Freehost battle forges on...

[Yeager]

Ah hell //fats, Im really sorry to get your dander all fluffed up.  I mean itmo is a stand up guy who created a program that lets you fly a pay to play multi-user flight sim for free.

I mean, yeah.  Your right, I really have no idea what Finnish law is.  I suppose my big mistake was in thinking that theft would be illegal in finland but I am probably all fu#ked up right?  Probably.

Oh well, you have your little program now so go on with your bad self.

Yeager


[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 08-30-1999).]

[Janne Hakala]

Heheh!!!
Calm down Yeager !

IMO, it doesn't bring any good if we going
to blame players countries here.
It's quite sensitive matter to someone(many) of us, tho...

Janne

[Wilbus]

OK OK OK!! I don't agree on this to 100% (no offence Great WB and AH gods!) I tried the free host a few time (no offence again) and this is what I have to say about it.

1. It took a few hours to set the damn thing up!
2. The connection is quite bad cause you need a friend to set up the host, moast of us still have 56k modems or worse, couldn't fly more then 4 or 5 without BIG warps.
Even if you only flew 2 or 3 there were lots of small warps when you got to a range or -d2.
3. You get tired of it pretty damn quick so I don't think IMOL lost any money on this, I wouldn't have gone online and started flying instead of the freehost if it hadn't been avalible.

That's about all, hmmm, why did I write it? Don't know.


------------------
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

[val]

I am a 'demagogue' :-).

I agree with Yeager 100%. Just because there may not be a law on the books doesn't make something 'legal' and right. Hiding behind a loop-hole is lame and pathetic.

val

------------------
Scott (val) Valline
Dweebs of Death

[flat]

What troubles me is HiTechs post on the FH news group where he admitted to hacking AW and using a hacked FE to hunt down other pilots.

Pot calling the kettle black?

-flat-

[Cuff]

In the hopes of a civil, mature discussion of the subject here goes...

I remember when Compaq reverse engineered the PC BIOS. They took the functionality of the IBM PC BIOS and recreated it in a "clean room."  That meant that they had no knowledge of the actual code of the BIOS; only it's function calls and output.

This had to have cost IBM MILLIONS.  The end result is that all the PC users have benefitted from this, both in money savings and advancement of the platform.

On to Freehost:  Since no one knows for sure how this was created, I'll make some assumptions for the sake of this argument.

IMOL (now iEN) creates a front end program that they give away for free.  They allow users to play the game offline for free.  They allow head-to-head use for free.  In other words there is no requirement therein to pay iEN and use their servers in order to use the front end.

(Now license agreements aside, since IMOL/iEN can write in them whatever they please, and I realize that although they prohibit "reverse-engineering" therein; I suspect that had IBM had such a disclaimer on their original PC box/BIOS, that it still would have made no difference.  IBM did in fact have a copyright on their BIOS.  For instance the license agreement could prohibit use by one-legged sailors too, but I suspect that would be un-enforcable also.)

Itmo watches the output of the front end and determines what the numbers mean.  He writes a host program based on those numbers.  He has in effect, reverse-engineered the host program.

(As a side observation, I will postulate that the possible loss of revenue to iEN is miniscule at best. The Freehost program also only functions on an obsolete version of the program.)

So, the question is: does the license agreement hold up here?  Is reverse-engineering in this sort of situation legal?  The fact that iEN could lose revenue to Freehost (doubtful IMHO) is really not a factor, as the reverse-engineering of the original PC BIOS cost IBM more money than this will ever cost iEN.

Isn't there a fine line (if any) between what Compaq did many years ago (and others have done since then) and this situation?

Rational, civil and mature responses only please.  

[BadMan 4th FG]

Well Cuff, again the disclaimer, I am NOT a stinkin lawyer!  

As I understand it, the people who are taking apart the software/hardware can have ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with the rewriting/reverse engineering of the original.

