Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard Wins Major Lawsuit Against Bot Developers
Captain Kirk writes "World of Warcraft owners Blizzard have won their case against the programmer who wrote Glider, Michael Donnelly. (We discussed the case here when it was filed.) Blizzard won on two arguments: first, that if a game is loaded into RAM, that can be considered an unauthorized copy of the game and as such a breach of copyright; second, that selling Glider was interfering with Blizzard's contractual relationship with its customers. The net effect? If you buy a game, you transfer rights to the game developer that they can sue you for."
The problem with this, is the game isn't 100% loaded into RAM (as far as I know) meaning that only part of it is. This could have a much larger impact by calling this small piece of the game the game itself, perhaps leading to smaller sample times of songs, etc.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
While I can certainly understand blizzard's desire to control the bots, I really wish they hadn't won this case on copyright law. I'm afraid of the consequences if the RIAA get's their hands on this decision and can use it as a precedent.
Oh god, don't let the RIAA find out about this.
doesn't every program get "loaded into RAM" at least partially at some point?
if a game is loaded into RAM, that can be considered an unauthorized copy of the game and as such a breach of copyright
Since the game must be loaded into RAM in order to play, how is it determined that this particular copy is unauthorized?
selling Glider was interfering with Blizzard's contractual relationship with its customers.
This one I could buy, but honestly, isn't that between the customers and Blizzard?
Ah, well. Expect a "Generic MMO Glider" in the near future, that will in theory work with any MMO, but just so happens to be perfectly matched to WoW. Just like the "Generic MMO Servers", which, when given a particular (contraband!) MySQL dump, and a few files off the install disks, just so happen to make an excellent WoW server.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
If the summary is correct (over-under at 38%), the loaded-into-RAM-equals-copy argument is absolutely dumb.
I wouldn't worry about precedent though. If a case ever comes up explicitly claiming this "infringement" (Microsoft suing you for loading Windows into memory), it will be struck down in an instant.
Last post!
If you buy a game, you transfer rights to the game developer that they can sue you for.
Shouldn't that be something like, "developers have rights under software licenses"? Wasn't that already the case with shrink-wrap and click-through terms of service? Is this somehow stronger than it was before the ruling?
In Soviet Warcraft, world own you!
Not even 5 minutes on the main page and it's already slashdotted? Must be a new record.
Since when does a contract allow you to essentially re-write law? Bliz went looking for obscure loopholes and apparantly found one. Sad sad day when you no longer have the right to use a product as you wish. This whole licensing nonsense has got to end somewhere. Could bliz deny access to the online community to 'hackers' - sure. But there's so many twists to the logic here that it amazes me they actually got a judge to understand it all.
Yet another case of a company failing to adequatly protect their product and sueing over nonsense to get their way. Could glider have destroyed warcraft? ...perhaps... but that's survival of the fittest. If the WoW community turned to crap it woudln't be the first time a product ran it's popular life and died out. They're no better than the MAFIAA in some regards.
IMHO the only reason they won this case is because they threw so much money at it they were bound to win. Why? Simple - WoW is such a huge cash cow they'd be stupid not to spend every dollar they had to keep it alive. Simply because next month the subs would put back a few gazillion bucks into their coffers.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
New business plan:
1. Write a game that loads itself into RAM.
2. Give it away for free.
3. Sue everybody who plays it for copyright infringement.
4. Profit!
If they ever feel short of cash, all they have to do is sue their entire customer base. I'm sure most of us have "illegal copies" of Windows running in our RAM.
Great, now I have to invent a RAM-free computer...
Performance of WoW is gonna suck now that everyone has to disable their cache before starting the game.
This proves that the courts dont know anyting about technology. At somepoint during a program's life time some part of it is going to be loaded in to RAM to be used. The very fact that they say just having a copied of it in RAM is infringement means that I have infinged on Microsoft Copyright by using IE to post this.
someone make copyrighted spyware/adware and spread it about and then start suing people just so this BS precedent can be struck down before the MAFIAA has a chance to use it to their advantage.
Unlike wowsharp.net which injected the .dll. I always wondered how glider worked. It was suppose to be not-detectable via warden, I wonder if it simply read log files.
I'm worried someone will use this to attack reverse-engineered servers for MMO's, trainers (the legitimate ones, that is, the ones for games you play by yourself or cheat consensually with friends), cracks or many other technically useful ways of manipulating existing software.
I don't see the meaning to their 'copyright infringement' by being loaded into memory. Routers don't infringe copyrights when they buffer packets, people don't infringe copyrights by remembering what happened in a story (even reading the story in a bookstore).
