Re: Blizzard v. Glider v. Public Knowledge

> From: Matthew J. Agnello
> 
>Let me address Parker and Crosbie's comments about the game first.

I don't think you address mine.  

>People play the game for many reasons. Some play to advance skillfully  
>or quickly, others play to test their skill against other players, and  
>still others play to explore the game world or test and manipulate the  
>underlying game rules. Many play purely for the social aspect, which  
>is as rich and rewarding as a chat room, a forum, a mailing list, or a  
>coffee house conversation.

I haven't made any point to the contrary.

>The game is one with simple rules and complex outcomes, and to  
>generalize the varied motivations for why someone would play is to run  
>into gross inaccuracies.

I haven't made any generalisation as to why someone would play Warcraft.

>Computer scientists solved the game of  
>checkers several years ago, yet no one is ashamed to play the game,  
>one where a sufficiently advanced algorithm could always, always beat  
>you. As Fred mentioned, all games are rule based, and so are robots,  
>so to criticize a game because a robot could excel is to fail to  
>understand many things about the complexities of human nature and the  
>purpose of AI.

I haven't criticised Warcraft. I haven't even criticised it as a game
because a robot could excel at it (or even assist play in it).

I've tried to briefly (because I appreciate people don't like to discuss
issues tangential to free culture) point out that the provider of a
networked game cannot expect to prevent players utilising computer
assistance for those (typically 'monotonous') aspects of gameplay that do
not require intelligence. Just as a record label cannot expect to prevent
purchasers of CDs making copies for their MP3 players.

I have not questioned players' reasons for playing Warcraft, only alluded to
the motivation of those using computer assistance, which is either because
they don't find the mechanical aspects sufficiently amusing or probably that
they hope to sell/exchange the completed mechanical labour to those who also
don't find the mechanical aspects sufficiently amusing (but who don't have
the computer assistance to hand).

>Likewise, the question of playing the game has nothing to do with free  
>culture and even less to do with copyright law.

But you thought'd you'd slip in a few paragraphs about that question anyway?


Games are cultural works.

Publishers of those games are interested in controlling the use of their
works, even desiring the ability to control what players get up to in the
privacy of their own homes.

What we see here is that no man made law can overcome natural law. If people
want to engage in cultural exchange, or to build upon published works, or to
freely interact with publicly accessible works, they will. You can't create
laws such as copyright to contradict this, nor can you con people into
believing that they agreed to a contract surrendering their freedom to do so
("because you opened the shrink wrap").

Of course, the providers of a publicly accessible service can deny service
as they wish (as long as they do not engage in unfair discrimination), but
they have no right to penalise someone (whether for automating their use of
the service or anything else). Certainly not for breaking the terms of a
EULA they didn't necessarily agree to, nor for infringing copyright (a
copyright owner must be guilty of fraud or entrapment if the proposed use of
a copy they sell involves unauthorised copies such that its copyright is
infringed - the sale is of the copy for the use it provides which must
implicitly permit intermediate/incidental ephemeral copies).

I wrote a bit about the abuse of licenses here:
http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=84