[April Fools] Hive Workshop Map Deprotection

[TD_PRO_2006]

There are a lot of reasons. Some people maybe don't want you to have their originally made resources imported there for example: models, music etc...

thats true, i understand. but I think as a "thank you" for using the insanely easy to use environment, that blizzards provides nearly for free to make your games, one could also do the same for other people in the community.
plus, one can have a certain amount of trust into other people not stealing your custom made resources.
other than that, isnt it a huuuge compliment by others towards you, in case they use the stuff that you made yourself? and you will see your stuff in others peoples visions. thats awesome.
and most of the time, at least thats what i have witnessed, people will credit you.

 

[A Void]

I was pointing out what I perceived to be fundamental flaws in your understanding of the license. Mainly, that in my opinion, world editor created files are not "derivative works" (they even have language later in the license stating creating derivative works of the "program" is not allowed), but "new materials".

Sure, picking at licenses is the job of lawyers, which is why I added that disclaimer in my post. However, we can at least attempt to read the license properly.

As for the no commercial use piece, that only prevents commercial use for "new materials" (which are created by the editor). As far as I can see, there is nothing in there that would prevent you from lifting all the original material you made in a map and moving it to one of your own projects.

I am just not seeing any of the typical language I would expect from a license that would try to lift rights from the user (such as things you would see in employment contracts, or in file sharing services / video services, social media, etc).

So why did Blizzard sue Valve over DOTA 2? Can you explain that?

 

[deepstrasz]

but I think as a "thank you" for using the insanely easy to use environment, that blizzards provides nearly for free to make your games, one could also do the same for other people in the community.

Key words right there.

plus, one can have a certain amount of trust into other people not stealing your custom made resources.

Sure, that's why they invent ways to break protection.

other than that, isnt it a huuuge compliment by others towards you, in case they use the stuff that you made yourself?

Not if you don't credit. Most people who have the intention to break in do it for selfish reasons.

and you will see your stuff in others peoples visions. thats awesome.

Maybe their vision isn't what you want, a blasphemy?

 

[Halo7568]

So why did Blizzard sue Valve over DOTA 2? Can you explain that?

I am not very familiar with the case, but quick searches seem to state that the situation there is basically a mess. As far as I can see, Blizzard's position was more along the lines of a trademark claim, where they stated that consumers could mistake DOTA 2 as being endorsed or associated with Blizzard due to DotA being associated with Warcraft III for so long. The situation becomes more interesting because there were several (at least three?) people who made a version of DotA in the game over time, and they all went on to do different things with their claim on the DotA they worked on.

I do not think Blizzard originally had any actual assigned legal ownership of DotA. Though I would not be surprised if they supported DotA in some way behind the scenes. If I recall correctly, when patch 1.24 hit for example, DotA still worked for a time. So perhaps there may be things the DotA maintainers accepted from Blizzard over time that I have no idea about. For a name and the value DotA brings, it is probably worth fighting for even if you do not have the legal certainty.

Yes, you can probably still lose a legal battle with Blizzard even if you have the so called right to whatever it is you are doing. Sadly this is a reality of the legal system, where things like patent trolling exist.

Edit: It looks like the people who worked on DotA previously had their claims bought up by either Blizzard or Valve and they were pitting these against each other. I find this situation to be very silly. In this case I guess they both had some claim to use DotA.

Also, it looks like the Valve and Blizzard stuff was settled already out of courts? Is there something they are still fighting over?

Edit 2: I briefly forgot that the new WC3 launcher and installer includes a new EULA (here Blizzard Entertainment:Blizzard End User License Agreement ) which includes this ( Blizzard Entertainment:StarCraft II Custom Game Acceptable Use Policy ). I amended my original post to reflect this.

In light of this, I would say you are correct that Blizzard does attempt to take ownership of things people create in the editors. This is kind of funny to look through. The World Editor license states that it is the sole license agreement and supersedes any other one, though it includes by reference the "Battle.net Terms of Use", which from the name looks like it refers to this: Blizzard Entertainment: Battle.net Terms of Use (Blizzard Entertainment: Battle.net Terms of Use for an older version) (with perhaps some modifications for the US version). This one does not seem to try to take sole ownership, but does attempt to take from the user a license to basically use created content however Blizzard desires, provided you use Battle.net. The Battle.net Terms of Use no longer seems to be in effect, and instead there is the Battle.net End User License Agreement, which does try to take sole ownership of custom games, and you need to agree to it to install newer versions of WC3.

From a cursory glance at some version of the agreement(s), older versions of the agreement(s) seem less restrictive than now with regards to this issue. I suppose, then, that the situation of any given map would depend on a variety of factors, such as the license at the time the map was created / last updated and whether the creator used Battle.net, and I guess if they updated and "agreed" to the new terms in the newest versions. And also whether or not these terms can be enforced in court. And perhaps even the country one resides in. And these things are meant to be read by users, heh.

I think the original license agreement shipped with the WE needs to be updated to reflect the changes on the online side of things.

Anyway, this is all very silly and tedious to sift through, so I will call it quits here. This is the job of lawyers after all, I suppose. Though at the end of the day, we have DOTA 2 and Valve owns it, so eh.

And to reiterate: I am not a lawyer and none of this is legal advice.

 

[TD_PRO_2006]

Key words right there.

Sure, that's why they invent ways to break protection.

Not if you don't credit. Most people who have the intention to break in do it for selfish reasons.