What has to happen is one group takes the software/hardware finds out what it does and how it does it, then hands a specification to a second party and says “this is what it does” The second party takes the spec and writes a new spec that says “we want software/hardware that does this.” and gives that spec to a third group of people that make the actual copied software/hardware.

The First group can have NO contact with the Third group.

I’m sure somebody can correct me on any errors I have made.


------------------
Roy "BadMan" McMillion
4th Fighter Group
335th Fighter Squadron "The Chiefs"
Fourth but First!

[This message has been edited by BadMan 4th FG (edited 09-02-1999).]

[hitech]

To use your analogy but changing it slight to fit the case lets just change a few things

IBM was charging for the bios but giving away the cumputers as samples to get people to buy the bios and with an agreement that the free computers could only be used with there bios.

Compact makes there own bios and starts shiping them with ibm's computers.

HiTech

[Cuff]

Badman, you are correct in what you state is the legally "safe" implementation of reverse engineering.  The point of it all is to ensure and thereby be able to later prove that no "hacking" of the original code was done.

The proof that the reverse-engineering in the Freehost situation was done legitimately (without hacking) is notably absent.

Hitech, had the Warbirds front end not included the head-to-head and offline options (neither requiring the host subscription); in other words if it did not function in its intended use (as a combat flight simulator) without the host, your analogy would be more accurate.  However, in this case, the computer (front end) does indeed function without the BIOS (host).

Similar but different.

[This message has been edited by Cuff (edited 09-02-1999).]

[BadMan 4th FG]

This is turning into an interesting intellectual exercise  

Another example.
You are at a car lot. The dealer tells you can test-drive this car forever, but you can never leave the parking lot. A third guy comes up and says “Go to the grocery store.” Just because the door isn’t locked, doesn’t mean its ok to drive off.

Granted, this one is a little simpler than the Freehost situation, but the principle is the same. No?

P.S.
It breaks my hart to see all of this civil discussion going on. You Whiny Freeloading Simpleton  

------------------
Roy "BadMan" McMillion
4th Fighter Group
335th Fighter Squadron "The Chiefs"
Fourth but First!

[Cuff]

Badman, better example but still not quite there.    It fails to account for the car being used for its real purpose - that of transportation.  IMHO it also makes the dealer sound a bit looney and arbitrary...  

How about this for a Freehost analogy?

A train builder gives away trains for free and says anyone can drive that train (which only rides on special rails) as much as they would like on track B and track C for free transportation but not on track A.  (He also adds that he forbids anyone to look at his train to try to figure out how the wheels/rails work or otherwise reverse-engineer it.)  If anyone wants to ride on track A, he wants them to pay him an hourly fee.  Someone else examines his rail system, figures out how to and builds another track that runs the same route as the track A and offers it to all to use for nothing.

To continue, the train builder wants to sue the guy who put up the other rail line.  He says that he forbade anyone to build rails to work with his train (even though years before, another man reverse-engineered another man's product and was not indicted).

Add to it all that the free track can't be destroyed now that it's there.

What is a good course of action for the train builder?

"Guns don't kill people.  People kill people."

(Now my head hurts...      )

P.S. Umm, did anyone else notice this has turned into a Badman/Cuff thread besides me?      

[This message has been edited by Cuff (edited 09-03-1999).]

[roblex]

My problem with Hitechs analogy is teh bit that says
 "with an agreement that the free computers could only be used with their bios"

Where does the free WB download stipulate a similar clause ? (Im not saying there is not one but I have not seen it).

It seems to me a more fitting analogy is

"We have invented a telephone. We will give it to you for free and you can plug it into someone elses and talk to them as much as you want without charge. However if you want to be able to talk to the world you need to go through our unique switchboard system and we will charge you"  Along comes a Finnish company that says "we also have a switchboard system and even though it works in a different way to the other system it still allows your free phone to connect to the world. We give it away free but we do not support it and it only works on obselete phones that do not work on the paying switchboard and only allows 32 connections instead of hundreds"

Is that accurate ?