I hate bots as much as anyone else, but this is a bullshit way to deal with the problem.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
I was under the impression that loading a program into RAM in order to execute it was fair use, or otherwise a legal copy (since the program needs to be loaded into RAM to run).
Is the argument that the loading into RAM is not playing the game, and thus not authorized, when it's a bot, not a human, that's "playing the game"?
I get the impression that this case is sufficiently at odds with other decisions that there is plenty of ground for appeal.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I have some mixed filling about that. /. only notice this part).
- Redefining the copyright law in a restrictive way for the consumer (some people on
- having some company building some real money economy about ways to cheat in a game.
- Suing instead of having a game design that promote boting instead of actively playing some large part of the time (boring and unintelligent grind and farming)
- Suing instead of getting technical abilities to detect and prevent this kind of cheating
That's actually a reasonable position. I am not sure if it is a correct one, but it is reasonable. WoW is a subscription game with a contract and 3rd parties who interfere with that service could be sued with that position. I am not sure what damages are really done to Blizzard however. Regardless of said interference, what damages occur to Blizzard if any or to the consumer? I dunno.
Now here is where it gets ridiculous. Ludicrous. They have gone PLAID . Technically if I took my music CD, put it into a player and "copied" the information off it into "memory" I have infringed upon somebody's copyrights? Has the player, and indirectly, the manufacturer infringed upon somebody's copyrights?
To anybody that has even the most basic understanding of how technology works, that sounds downright RETARDED.
We desperately need some judges in this country that have an understanding of technology to prevent software companies like Blizzard from abusing their "intelligence". This is no different than fooling Corky out of his candy bar. Blizzard should be ashamed of themselves for espousing a position they clearly know is wrong. They are software developers for CHRIST'S SAKE!
You cannot possibly enjoy a peice of software WITHOUT loading it into memory in the first place. That is an intrinsic property of running code or "software".
Is playing some sheet music, that was legally purchased, copyright infringment by the mere act of strumming the guitar?
The whole argument is just plain lunacy. The WoW subscribers paid for the software, they pay for their subscription. They pay for Glider (or it's free, I dunno) as well. The developer of Glider is not performing copyright infringment. That is just ridiculous.
There is no legal, ethical, moral, or intelligent argument against somebody loading up multiple copies of the game inside their computer's memory.
Pathetic.
This assertion, if true, means that every single user of the software commits copyright infringement, as it _MUST_ be loaded into ram to simply execute normally.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Blizzard owns a valid copyright in the game client software, Blizzard has granted a limited license for WoW players to use the software, use of the software with Glider falls outside the scope of the license established in section 4 of the TOU, use of Glider includes copying to RAM within the meaning of section 106 of the Copyright Act, users of WoW and Glider are not entitled to a section 117 defense, and Glider users therefore infringe Blizzard's copyright. MDY does not dispute that the other requirements for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement are met, nor has MDY established a misuse defense. The Court accordingly will grant summary judgment in favor of Blizzard with respect to liability on the contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims in Counts II and III.
I think this means that TOUs/TOSs/EULAs now have the full force of copyright law, if a copyrightable portion of the media reaches your computer.
The section 117 defense is this:
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
If you're violating the EULA, it is "used in an other manner".
You know that tiny little link, "terms of use", at the bottom of every web page you visit? Better read that 20 page document behind that link, or you could be infringing copyright without even knowing it.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Here's the meat straight from the TFA:
"In this Circuit, the âoecopyingâ element may be proved in software cases by showing an unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted software program in the computer userâ(TM)s Random Access Memory (âoeRAMâ). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that âoethe loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the Copyright Act.â MAI Sys. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 519 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. dismissed 510 U.S. 1033 (1994); Triad Sys. Corp. v. Se. Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330, 1334 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 478 F. Supp. 2d 607, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (agreeing with the âoenumerous courts [that] have held that the transmission of information through a computerâ(TM)s random access memory or RAM . . . creates a âcopyâ(TM) for purposes of the Copyright Act,â and citing cases.) When such a copy is made in excess of a license, the copier is liable for copyright infringement. Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Techs., Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (ââoeWhen a licensee exceeds the scope of the license granted by the copyright holder, the licensee is liable for infringement.ââ(TM) (citation omitted))."
Wait, so if I open WoW, or ANY program for that matter, and it loads into ram (And according to this; 'makes a copy') I'm in contempt with the law?
