5 ms·

Couldn't the same argument be used for the blizzard bot? One is more intentionally telling users to break the TOS, but at the end of the day the user is running

Couldn't the same argument be used for the blizzard bot? One is more intentionally telling users to break the TOS, but at the end of the day the user is running the code.

exo762 11y ago
No really. Bot was executed on user's machine, but effects of bot work were reaching well beyond user's machine, destroying economics of game, user experience and company profits.
- aggronn 11y ago
  Are you saying that ad blocking is a victimless 'crime' that doesn't have any effects outside of your computer?
nv-vn 11y ago
I don't think so. The code of the bot is interfering with the actions of a remote server. An ad blocker works locally.
- kllrnohj 11y ago
  No, it's the other way around. The bot worked locally (simulating input). Ad blocks interfere with the actions of a remote server.
- oh_sigh 11y ago
  Ad blocking is interfering with the actions of a remote server, for example by blocking the expected transmission of tracking and analytic data.
  - nv-vn 11y ago
    Except the bot is causing things to be written to the server. The ad blocker is only blocking requests from happening (and those requests occur on the client side, in JavaScript). It's not blocking the transmission from the server's end at all, it's only stopping an event from happening locally.
pdonis 11y ago
And the remedy is the same in both cases: if the provider really doesn't want people using clients that do certain things, the provider needs to control access so that only clients that don't do those things can access their server. In the case of Blizzard, this would mean forcing gamers to run clients that were known by Blizzard to not contain bots; for example, Blizzard could force users to use signed client binaries. Blizzard might actually be able to get away with this because their users are paying customers who really, really want to play their game. In the case of a website running ads, this would mean forcing viewers to run clients that were known by the website to not contain ad blockers; for example, the website could force viewers to run signed browser binaries. Of course, no site that runs ads will try this, because it would just mean nobody would view their site. Notice that sites whose users actually need to go there to do business, such as banking sites or Amazon, don't complain about ad blockers. It's only sites whose business model depends on ads that do. That should be a "here's your sign" moment to ad-supported sites that their business model is not sustainable. It should not be an excuse to sue ad blockers.
- DanBlake 11y ago
  You have no idea how cheating in games works. They dont touch the exe, they touch the memory. You can not stop game hacks with any first strike system, Its 100% reaction based, like anti virus software.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    > You have no idea how cheating in games works. They dont touch the exe, they touch the memory. Well, that would certainly make it harder for Blizzard to stop cheating. But not impossible; they would just need to require clients to have locked down memory. That is probably impractical (for example, it might well mean they would have to sell their own locked down client devices), but it's not impossible. > You can not stop game hacks with any first strike system Sure you can. But the system might not be practical.
- bloaf 11y ago
  Ad blocking is not a necessarily a browser-based thing. Even if they were to mandate a blocker-free browser, you could block ads with a firewall, by running your own DNS, or through the HOSTS file.
hijiri 11y ago
Yes, the ToS restricting how the user uses the software should not exist in the first place. Keeping control of your computing is the core idea of free software.

Couldn't the same argument be used for the blizzard bot? One is more intentionally telling users to break the TOS, but at the end of the day the user is running the code.

exo762 11y ago

No really. Bot was executed on user's machine, but effects of bot work were reaching well beyond user's machine, destroying economics of game, user experience and company profits.

aggronn 11y ago
Are you saying that ad blocking is a victimless 'crime' that doesn't have any effects outside of your computer?

nv-vn 11y ago

I don't think so. The code of the bot is interfering with the actions of a remote server. An ad blocker works locally.

kllrnohj 11y ago
No, it's the other way around. The bot worked locally (simulating input). Ad blocks interfere with the actions of a remote server.
oh_sigh 11y ago
Ad blocking is interfering with the actions of a remote server, for example by blocking the expected transmission of tracking and analytic data.
- nv-vn 11y ago
  Except the bot is causing things to be written to the server. The ad blocker is only blocking requests from happening (and those requests occur on the client side, in JavaScript). It's not blocking the transmission from the server's end at all, it's only stopping an event from happening locally.

pdonis 11y ago

And the remedy is the same in both cases: if the provider really doesn't want people using clients that do certain things, the provider needs to control access so that only clients that don't do those things can access their server. In the case of Blizzard, this would mean forcing gamers to run clients that were known by Blizzard to not contain bots; for example, Blizzard could force users to use signed client binaries. Blizzard might actually be able to get away with this because their users are paying customers who really, really want to play their game. In the case of a website running ads, this would mean forcing viewers to run clients that were known by the website to not contain ad blockers; for example, the website could force viewers to run signed browser binaries. Of course, no site that runs ads will try this, because it would just mean nobody would view their site. Notice that sites whose users actually need to go there to do business, such as banking sites or Amazon, don't complain about ad blockers. It's only sites whose business model depends on ads that do. That should be a "here's your sign" moment to ad-supported sites that their business model is not sustainable. It should not be an excuse to sue ad blockers.

DanBlake 11y ago
You have no idea how cheating in games works. They dont touch the exe, they touch the memory. You can not stop game hacks with any first strike system, Its 100% reaction based, like anti virus software.
- pdonis 11y ago
  > You have no idea how cheating in games works. They dont touch the exe, they touch the memory. Well, that would certainly make it harder for Blizzard to stop cheating. But not impossible; they would just need to require clients to have locked down memory. That is probably impractical (for example, it might well mean they would have to sell their own locked down client devices), but it's not impossible. > You can not stop game hacks with any first strike system Sure you can. But the system might not be practical.
bloaf 11y ago
Ad blocking is not a necessarily a browser-based thing. Even if they were to mandate a blocker-free browser, you could block ads with a firewall, by running your own DNS, or through the HOSTS file.

hijiri 11y ago

Yes, the ToS restricting how the user uses the software should not exist in the first place. Keeping control of your computing is the core idea of free software.