Roblex

[BadMan 4th FG]

Hay, no fair! Now I have to start thinking!

Two reasons why I still think my analogy works.
1)   The real use of the car is transportation (Flying On–Line) can only be done of you give the dealer money. The Test Drive is limited to just the parking lot (head to head/offline)
2)   By taking the car off the lot with out giving the dealer money, (even if you bring the car back) you are stealing the car.

Although I will admit the train thing works a little better.   But you left out the part where the Guy with the second set of tracks sends it out to the world so that now anybody mind to can set up a set of tracks to run the special trains.

As for the course of action, I think the only way to protect your train system is to seak legal action against the people setting up these second rail systems. They are, after all, in violation of the users agreement that accepted when they got thier trains. Sure, it’s difficult to pursue this course of action, and there is no real way get back any financual losses, but as I said earlyer. If you don’t fight the little ones (freehost), you give up your right to fight the big ones. (mithacal russian super host)


 

To continue, the train builder wants to sue the guy who put up the other rail line. He says that he forbade anyone to build rails to work with his train (even though years before, another man reverse-engineered another man's product and was not indicted).

I have never been sure this is completely analogous or relevant to the situation. None of the programming HT did for AW allowed people to play outside of the AW servers. Nor is reasonable to assume that WB is a direct product of the work done on AW. Knowledge was certainly gained while HT was doing his voodoo on AW, but the end result of WB is a completely different animal. It’s kind of like saying that If I work for a company and learn while I’m on the job, I can’t quit and start my own company and use some of the skills I learned.    

Roblex: (Oh, god…Now I have to think twice as hard) The analogy is a good one. But you have to admit. If you agree not to use any switchbox but the one provided by the phone guy, and you go ahead and do it any way. Aren’t you doing something bad? Even if it’s an old version, how many people will stop paying money or never start paying money because that can now get it for free?

And BTW. Itmo is still supporting and programming Freehost.


Ugh...Must stop thinking....brain over loaded...neurons breaking down…need coffee…  


------------------
Roy "BadMan" McMillion
4th Fighter Group
335th Fighter Squadron "The Chiefs"
Fourth but First!

[This message has been edited by BadMan 4th FG (edited 09-03-1999).]

[Toughgun]

Good God ! I don't know about copywrite's and stuff but I have seen how patents work and the one thing I have seen is this.
Take a design and patent it. then a competitor comes and changes one thing and go's out a sells it. can you sue? yes. can you win ? maybe, will it cost you ? oh baby will it, win or lose in court, you still lose, it's a bummer but the truth, now you can apeal to the honest customers to stay with your product. some will and some won't, IMHO ,HT, keep doing what your doing and the rest of us loyal customers will support you for aslong as the product performs.


Guns out.  

[bod]

Toughgun got it all right.

There will allways be someone trying to copy what you are doing. If you got a patent you are "safe", but anyone can reverse engineer as much as they want as long as it does not infringe the patent. To my knowledge there is no *legal* issues about reverse engineering, unless this is either an infringement to the patent, or as a *signed* agreement with both parties, (a signed agreement of confinentiality). If they make infringement to the patent you can sue them, but it costs no matter how you look at it or what the outcome is.

The point is that you have showed all the customers that you can do it, you were first, you are the leader, and that is what matter to most of the customers and that is what most of them are paying for as well: the number one, regardless of patents, copyrights or agreements.

I have also minimal knowledge about copyright stuff in specific, but i know that most people stick to the number one, only as long as it is the number one. The only way to be number one is to keep on doing what you are doing.

Nothing in the world can protect you if you try to sleep on your previous merits instead of continuing developing.

Personally i have difficulties to see the whole free host issue as nothing more than simple vandalism or just an act of an immature person, since mr itmo is not in to it for the money, but that's only my own opinion.

As long as you are number one there is nothing to be afraid of. This goes for both the host/service as the FE of cource.


Bod