So, by the wording of this, merely turning on your computer and posting on slashdot makes me a software pirate.
A long, long time ago, in a galaxy not so far away, another major gaming corporation lost a lawsuit against a not-so-similar game "enhancing" device.
Nintendo was attempting to stop the creators of Game Genie from releasing their product via a lawsuit, but the creators of Game Genie were found to be within their rights to permit such altered play.
I fully realize that Nintendo/Game Genie are a very different beast compared to World of Warcraft/Bots, but at the same time, they are still relatively similar.
I don't have much else to say on this subject, even though I feel bots in online games cross the line, but it does make me wonder if any other gaming companies will attempt to revisit the old issue with cheat devises (such as Game Shark).
Anyway, here's a link to a bit more info about the Nintendo vs. Game Genie bit. Sorry it's from Wikipedia, but it is a semi-decent summary (emphasis on summary) that is readily accessible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys%2C_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America%2C_Inc.
Calling a sword by a pretty name is no more than adding perfume to poison.
If loading a copy of the program into ram in order to play the game is a copyright violation, then having the program installed on my hard drive (if it still belongs to Blizzard) has just started accumulating storage charges at the rate of $300.00 a day, per megabyte.
I think I'll install the program 4 more times, in different locations, and really rack up the storage fees....
Since I won't actually run the program, it will never be in RAM.
At the last that I checked, WoW with the first expansion was a little over 6 or 7GB worth of files. ((((7*1024)*300)*365)*3)= $2,354,688,000.00 - hmm - I think I have to put the pinky to the side of my face as I say "2 billion dollars (and change)"
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
who was being sued in not that dis-similar situation by a well known RTS series publisher. One of the things we were being accused of was direct copyright infringement. Apparently, we had a copy of a file named EXACTLY THE SAME as they had on their CD. Setup.exe Never underestimate the stupidity of the courts/lawyers in technical matters.
I guess Blizzard is feeling real good about themselves for winning this suit. And I feel strongly that there should be a consumer backlash about the way that they did it.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
The RIAA? What about software companies? Ever hear of the BSA? If any of them can selectively prosecute anyone who runs their programs even if it was legally paid for, then we are all in trouble.
Though, I finally got through to the site, and it may not be quite as bad. It looks as though the court found you have to obey the EULA. I'm not sure I like that either. After all, you often don't get to see the EULA until after you buy the software and open the box. Even more so, because the stores claim some "copyright law" requires it, they won't take back opened software. Certainly sounds like they are making people sign a blank contract to me...
That any time you load up a website viewing pictures that you don't hold a license to, you're "copying illegal content into your RAM", right?
This handcuff-like licensing bullshit has to stop. And stop soon. Pretty soon it's going to be illegal to look at or listen to anything, anywhere, at any time, with the way things are going...
There are mountains to cross for those that are willing.
I know, it seems hard to believe. I'm not saying I haven't played Blizzard games (and Diablo II is, of course, great). That said, I vote with my wallet with these sorts of things, and over the years Blizzard's arrogant controlling nature with regard to servers and products interacting with their games has never made me want to give them any support.
And let's not even get into WoW. I like my life.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
First they addict you through conditioning. Then your lose sleep playing nonstop for days. Soon you're out of a job, your wife has left you, and the only people who will still talk to you are your guild mates, a bunch of 13-year-olds.
And now this bullshit court decision.
This is all proof that Blizzard is actually the Horde. They are evil.
So uninstall the game, cancel your account, and step outside.
because if someone writes a plug-in to help gamers, they will use this case to sue them as well.
This case shows that no consumer can own a copy of a video game, the game development company still owns the copy but only gives the consumer the right to use it in a native copy of Windows, and not modify it in any way. I guess it also means you cannot sell it used, nor can you run it inside of WINE, or a virtual machine or emulator either. You can only run it in a native copy of Windows, anything else is considered modifying it and violating the EULA and could get you sued.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
So many people here are COMPLETELY off target in there assessment of this. There is no claim here that loading a program into memory to use or play it is violation, that is protected. However that protection is considered void if you are loading the program to alter it or use it in ways not intended (ie load it with a bot so you can alter it), they are being done on the grounds of unauthorised copying. While I think this sucks, it in no way has any affect on fair use or making legal copies into memory to play games/music/movies. Take off your tin foil hats and actually read the summary judgement, while it still sucks it has no real ramifications for anything (except other botting programs I suppose).
