wormed said:
Blame the person creating bots or blame the company for not providing adequate regulation and protection against bots?
... seriously, is there really a question which is right? Billion dollar company going after an individual is disgusting and perpetuates corporate control over what is "right" and what is "wrong." I guess all of you have never used a torrent program or any other program that allows you to download illegal software? Derp.
Use the tissue in your skulls, people.
A) Individuals, small companies, or billion dollar companies, all of them, get to identify what is right or wrong . . . for the venues they have worked to provide for others.
B) As to the idea "billion dollar" companies should be providing infallible protection against bots or malicious "hacking": They aren't responsible for babysitting every dipshit on the internet, and no security measures of any kind, in any industry segment, is 100% effective 100% of all times. They only have to be reasonable.
So, the locks on your front door, or on your car, are a complete joke to a pro (or forceful) intruder. It'll hardly slow them down. But, my guess is ya'll make sure your "ineffective / useless" locks are working, and engaged every night.
Of course that isn't the end of the story is it? If someone DOES jimmy their way past those locks . . . they get in trouble if caught.
Because the CONSEQUENCES of intentionally bypassing those measures and known regulations against bypassing those measures is a functioning part of the security measures themselves in the form of, well, consequence, thus a deterrent that transfers out to the front end, full circle, to the next nitwit looking to pop a lock.
He/she has a tendency to think twice or thrice knowing "the ban hammer" is hovering nearby.
Blizzard should win this in SPECTACULAR fashion, without question, and tracing it's way to all parties involved in producing and marketing the tools.
Because from my perspective as a gamer, not only is it the right thing, it's only going to improve my gaming experience across the board.
[quote="Torval"]They should be held responsible, but not solely to blame. The users of the software are culpable as well.
The botting software isn't bad in and of itself. Selling it for use to cheat at the expense of other paying customers and the possible financial loss to the company is, or should be. I'm not a lawyer so that would be an interesting answer to find out.
Sometimes the creator of something used to do harm is partly responsible and sometimes they are not. Maybe intent has a lot to do with that.
I think the gun analogy doesn't fit well here. For one they have non-criminal uses. Another point is that some people believe the manufacturer should be held partly responsible. Finally a merchant irresponsibly providing that firearm could be held responsible. In the case of this software and how it's sold is on shaky legal ground at best, if not outright illegal.[/quote]
Your logic is at odds. Take a look at "The botting software isn't bad in and of itself" versus "I think the gun analogy doesn't fit well here. For one they have non-criminal uses."
Given the botting software in question was created for the exclusive purpose of inappropriately bypassing legitimate modes of game play as determined by the owner of said game . . . it has no legitimate purpose in the game. Therefore, yes, the botting software in and of itself, along with the sale and use of it, is "bad".
It has no legitimate purpose, and the distributors / users know this, go read their forums and note all the attention repeatedly given to the topic " . . . but can I be detected using it ? " (/palmface)
To make this a little clearer to all the Gerbilkins out there:
Excel is a great software tool, which might be used by an embezzler to steal money from an employer. Excel however, in and of itself, isn't "bad".
A program intended to infect an organization and wipe data off servers however, was designed for only one purpose . . . and is therefore "bad". In and of itself.
"Blizzard’s business
depends upon its games being enjoyable and balanced for players of all
skill levels, and Blizzard expends a massive amount of time and money to
ensure that this is the case. " So, you spend a massive amount of time and money on a game that is so repetitive a bot can play it....
Then there is this:
In creating and distributing the Bots, Enright has engaged in
numerous acts of copyright infringement. He also has knowingly and
intentionally violated the limited license he entered into with Blizzard
pursuant to which he obtained access to the Blizzard Games, and he has
encouraged and induced others to do the same. Enright knows that his
conduct is unlawful and is causing ongoing harm to Blizzard. For that
reason, he ha s carefully sought to conceal his identity, operating only
through his alias “Apoc.” He also has cautioned users of the Bots that
Blizzard is “scanning” for his software and thus he will continually
modify the Bots to avoid detection by Blizzard.
This implies that the EULA and ToS are already 100% tested in court and cannot be challenged. Effectively telling the court how to do it's job.
I hope MMORPG follows this one.
Although - expect it to be quietly settled out of court.
Comments
Blame the person creating bots or blame the company for not providing adequate regulation and protection against bots?
... seriously, is there really a question which is right? Billion dollar company going after an individual is disgusting and perpetuates corporate control over what is "right" and what is "wrong." I guess all of you have never used a torrent program or any other program that allows you to download illegal software? Derp.
Use the tissue in your skulls, people.
A) Individuals, small companies, or billion dollar companies, all of them, get to identify what is right or wrong . . . for the venues they have worked to provide for others.
B) As to the idea "billion dollar" companies should be providing infallible protection against bots or malicious "hacking": They aren't responsible for babysitting every dipshit on the internet, and no security measures of any kind, in any industry segment, is 100% effective 100% of all times. They only have to be reasonable.
So, the locks on your front door, or on your car, are a complete joke to a pro (or forceful) intruder. It'll hardly slow them down. But, my guess is ya'll make sure your "ineffective / useless" locks are working, and engaged every night.
Of course that isn't the end of the story is it? If someone DOES jimmy their way past those locks . . . they get in trouble if caught.
Because the CONSEQUENCES of intentionally bypassing those measures and known regulations against bypassing those measures is a functioning part of the security measures themselves in the form of, well, consequence, thus a deterrent that transfers out to the front end, full circle, to the next nitwit looking to pop a lock.
He/she has a tendency to think twice or thrice knowing "the ban hammer" is hovering nearby.
Blizzard should win this in SPECTACULAR fashion, without question, and tracing it's way to all parties involved in producing and marketing the tools.
Because from my perspective as a gamer, not only is it the right thing, it's only going to improve my gaming experience across the board.
Wherever you go, there you are.
It's the proper step in the right direction.
Wherever you go, there you are.
Wherever you go, there you are.
I wouldn't count on Blizzard winning though.
"Blizzard’s business depends upon its games being enjoyable and balanced for players of all skill levels, and Blizzard expends a massive amount of time and money to ensure that this is the case. "
So, you spend a massive amount of time and money on a game that is so repetitive a bot can play it....
Then there is this:
This implies that the EULA and ToS are already 100% tested in court and cannot be challenged.
Effectively telling the court how to do it's job.
I hope MMORPG follows this one.
Although - expect it to be quietly settled out of court.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.