Blizzard Sued By Game Guide Creator

Gamespot reports on a suit brought by a game guide creator against Warcraft-maker Blizzard Entertainment. The two parties will be going to court because of an attempt by Blizzard to quash a guide the plaintiff created for the World of Warcraft MMORPG. Offered electronically through eBay, the company claims that the guide creator is infringing on their IP. From the article: "Kopp's complaint argues that his book does not infringe on any of the companies' copyrights for several reasons: The book presents a disclaimer on its first page about its 'unauthorized' nature, contains no copyrighted text or storylines from the game, and makes "fair use" of selected screenshots under copyright law, the complaint said."

Comments

More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[dada21]

Here's another person creating his own art based on the prior art of someone else. The copyright and IP laws make no sense to me -- why is it OK to protect the overall look of a game or the name when pieces of the game are taken directly from thousands of games before it? Why is it wrong for someone to use their own labor to make a product (even a direct knock off) and go and sell it?

I believe in true freedom and true competition. Both are what is best for the consumers in the market and the producers as well. If someone is willing to spend their own time and their own labor creating something with their own hands, I see no reason why the product shouldn't be allowed to sell. I personally tend to buy some items from large companies just because I feel I've gotten better quality products, but there are many items I won't buy from a big company because I prefer the unique feel of the item.

Intellectual property laws were originally created to protect artists and artists alone. Blizzard is not an artist, it is a co-op of artists. The idea that a co-op can have more rights than an individual is ridiculous -- individuals have rights, co-ops are just groups of individuals trying to market a huge variety of products together. Each artist at Blizzard has their own art they've created, and they should worry individually about making the best produt they can at the lowest price. That is competition.

Making a knockoff or a product that supports another is the best part of competition -- it gives the market a choice in goods of varying prices and quality, and it also allows others to make a product better by supplementing it with add-ons, upgrades, modifications and third party support services. Can you see Google suing someone for writing a guide to using Google? Wouldn't that guide give Google free marketing and promotion for their product?

Blizzard is run by MBAs, I guess, not artists. These "educated" businessmen don't see the value of free promotion; they should be taking advantage of this guy's supplementary art by promoting his product just as he's promoting theirs. They can both profit, and the consumers will walk away with the products they want at a price they're willing to pay. That is competition, and that is freedom.

The argument that invention and art would not occur without the force of copyright and IP is over. We see proof here that people can't create something based on previous work (as every work is) because the cartels with the power of the legal industry are the ones controlling the law -- the law meant to keep opportunities open, not close them off.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[HoosierPeschke]

Funny, one of the word of the day phrases on Google today is "The chief obstacle to the progress of the human race is the human race." - Don Marquis.

It ties in that Blizzard will stifle any competition because it only wants itself to make money. Maybe Blizzard wants to release its own Game Guide. I, for one, hope Blizzard loses or else this may set precedent for others to sue publishers for producing Game Guides.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

Here's another person creating his own art based on the prior art of someone else.

While I understand what you mean, you might want to avoid casual use of the term 'prior art' as it is a term of art in patent law, and this is essentially a copyright discussion.

why is it OK to protect the overall look of a game or the name when pieces of the game are taken directly from thousands of games before it?

These are really two different questions. So long as the assemblage is creative and original, it's not a problem that many of the component elements are not. Dragons and knights and rescuing princesses and so on are all staples of the fantasy genre and are unprotected, but what you do with those elements may be perfectly worthy of a copyright. And there are a lot of ways you can put those parts together. Think of them as being like legos; the individual blocks aren't interesting, but what you do with them is. As for the name, that's basically just consumer protection. If I bought a bottle of soda with the word 'Coke' all over it, I don't want it to actually contain coffee or something.

Why is it wrong for someone to use their own labor to make a product (even a direct knock off) and go and sell it?

It's not wrong, per se. But it might be unwise. Until fairly late in the 19th century, US copyright law didn't include a derivative right. So, if you wrote a book, anyone else could translate that book into another language without needing permission or having to pay you, the original author. If we have this right, then that means more of the possible profit that can be made from a work is directed to the author. This increases the incentive he has to create and publish works, and one goal of the copyright system to cause works to be created and published. Of course, we must balance this against other goals of the system, such as having the least restrictive, if any, copyright law at all, and having the shortest copyright terms, and encouraging the creation and publication of derivative works by any author.

Intellectual property laws were originally created to protect artists and artists alone.

That's wrong in many regards. First, I would strongly encourage you to not use the term 'intellectual property.' It includes bodies of law such as trademarks and patents which have nothing to do with artists, and which have quite different reasons for existing. Second, copyright laws were not created to protect artists alone; they also protected publishers, but their actual goal was to serve the public interest by enticing authors and publishers to behave in certain ways beneficial to the public. Helping authors is just a means to an end; it's not our goal.

Think of cable television. A town that doesn't have cable will often give a monopoly on cable tv to a particular company for a term of years, in exchange for the company shouldering the cost of building the infrastructure. The goal of the town is not to have to pay one company that can charge monopoly prices. It is to get someone to build the cable tv infrastructure so that it can eventually be opened up to competition.

Blizzard is not an artist, it is a co-op of artists. The idea that a co-op can have more rights than an individual is ridiculous -- individuals have rights, co-ops are just groups of individuals trying to market a huge variety of products together. Each artist at Blizzard has their own art they've created, and they should worry individually about making the best produt they can at the lowest price. That is competition.

That's a really bizarre statement.

The argument that invention and art would not occur without the force of copyright and IP is over.

I disagree. First, I at least have never felt that creation and invention wouldn't occur without copyrights and patents, respectively. Second, however, the quantity of those acts would likely decrease sharply. So we have to decide whether unrestricted competition or some degree of monopoly granting wil

The BS of the DMCA

[eldavojohn]

Weeks after his first auction went live, Blizzard, Vivendi, and the ESA began sending repeated takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), asking eBay to yank the auctions because of copyright and trademark infringement concerns.

At some point, everyone has to start to wonder where the DMCA's boundaries begin. I don't believe I've ever seen any single act or bill used in the court of law more than this. Basically, if you are low on funds, wave the DMCA in front of someone's face and take them to court. I'm not a lawyer but this piece of trash is written in the most convoluted legalese I've ever seen. Everyone and their dog are using the DMCA like a damaged crop in a witch hunt. I can't even get through a summary of it without getting lost--a sure fire sign that if you have the money, you can get those fancy lawyers that are essentially 'truthsmiths.'

I don't think everything about the DMCA is wrong. But I do think that it has no boundaries and can be openly interpreted. I believe this Act needs to be reformed before it is renewed and that it should be better defined. The internet has developed far past our wildest imaginations and no act passed in 1998 could account for all the legal caveats of it.

I believe my hatred for the DMCA falls just under my hatred for the Patriot Act.

And that's saying a lot.

In effect, if the video game industry's actions are upheld, "then selling a how-to book about Microsoft Word would infringe Microsoft's copyright, especially if the book contained one or more screenshots of Word's user interface," said Paul Levy...

Hey, with the DMCA, anything's possible! Well, what do you say Microsoft? O'Reilly's got deep pockets!

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[cubicledrone]

Basically, if Blizzard became aware of this guy using the World of Warcraft trademark for personal profit (which he clearly did), then they are obligated by law to try to make him stop, or they lose their trademark.

Nope. If the writer attributes the trademark and makes it clear for his readers that he does not own the World of Warcraft trademark, there is no infringement, therefore there is no possibility that Blizzard will "lose" their trademark.

It is no different than if someone writes about McDonald's or Home Depot. Both are trademarks. As long as its clear who owns the trademark, there is nothing there.