Look on the bright side. If loading software in memory to run it is now illegal, then it's now illegal to run Windows.
and since a program's sole ultimate purpose is to "be run," and it must be in RAM to do so, it's a severe indictment of the judicial system that putting a (legitimate copy) of a program into RAM isn't a very simple case of "fair use."
In point of fact, as far as copyright, it is the only use.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
There was a precedent set, in the '70s or '80s if I remember correctly, that loading a program image into RAM did not constitute a "copy" in the sense of copyright infringement, as this was by definition required for the program to function as intended. Can somebody remind me of the details?
That a copy loaded into RAM for use in relation to a valid license issued by Blizzard and consistent with the terms of that license would be non-infringing.
A copy loaded into RAM for use in some way which is inconsistent with the license issued by Blizzard would be infringing.
It's a silly decision, but that part of it does make logical, if not practical, sense.
Read Pynchon.
Thankfully, this IS the Ninth "Circus" Court, the single most overturned federal bench in all of American Jurisprudence.
Most overturned by number of cases, or by percent of cases? If by number of cases, please consider that the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over a far larger population than any other court of appeals in the United States. In fact, it covers over 19 percent of the U.S. population.
Normally the EULA permits you to make that in memory 'copy'.
In this case the user did not have the permission of the EULA because they were in violation of the EULA requirements with respect to automating the game.
Doesn't seem quite so insane when you actually THINK, but .. I know thats hard for a typical slashdotter.
The Game Genie did not make a copy of anything. All it did was alter certain values as they were put on the bus. The game was played directly from ROM except that the Game Genie tampered with small parts of it as the console tried to read them.
In this case, the decision is that playing a game requires copying it into RAM (which is "Copying" according to copyright law). You're allowed to do this most of the time, but in the case of WoW, users agreed to EULA/ToS which explicitly spell out when their copy is "authorized" and when it isn't.
IANAL, I think this is an ass-tastic decision, maybe its legally correct according to current laws in the U.S., but all that says to me is that current laws in the U.S. are ridiculous and need to be changed. In the meantime, the copyright club can be used to beat down anybody who runs software in ways the developers don't like. Which is retarded.
The headline here is misleading. Blizzard has won summary judgment on a portion of their lawsuit during pre-trial motions, and MDY won summary judgment on a couple of the counts of Blizzard's suit against them (though Blizzard's victories here are hugely more devastating to MDY than the parts that MDY has prevailed on). The trial on the rest of the suit is still pending, and only after that comes the calculation and awarding of damages.
Did ya bother to read the ruling? Of course not. I can tell by how strong your opinion is.
The judge said there is a distinction between copying while adhering to a license and copying that is not protected because the purpose was not within the terms of the license.
The license says the end user playing the game is licensed. The license does not grant copying rights to some game mod toolkit, according to the court. The user is not just loading the game and playing it in this circumstance.
Sure, there are a lot of complexities to copyright and contract law that raise all kinds of questions about this ruling, and frankly, I expect it will be heavily modified or perhaps rejected by other courts. But calling the judge retarded and the ruling lunacy says more about you than anything. You would be a lot more credible if you made some kind of intelligent argument related to the specific issues in the case. Perhaps you could quote specific excerpts from the ruling you disagreed with.
But since this is Slashdot, a place for drive-by commentary by pseudo intellectuals who shoot from the hip to support the group think agenda, I suspect you wont.
So let's say you have the game loaded into RAM, then you hibernate. A copy will then be made onto your hard drive, right? So is that an unauthorized copy?
The net effect would appear to be fewer bots in the game. As a paying customer, this works for me. Thanks Blizzard.
No, I'm New Here
You can load WoW into RAM yourself, and the cheat programs (e.g. Glider) can still do some things in a *completely passive* way by snooping on the WoW instance that is there---not even modifying it!
Basically, this decision means that loading WoW into RAM with the intent to run a separate cheat program at the same time (even one *which does not modify anything in the WoW process, but only snoops*) is a copyright violation, while loading WoW into RAM without that sort of intent is not. Because of what Blizzard put in their EULA/ToS.
Sad times indeed.
Actually, there's no doubt whatsoever that being loaded into RAM would constitute a copy, but it's ludicrous to call such a copy unauthorized as it is _required_ even to just utilize the software as it was intended.
There's a PDF of the court's decision in another post. Apparently, the reproduction can be thought of as conditionally authorized: it is authorized provided that the user upholds his end of the TOU and EULA.