Maybe their vision isn't what you want, a blasphemy?

you seem to just try to find arguments against everything i say. You should take time and also agree on some things, as i am sure there are a few where you can do so

 

[A Void]

I think anyone who knows how to unprotect a map should be able to learn from it. Maps should be protected from newbies who don't know how to unprotect a map, it's like a test of sorts. Filtering out wrong people while letting those smart enough to find a way themselves.

There is no map that can't be unprotected, one way or another it will get cracked. The only benefit of map protection is to filter out people who can't unprotect it.

 

[TD_PRO_2006]

I think anyone who knows how to unprotect a map should be able to learn from it. Maps should be protected from newbies who don't know how to unprotect a map, it's like a test of sorts. Filtering out wrong people while letting those smart enough to find a way themselves.

There is no map that can't be unprotected, one way or another it will get cracked. The only benefit of map protection is to filter out people who can't unprotect it.

sounds good.

 

[deepstrasz]

Though I would not be surprised if they supported DotA in some way behind the scenes. If I recall correctly, when patch 1.24 hit for example, DotA still worked for a time.

Warcraft III - Maps - Map Contest

And to reiterate: I am not a lawyer and none of this is legal advice.

Let's start a crusade-thread for them to change the license agreement. All that sounds like intellectual theft while promoting their product.

you seem to just try to find arguments against everything i say. You should take time and also agree on some things, as i am sure there are a few where you can do so

Sure. If the author of a map wants to release an open source version, so be it, if not, life sucks for ya.

Filtering out wrong people while letting those smart enough to find a way themselves.

Smart thieves too?

 

[GhostWolf]

I think anyone who knows how to unprotect a map should be able to learn from it. Maps should be protected from newbies who don't know how to unprotect a map, it's like a test of sorts. Filtering out wrong people while letting those smart enough to find a way themselves.

There is no map that can't be unprotected, one way or another it will get cracked. The only benefit of map protection is to filter out people who can't unprotect it.

Because clearly corrupting files and injecting hacks is completely relevant to the average Warcraft 3 modder, and is a sign of any kind of relevant knowledge.

If you can open a protected map, it's most likely because someone else made a tool that you use (hint: zezula). Perhaps consider deprotecting manually, it's a test after all, no?
Indeed, don't use shared information for anything. First you have to reverse engineer arbitrary programs to prove that you are a human being capable of learning.
Also don't use the internet as the biggest and greatest repository of human knowledge, because you first need to figure out how TCP/IP works, how HTTP works, and so on.

The real question is whether you support DRM or not, and to what extent (it goes from simple CD keys, to complete virus-like programs).
Perhaps take a look at the cute DLL hacks the Chinese are using nowadays.

I don't know what happened to this community that from being about sharing information, everything turned into blocking information. Especially this years long unofficial hush hush on "deprotecting". Completely absurd.

 

[A Void]

I don't know what happened to this community that from being about sharing information, everything turned into blocking information. Especially this years long unofficial hush hush on "deprotecting". Completely absurd.

It's always been like this. You know what they say; a good chef never reveals his recipe.

Deprotection is a violation and legally would be seen as an ordinary copyright crime.

 

[GhostWolf]

Removing intentional corruptions to file formats you do not own, and even the content of the files themselves you do not legally own, is a legal violation? I hope that's a joke.
If you want to talk the legality of any of this, you lost the moment you began.

Maybe it has always been like that and I just wasn't aware.
The moment I talked about making code to rebuild maps is the moment where I was introduced to this, with all of these regurgitated claims about suddenly everyone stealing maps.
Except you said it yourself - the reality is that if someone wants to steal a map, it can be done with not much effort (albeit this isn't relevant to new "protections" that use external DLLs)
So like every other conversation on this kind of topic of blocking information from people, I see it as simply blocking the average user that will want to learn and maybe copy some trigger with modifications, and not blocking people who want to steal (funnily enough this is the exact argument for cannabis legalization - stop giving power to criminals by maybe impeding them a bit, but at the same time blocking every average non-criminal completely)

On a side note, thinking about this made me remember I myself was a victim of exactly this years ago, when I wanted to make my own map and wanted to see how some map implemented something I wanted, and oops, the map has no triggers.
No, I didn't want to steal everything from the map just because I could, like you seem to suggest is how the average person would approach this for some reason.
I think people are less malicious than you think. Usually.

 

[TD_PRO_2006]

Removing intentional corruptions to file formats you do not own, and even the content of the files themselves you do not legally own, is a legal violation? I hope that's a joke.
If you want to talk the legality of any of this, you lost the moment you began.

Maybe it has always been like that and I just wasn't aware.
The moment I talked about making code to rebuild maps is the moment where I was introduced to this, with all of these regurgitated claims about suddenly everyone stealing maps.
Except you said it yourself - the reality is that if someone wants to steal a map, it can be done with not much effort (albeit this isn't relevant to new "protections" that use external DLLs)
So like every other conversation on this kind of topic of blocking information from people, I see it as simply blocking the average user that will want to learn and maybe copy some trigger with modifications, and not blocking people who want to steal (funnily enough this is the exact argument for cannabis legalization - stop giving power to criminals by maybe impeding them a bit, but at the same time blocking every average non-criminal completely)

On a side note, thinking about this made me remember I myself was a victim of exactly this years ago, when I wanted to make my own map and wanted to see how some map implemented something I wanted, and oops, the map has no triggers.
No, I didn't want to steal everything from the map just because I could, like you seem to suggest is how the average person would approach this for some reason.
I think people are less malicious than you think. Usually.

I totally agree.

 

[MyPad]

...

The best jokes are the ones to be taken seriously.