Slashdot Mirror
Who Owns Software?
SeeSp0tRun writes to remind us of Blizzard's lawsuit against MDY Industries over the Glider cheat. It seems that Blizzard is pushing it even further. They're trying out the legal theory that a software creator retains complete control over how a program is used, meaning that anyone who uses it in a different way could be found guilty of copyright infringement, at $750 a pop. The EFF and Public Knowledge are among the organizations trying to assure that the court doesn't set a really bad precedent here.
More to the point. If someone uses it "right" and hurts someone...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
So, could they say no fat people not wearing pants can use their software? How about nobody under the age of 30? Black people? White people? Brown people?
At what point, does their assertion they can control "how it is used" completely break down and be outside of the realm of copyright law, beyond what you can do in an EULA, and just plain silly.
I would say they've basically gone into the plain silly category. But, who knows. Courts have upheld the damnedest things.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It seems the article has a good point. Blizzard is trying to sue for what is a contract violation instead of a copyright violation. A copyright violation has a minimum penalty of $750 dollars because it usually deals with distribution of media and has real damage. Contract violation has no minimum because the damage dealt can vary so much.
In the case of Blizzard's WOW servers, I wouldn't even necessarily call what glider does "damage" to the server, but that will be up to the courts. If the judge has a head on his shoulder the most he'll hold contract violators responsible for is the cost to remove glider-users from the database split between all of the known glider users.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Blizzard is also alleging the somewhat more sane claim of tortious contract interference, by saying that Blizzard is engaged in a contractual relationship with its customers, and MDY is willfully interfering, for profit, with that relationship.
The problem for Blizzard is that this claim is far more nebulous in terms of damages. Copyright law includes statutory damages, meaning that they don't actually have to prove that they were damaged, or by how much, if they win on the copyright claim.
Either way, getting injunctive relief against MDY is the most important thing, but if Blizzard can also get a monetary award, then it puts all the other cheat developers on notice that they could end up in very hot water if they don't close up shop. If all Blizzard manages to get is an injunction, however, cheat developers will likely just wait until they actually get sued before they bother to decide whether or not they will shut down their business.
Any restrictions would be contractual obligations, which have nothing to do with legal obligations. The contract doesn't regulate illegal use since it's per definition already illegal. Besides, what kind of logic is that? The government dictates a maximum speed limit. So if I crash while under the speed limit, can I sue the government because they're responsible for how I drive?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Yes, we all know how bad this can become, and the potential harm to both parties (players and blizzard), but how would YOU fix this? We know the problem, but no one seems to offer a valid SOLUTION to something like this.
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
A few years ago I rented an old vacation cottage, and found there were a number of old hardcover books in it dating from around the time it was built. One of the books, printed in 1903 had something on the front end-paper that was very familiar.
It had a EULA.
The first sale doctrine was recognized by the Supreme Court five years after the book was printed.
The thing is that for whatever reason, the law has chosen to take a more complicated, nuanced/inconsistent stance on software EULAs. Be that as it may, it's dangerous to draw analogies with books for whatever purposes.
The thing about EULAs, is that they bootstrap a whole new set of rights for the copyright holder using copyright as the starting point. That's the whole point of a EULA; if all it did was protect your copyright, you wouldn't need one. You can't put a EULA in a book that says you can only criticize certain parts of it, or that you can't rent it or lend it to other people. But that is routinely done in software. You can't disassemble a piece of softare you "bought", and in many cases you aren't allowed to publish benchmarks.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
But this would be more akin to the government claiming the right to tell you exactly how you can (and, by implication, how you can't) drive in your car, anywhere, for any purpose.
So if someone drives the way they are told they can, and hits me, does this mean the government is responsible? They claimed the right to be the sole authority of how people can drive...
Basically, my point is that the right to authorize use is similar to responsibility for how it is used under that authorization.
Ummm...you obviously haven't bothered to actually read or find out a single fact about this case, have you?
I'll lay out the really pertinent facts. You're welcome to find out more on your own.
The woman was severely burned. Initially, she asked McD's for $20k to cover medical expenses for her medical treatments. McD's refused to even talk to her.
Here's the kicker: the coffee at McD's (not just that one, but every single one, as they all operate under the guidance of the corporate office, and had the same coffee makers) was found to be keeping coffee *FAR* above a reasonably hot temperature. This was corporate policy. McDonalds had a policy to keep coffee between 180 and 190 degrees, which is not too terribly far from boiling.
She had 3rd Degree burns, as well as severe 2nd degree burns, and spent over a week in the hospital and required skin grafts.
There was also over 700 reports of burns due to the temperature of McDonalds coffee in the decade preceeding this incident. McDonalds had actually settled with many of these, to the tune of over $500k paid.
It was also testified that drinking McD's coffee at the time given to the customer at that temperature would burn *ANYONE'S* mouth. I find this to be true today, although its rumored that in the time since the lawsuit, McD's has again jacked temperatures.
So, lets see: serving a substance you know can cause 3rd degree burns, where you have a decade of claims arising from the practice, refusing a request (which you had granted to *MANY* others) for covering of legitimate medical expenses.
If you actually read the facts of the case, you'll see that the media coverage has omitted most of the pertinent facts on this case. McD's deserved what they got. They should have choked up the $20k and been done with it.
I don't know about you, but I don't like to drink coffee that can give me 3rd degree burns.
