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.

Comments

WTF

[Uncle Focker]

Here's the scary part: Blizzard also insists that because the license agreement forbids using Glider with WoW, Glider users are committing copyright infringement when they load copies of WoW into RAM in order to play the game. This has to be one of the stupidest attempts at trying to pin someone for copyright infringement ever.

Re:WTF

[Ai Olor-Wile]

Actually, it does that to bypass DRM, which is significantly less innocuous in the face of legislation like the DMCA. This was mentioned the last time Glider came up on Slashdot.

Re:How it's used?

[fahrbot-bot]

If someone uses it "wrong" and "hurts" me, does that mean I can sue the developer, since he is the one in charge of how it is used?

More to the point. If someone uses it "right" and hurts someone...

Wow!

[gstoddart]

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

Also tortious contract interference

[Dachannien]

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.

Re:How it's used?

[Kjella]

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?

Re:How it's used?

[CannonballHead]

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.

Re:This is what comes...

[Gybrwe666]

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.

Obvious Value !

[wireloose]

At $750 per copy, this software is apparently worth $50 more than RIAA values songs. ($700 / song)

Limit

[Relic of the Future]

This is more appropriate under the last discussion (but since it was under the consistently lackluster "Games" topic, I didn't read it) but part of their complaint was:

"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.)

Re:How it's used?

[sm62704]

Easy solution: You sell the software and I'll use it any way I damned well please, just as copyright law allows. If Blizzard gets away with this Congress needs to change copyright law.

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:

• Book, music, movie, and image copyrights: 20 years, ten year extension
  
• Software copyrights: Five years, must include the source code, five year extension on old parts of the work
  
• Out of print works go directly into the public domain (none of this Disney bullshit of taking a movie off the market for seven years)
  
• Any private, noncommercial use is statutorily considered non-infringing, including distribution
  
• No copyright can be held by a corporation. All copyrights are held by the works author or authors
  
• Anyone caught abusing copyright like the record companies do and like Blizzard is doing here loses all copyrights they hold, and may not hold copyright for another five years
  
• No work is copyrighted unless application is filed along with two copies in the Library of Congress
  
• Cowboy Neal is in the public domain

Re:How it's used?

[sm62704]

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.

Re:How it's used?

[drinkypoo]

When you create a work, you also maintain and keep the moral rights to the work. That basically means that another person can't modify the work.

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.

Broader effects

[Reziac]

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??

Re:Obvious answer!

[ColdWetDog]

I'll just join the chorus - it is an issue with many vendors - not only with games. I tried to do a cross platform switch with Adobe Premiere Pro. I've had Premiere since 1.0 and have upgraded three times. They wanted every single serial number since, oh 2003 or so.

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.

Keygens for purchased software

[nurb432]

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?'

Re:How it's used?

[Tom]

How I would change copyright: What I learned about lawyers:

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.