Blizzard Folds on WoW Guide Suit

Agent writes "You may remember the suit that Brian Kopp brought against Blizzard, Vivendi and the ESA in March of this year. He sued due to wrongful takedowns under the DMCA of his ebay auctions. The case was settled today, allowing him to resell his guide on eBay and his personal site. The settlement helps more than just Kopp, as it sets a precedent for future interactions of this nature with game companies."

Comments

Too little, too late

[Scott Lockwood]

I'm glad they settled, but it doesn't make up for all the shit they put the bnetd guys through, or the fact that they constantly ignore what their user community wants, or the whole silly 'gay marriage' thing in WoW.

I'm afraid they're all just corporate asshats. It's sad, but I'd love to see a mass exodus of the creative people who brought us StarCraft to somewhere else, so that we could get some games that are worth playing.

Re:Too little, too late

[Surt]

There was already such a mass exodus. Over the last couple of years they've lost over 50% of the Starcraft guys, 90% of the Diablo I/II guys, I'm not sure on Warcraft ... over 50% from WarII are gone, WOW has probably not lost quite as many because it is still bringing in the bucks.

There really isn't a president being set here

[therealking]

Blizzard settled out of court. So there is no legal president set.

You can't goto a judge and say well in Blizzard vs. Knopp they settled so it's an open and shut case your honor.

Wrong - A settlement doesn't set a precedent

[Manip]

Wrong! Only a court can set a legal precedent... Out of court settlements are just that, out of court agreements to "Not sue, if X, Y and Z terms are met." Common Law allows a judge / court to make decisions that have to be examined when the same (or similar) cases come before it or a lower court again, and thus how a precedent is formed.

You can't use this case to even defend against Blizzard themselves suing you unfortunately, let alone anyone else... If Blizzard had gone to court and lost then it would have set a new precedent for unofficial gaming guides, but you can't use an out-of-court settlement because for one thing the court often isn't even aware of the terms of that settlement.

Can't spell precedent without PR

[tepples]

True, a settlement does not create a binding judicial precedent in the way that a judgment does. But if a firm offers a settlement to one party, then other parties are likely to demand the same settlement, and it would be a PR nightmare for the firm not to extend the offer to them.

welcome to 2002

[BitterAndDrunk]

It's sad, but I'd love to see a mass exodus of the creative people who brought us StarCraft to somewhere else, so that we could get some games that are worth playing.

I'm pretty certain all of the lead designers moved on a while ago.

Guild Wars is an ex-Blizzard thing, as is Hellgate: London.

Power of the fourth estate

[tepples]

Blizzard settled out of court. So there is no legal president set.

A Freudian slip about President Bush's legitimacy? ;-) But seriously, assuming you meant "precedent", you're right in a strict sense, but here's why it doesn't matter as much as some may think:

You can't goto a judge

But you can go to a journalist, who may be able to spin up the discrimination. Settling in the same way may be easier for a firm than denying a settlement and facing a PR nightmare.

Court != court

[tepples]

Only a court can set a legal precedent

And only a journalist can set a precedent in the court of public opinion.

You can't use this case to even defend against Blizzard themselves suing you unfortunately, let alone anyone else

Think outside the box. Even if you can't defend yourself in a court of law, you can still defend yourself by threatening to make the company's public relations a living h*ll.

Guess I'm the minority

[Avatar8]

I saw nothing wrong with Blizzard protecting their content AND all opportunities (read marketing) that stem from that content.

What I see is this guy capitalizing off Blizzard's work. I dislike that, but it is the way of the capitalist world in which we live.

It also sickens me that the guide is geared towards making money in WoW, supports (ads on the website) buying gold for real money and in general demeans the essence of the game. All of this leads to imbalances that once done cannot be undone. In short, this is all leading towards ruining the game.

I personally wish Blizzard would strongly enforce their Terms of Service agreement that states that all virtual property in World of Warcraft belongs to Blizzard and therefore cannot be sold.

Re:Guess I'm the minority

[Jamesday]

It's already well established that you can produce things like a collector's guide without any authoization from the maker of what you're describing. One leading case involved Beanie Babies and included photographs of them all. It was fair use even though it included photographs of them all because a collectors guide has to include all of the items. To quote from the decision:

"we may say that copying that is complementary to the copyrighted work ... is fair use, but copying that is a substitute for the copyrighted work ... is not fair use. ... A photograph of a Beanie Baby is not a substitute for a Beanie Baby."

It's clearly impossible for any book to replace the WoW gameplay experience. Hence, Blizzard had ample reason to know that their takedown notices were completely invalid and subjected them to the penalties under section 512(f) of the DMCA for sending false notices.

Re:Guess I'm the minority

[Pofy]

>I personally wish Blizzard would strongly enforce their Terms of Service
>agreement that states that all virtual property in
>World of Warcraft belongs to Blizzard and therefore cannot be sold.

Which is completely irellevant since you don't sell anything in the normal meaning of selling anyway, it is about transfering items in the game and possession of items in the game, something completely allowed by the game. Actually there are specific systems such as pop up windows, auction houses and mail systems for transfering items between players. Imagine playing a game of monopoly and paying someone some money for a street, are you claiming that whoever holds the copyright, trademark or whatever can object to such a thing? Could the owner of the game do so? No, of course not. It could be against the rules of the game in which case the players of the game could protest and even throw you out. It has NOTHING to do with "virtual" or real property at all, nor of ownership, it has at most to do with rules of the game. besdies, would you say that after such a "sale" of items or gold that Blizzard is no longer "in possession" or "owning" it any more? How bizzare idea if you feel so.

Re:But is it any good?

[garylian]

What's the point of getting alts to lvl 60 in 5 days? Besides not sleeping and having zero social life, you haven't really enjoyed a single moment of the game.

I don't play MMOs to hit max level uber-fast. I play them to enjoy them. I liked the fact that it took me about 6 months to hit 60, because WoW was exceedingly boring for a lvl 60 toon. You had a choice of griding for crap drop rates of gear, or doing PvP for a honorless Honor System. Aren't you glad you got your toon to that point in 5 days????

Needless to say, the wife and I were out of the game 2 weeks after hitting 60, with sporadic attempts over the next 2 months of trying to find interest in playing an alt on the other faction. Didn't work, accounts cancelled, never looked back.