How does this ruling and the previous ruling account for [Title 17, United States Code, section 117(a)(1),] which says that it is not an infringement for you to make a copy of a legally acquired program provided "that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner"
The ruling discussed section 117. As I understand it, the key holding in this case about 117 is that a person "buying" a copy of a computer program can contractually waive his ownership, as long as it is made clear at the time of the "sale" that the user is not purchasing a copy. And in this case, Blizzard managed to convince the court to treat the transaction at Best Buy as a 95-year rental, not a purchase.
In point of fact, this is basically the same principle the GPL is founded on -- violate the terms of the license and you're committing copyright infringement. Not exact, but similar.
I Can't wait for Diablo III.
About the only thing bogus is the "implied license" to copy, in order to make use of the work. I don't necessarily like the implication that any terms may be applied. In this case, I think that the courts basically were looking for a pretext to agree with Blizzard.
people don't infringe copyrights by remembering what happened in a story (even reading the story in a bookstore).
Citation needed. The "My Sweet Lord" case, Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), established that people can infringe U.S. copyrights by remembering and accidentally copying melodies, a holding that has been upheld on appeal in the Second and Ninth Circuits. See ABKCO Music v. Harrisongs Music, 722 F.2d 988, 221 U.S.P.Q. 490, and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000). This has made some people wonder whether it is even possible to write an original song anymore.
The key word here is an "unauthorized" copy, not any copy in RAM.
The judgment says that a copy to RAM is "unauthorized" when it is loaded alongside other code that creates an experience outside the scope of the World of Warcraft license (EULA and TOU). You're creating an unlicensed derivative work when you use such code. If you're running bots, turning WoW into nothing more than a fancy screensaver that farms resources, you're outside the scope of the TOU. Period.
This is breach of license, folks. It's explicitly forbidden in the TOU and EULA.
The court has simply ruled that if you are running a bot program, the limited license granted to the user by Blizzard forbids you to load or keep the program in RAM.
This is not the same as forbidding any copyrighted work to be loaded into RAM for licensed uses. You already have purchased a license to play your music, so if you load it into RAM to do so, you're legal. All the common legal precedents and arguments in favor of transferring it to a different device to listen to it also apply. You are allowed to listen to your music.
This ruling regarding "copy to RAM" is very narrow in scope, and was made in order to determine that WoWGlider itself is illegal to sell because it has no purpose other than to abet license violation, i.e.: It's only useful purpose is to violate the TOU, and there is no way to keep it from violating the TOU when used.
Therefore, it had to be established that loading the program with the express intent to violate the TOU or license agreement is an infringement.
I think it is, and I think it even makes sense. If you're violating your agreement, you're violating your agreement. No one should be able to sell a program whose sole purpose is breach of contract, or infringement!
So no one's going to be sued for loading WoW into RAM for any licensed purpose, but it's a necessary step towards the determination that the bot software cannot be sold.
The guy deserved what he got. He'll be lucky if damages aren't awarded, but at the very least the injunction against the sale of the program seems completely grounded in common sense and law.
There's really nothing to see here. Just people who read "copy into RAM violates copyright" and either a) misunderstood, or b) have an agenda against copyright law in general, and are being sensational and more than a bit dishonest.
--
Toro
They ran into a judge who happened to be a casual WoW player.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
In this Circuit, the âoecopyingâ element may be proved in software cases by showing an unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted software program in the computer userâ(TM)s Random Access Memory (âoeRAMâ). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that âoethe loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the Copyright Act.â
This seems kind of silly. By that kind of logic, isn't Microsoft committing copyright violations every time Windows loads and runs a non-Microsoft app? If I understand how Glider works, that's basically what it's doing, isn't it?
EPIC FAIL
The enforcement of the GPL is not predicated on the idea that executing a program is the defacto creation of a copy.
This ruling is stupid, because it could lead to all sorts of infringements based on technicalities - and "technical" belongs in that word.
We now have an entire can of worms open - for example, when the program is executing and makes a copy of the stack, I now have 2 copies of certain parts, both in RAM. I quite possibly have one copy in main memory, and another copy in a disk buffer RAM cache. I may have those two copies, and a third copy of part loaded into the processor's cache. The code from RAM is being copied into the cpu for execution. When I run low on RAM, part of the program is moved back onto ANOTHER copy on the disk in the form of virtual memory. How many copies are we up to now?
This "convict you of copyright infringement using some nuance about how computers work" is insane.
Anything your computer does in the process of executing anything you get as a program should be considered fair use, as it is clearly for your personal enjoyment.
