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.

JRC- Fine. Troll I am. Dismiss me all you want. I will no longer participate in your discussions. Thanks for the hospitality. Who says the Internet is not a wonderful place for intelligent and courteous discourse?

Consider for a moment.. a moment.. that you are a pompous ass.


Cory and Theory, Thanks again for sharing your opinions, although I disagree with them, and taking the time to talk with me. It was fun. But not enough fun to put up with people like JRC.

I'm with Ulrika. www.xenu.net shows up fourth in a search for "scientology" at 1:50am PST 3/22/02.

personally I think there should be a doctrine of first sale, where if it can be shown to an arbitrator(note not a court) that party B is receiving monetary benefit from works somehow derived from the works of party A, then party A has the right to receive a percentage, chosen by the arbitrator, or the monies earned by party B. Then do away with older copyright, in other words, you can make a porno film of mickey and minnie and Disney can't stop you, they can just get a share of your profits.
Aside from that, I wonder if the scientologists will go after the wayback machine and if they do, what then?!

Too bad btrost dropped off this discussion. Given his (or her)interpretation of copyright law and the concept of intellectual property, I'd be interested in hearing what he (or she) thinks about fantasy rpgs, such as say... oh, I don't know, maybe Everquest, which are based on the intellectual property of the Tolkien estate. You can argue that Tolkien's work was based on northern european folklore, which obviously no one owns the rights to. However, Everquest's concept of "Halflings" is clearly based on Hobbits, which are an original "invention" of Tolkien. Jesus! He even calls Hobbits "Halflings" at some points in his copyrighted works. So did Everquest secure permission from the Tolkien estate to include Halflings in their game?

Edited by author 03-22-2002 12:01 PM
Btrost: In order not to dismiss you as a troll, all I requested was that you actually address some of the isues being raised, by Cory and Theory at the time, although Cletus raises a great point as well.
I do not believe that "opinion" is sancrosanct, nor do I believe that everyone has "a right to his or her opinion." I believe that everyone has a right to his or her informed opinion.
I do not find it difficult to respect those I disagree with, as long as they are able to justify and explain their beliefs well.
Lastly, I apologize for the percieved pomposity of my previous post, but I also recognize that none of the issues I raised have been actually addressed by you. Furthermore, you've had no problem characterizing those who disagree with you (and agree with the law and the US Constitution) as naive at best and willing pirates and thieves at worst.

No hard feelings, either, btrost. A better example, though, is what if someone like Isaac Asimov invents the idea of a Galactic Civilization in decline, and a number of science fiction writers use that as the
"foundation" (heh) of their works?

Or, better still, what if someone decides to re-tell Gone With the Wind from the slaves' point of view, call it "Wind Done Gone," and have their right to do that affirmed in a court of law?

Or what if Robert A Heinlein decides to write a bunch of books with L Frank Baum characters in them?

Or what if Geoff Ryman wants to write "Was," and win the World Fantasy Award for a novel that uses Oz characters and L. Frank Baum?