookshop and purchase my one copy of Mr. Doctorow's life's work hot off the press, after all, the pre-release buzz has been incredible!! I then make my improved version of his tome for all my friends using my incredible machine. Opps. I broke the law here... well... only if we are all reading at once, so I will make sure that doesn't happen. Wink wink. You know, this thing is so great, I bet everyone would like to only buy one copy and then maybe they will have as low of morals as I do and will give everyone they know a copy for free. My version of his book IS better. Hell, I am doing them a favor! So I then stand near the bookshop and make sure everyone who buys a copy knows they can use my incredible machine for free to crank out as many books as they would like. It is a good thing Mr. Doctorow doesn't care about material things or he might think I am doing something wrong. It really is a shame he had to get a job at the docks to feed his family.. I mean EVERYONE is reading his book. Tisk tisk.

Ok.. enough for one night. I said my piece.. No hard feelings Cory. I really enjoy your posts to Boing Boing.

Btrost, I really don't see you actually addressing any of Cory's points. I get the feeling that you don't think of yourself as a troll, but it's difficult not to dismiss you as such.
You admit that you are neither a lawyer, nor a consitutional historian, however your ignorance in these areas does not excuse you from dealing with arguments based on law and the constitution.
You posit straw-man hypotheticals in order to attack Cory's position, while ignoring the actual REAL-WORLD cases which support it.

Consider for a moment...a moment...that perhaps you lack a basic comprehension of the issue. Consider that perhaps Cory, a professional author, has not taken up a position so very antithetical to artistic creation as you believe.