A profoundly stupid case about video game cheating could transform adblocking into a copyright infringement
https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/29/faithful-user-agents/#hard-cases-make-bad-copyright-law
A profoundly stupid case about video game cheating could transform adblocking into a copyright infringement
https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/29/faithful-user-agents/#hard-cases-make-bad-copyright-law
So in the 2002 suit against bnetd, “Blizzard sued them for analyzing software they’d paid for, while it was running on their own computers.” …
Now:
and:
And Cory says all this to convince the public to reject Intellectual Property rights as a form of “rent” which he equates to dangerous feudalism.
I can’t argue him. In the cases cited in the piece, his complaints seem valid. On the other hand, I feel like there has to be a case for saying that if you, say, try to fix your iPhone yourself and botch it badly, Apple doesn’t have to honor a warranty. The tricky part is whether they would have any grounds to terminate your service or stop running some software because … oh, maybe some security feature can no longer be verified or something. The only case for that which pops to mind is if you hacked it to copy/relay the identity of other phones such that you were stealing from other people – which is already a crime, but you’d want a way to stop it immediately rather than rely on the hope someone catches the perpetrator.
Does that mean that NAT is copywriter infringement?
Your client connects to their server via a home router.
The server replies with a packet. The packet is rewritten by the router so it can reach the client.
Doubtful since NAT is a service with multiple RFCs defining various methodologies for mapping. That is: software expects NATing. Software expects IPs, ports, etc. to get redirected. I guess if you wrote your own NAT service that did not conform to RFC standards, it might be considered a modification of the original intent, but I suspect the issue would have to be with changes to packet data rarther than the header… now try explaining that to a copyright judge – because I bet some will choose to not understand.
Sure changing something you own might create a derivative work, but isn’t that totally fine if you don’t try to commercialise that output? Like I can “improve” a painting I own all I want, creating derivative works, but that’s allowed unless I try to sell them afaik.