At $750 per copy, this software is apparently worth $50 more than RIAA values songs. ($700 / song)
"bots spend far more time in-game than an ordinary player would and consume resources the entire time."
So? You control the game. Limit the effectiveness, or boot people off (like they ALREADY DO in parts of SE Asia), when they've been on too long.
Or, you know, if your servers are accepting bogus input that lets people cheat, maybe you could validate the input first? (Or heck, if people a willing to pay to replace your "gameplay" with the use of a script, maybe that speaks to just how engaging your "gameplay" really is.)
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
The only problem with the changing copyright law thing is that the corporate controlled Congress will change it the wrong fucking way like they almost always do.
How I would change copyright:
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I was one of the first people using bots and macros in Asheron's Call 1 then I was one of the most advanced bot makers in it. If your game is so simple that a bot can play it, maybe your game isn't really fun to play to begin with. If you have zones that a bot can play, maybe you should tool your game so bots can't play them. If your game is failing, it isn't because people are playing your game with bots.
God spoke to me.
This is the same problem with MPAA and movies. If they don't want me to watch the movie on my choice of player - and maybe even cut out scenes I don't like - they should make it available for rental only.
I like your plan, though I would change the lengths a bit.
My idea on how to have stuff fall into the public domain, while appeasing the Disney's of the world:
The initial copyright lasts 10 years and costs $100.
The next 5 years costs $1,000, the next 5 years $100,000, and the next 5 costs $10,000,000 and so on. Every extension costs 100x more than the last. If a product is really worth it to a company to keep in copyright, they can keep it for as long as they like, it's just going to reach a point of being too expensive to be practical.
I'm sure the numbers would be argued over, and a compromise could be reached; but the goal is to make companies do a real cost-benefit analysis on a copyright, rather pooling their resources to buy a few congressmen every 10 years.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
You would deny me the right to sell my copyright why?
You would open me up to theft of my material until I personally could publish why?
I don't like the cost factor. A pauper should be able to copyright a work. A hundred bucks is quite a lot for the average (or should I say "median") American, but it's chumpo change to a rich man or a corporation.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
It really doesn't mean that at all, sorry. First Sale law says that once you buy something you can do whatever you want to it. That's basically the biggest conflict with IP law... which is, er, why we have IP law - specifically to force you to obey certain restrictions on use.
When you buy a piece of furniture, it can potentially be a copyrighted design. You actually don't have the right to reproduce it; if you want a similar product, you are free to design one from a clean room implementation provided that it is not also covered by a patent. You are not permitted to make use of a patented design for your own use. Practically speaking this is not much of a burden on end users. The copyright police are not going to come to your door to find out if you're knocking off counterfeit La-Z-Boys unless you are building a furniture empire on their designs.
There's an example where a sculptor created a flock of geese in a mall for decoration. For one Christmas season, the mall tied ribbons around the necks of the geese. The artist sued the mall and won, because it violated his moral rights to the work.That's a public exhibition, in a case in which the work was designed for the purpose. It is, arguably, different - though barring a contract specifying that the work shall not be tampered with, IMO he still should have been laughed out of court.
But the point is, creating a work doesn't automatically entitle you to protection, or the art form of collage would have disappeared entirely by now as all of its practitioners would be imprisoned.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
After RTFAing, I'm wondering about broader effects, such as plugins and 3rd party helper apps for all sorts of software. Could we find ourselves restricted from installing any plugin not "approved" by the base-program's vendor??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
After rummaging around, I managed to find the two previous upgrades, but not the original one. They wouldn't do it.
So now I use Final Cut.
You've just screwed yourself out of future upgrade money.
Strong work, Adobe.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I agree totally. I have done that many times to get around the stupid hoops some companies make you go thru to get their stuff installed.
I remember one time with CA i had to actually photocopy all 6 sides of the box and the PO to get anew keycode ( previous IT guy lost them ). I gave up and got a keygen.
Same for windows, i had legit boxes for every workstation on NT4, but used one key for them all. It was just to much trouble to manage. If i ever got audited. 'oops, i i must have typed it wrong, but would you like to see the licenses i have here stored in the safe?'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
More to the point. If someone uses it "right" and hurts someone...
How about suing the developer for negligence by not using due diligence in the correct use of the software?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Before your change is even signed into law, every major copyright litigation firm will have a thick binder with all the loopholes, possible exploits and workarounds, and every conceivable trick to abuse it sitting in their library.
In some respects, lawyers are very much like hackers.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I don't really understand their motivation. WoW is the uncontested king of MMOs and there's no one in sight that can possibly undo their massive, massive lead in terms of subscribers and active accounts.
The only thing that can kill Blizzard's advantage is Blizzard itself, either by slowly alienating their player base, or releasing uninspired, rehashed content. My bet is on a mixture of both.
Generally, when you buy something without having to agree to any contract first, you become the owner of that thing. Some courts have upheld that principle when applying the first sale doctrine to software, for example: the EULA can't stop you from reselling it, because you're the owner and selling it is your right.
Correct me if I'm wrong (with citations, please), but my understanding is that in order for an exchange of money for goods not to be considered a sale, it must be established beforehand that the item is being leased or rented instead of sold. That is not what happens with software: you bring a box to the counter and exchange money for it, with no promise to ever surrender it, just like buying a book. No one would seriously argue that some text on the inside cover of a book could change the transaction from a sale to something else, right?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.