I completely sympathize with Blizzard's motives; the desire to keep WoW "clean" is a great one, and I think virtual/mmo gaming has a huge future, and some day, we'll all be joking about how ridiculously small WoW was as a game. That having been said, these things seem to have a way of snowballing. First it was shrink wrap licenses, and before long, there were shrink-wrapped textbooks showing up. First, Blizzard sues over this... the next thing you know, the RIAA is successfully proving in court that ripping a CD is copyright infringement, because format-shifting is legal, sure, but a computer putting the bits into RAM in order to format-shift them is illegal.
Compare section 109's language "the owner of a particular copy" to 117's "the owner of a copy". It's virtually identical, and courts (not this one) have treated it as such. I don't know how you can own a physical disc but not own a copy of its contents. That seems almost nonsensical.
Isn't all of this the fault of the end user - not the third party company?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
OK, so when your music or movies come with an EULA saying "how" (or even whether) you can put them into RAM... then what?
When you design your game around tedious grinds, you create the incentive for people to automate the play of the tedious parts to get to the alleged fun parts.
Fire the designers.
Customers have more fun.
Bots go away.
The breadth of this is stunning. Do Firefox or ad blockers and other privacy protecting, free software also interfere with a user's M$ contract (EULA)? How about software that replaces software when you buy a new computer? This can be interpreted in a way that threatens your control over your computer and other's ability to help you do that.
Wrong, it's only illegal if you don't agree to the terms of use.
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
If you purchase something, you own it and as an owner you can do what you like with it. This is a natural freedom that exists so long as property and ownership have meaning. When someone purchases a copy of software, they may not have the legal right to redistribute it in any form, but if they purchase property, they own property. Services are not the same thing, and the right to use a service in a way that is not agreed upon is an abuse against the person providing the service.
In the case of a EULA, or at least some EULAs, the terminology is intentionally abused to imply that a purchase of property, regardless of service provided, does not give actual ownership. The intent of the EULA in this case is to provide something that is purchased (as property) but treated as a service.
It is wrong to sell property and then try to enforce its use as if it were a service and it is also wrong to agree to purchase a product with the understanding that it will be treated as a service then disregard that understanding, particularly when it is explicitly stated that you must agree to it in order to use the product.
When both parties have done something that they should not have done, the first being the seller of the software and the second being the purchaser of the software, then nobody can be said to be morally right. When both parties are morally wrong, the case should be dismissed or both parties should be punished.
The injustice of the enforcement in this case is highlighted by the lack of the court to provide a reasonable identification of exactly what wrong had been committed. I read the article and it is clear to me that the court decided to hold the buyer and user of the software to be infringing on the rights of the seller, but calling a copy of software in RAM to be improper use clearly crosses the line into using words rather than the merit of an idea as the basis of the decision. Perhaps a clear minded judge will be called upon to reconsider this judgment and clarify that while a copy of the software was being misused according to previous agreements, it is the breaking of an agreement by the people involved rather than the method of using a computer which is wrong. If such a judge were to choose to rule that "the use by Guilder was in violation of the clear intent of the agreement made between Guilder and Blizzard" then I will still believe it is ultimately unjust, but at least believe it is a reasonable application of contract law. As the current judgment stands, words, and therefore the moral codes of the laws they represent, are misapplied.
I use the terms "person" and "you" for clarity, feel free to substitute person/entity/persons/entities as you feel the need.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Hello twitter!
I confess. I've made millions of illegal copies of copyrighted material on my retinas and transferred them to my visual cortex and long-term memory, where I routinely call them up for unauthorized viewing. Just let me gouge out my eyes and I'll call 911 and turn myself in.
.
Withe very few exception, the law simply treats you as a responsible adult whose contractual commitments are binding.
Could glider have destroyed warcraft? ...perhaps... but that's survival of the fittest. If the WoW community turned to crap it wouldn't be the first time a product ran it's popular life and died out. They're no better than the MAFIAA in some regards.
It doesn't matter what pleasure others find WoW.
The game deserves to die, because I have the power to kill it. The is the argument of a sociopath. The geek as god or a force of nature.
You also make a ton of money as said people continue to grind and never cancel their account. Then they buy a second account to make a healbot to help them grind the first one. It sort of depends on your definition of a good game.
That said, Blizz must have something going for them.. There are a ton of grinding games out there and they seem to have the most popular.
So what about applications that only read the data sent to and from Blizzard by the game? since the original game is unaltered, and you should be able to view the traffic that comes to your computer, could this ruling somehow be applied as it is towards Glider and (the now-defunct) WowSharp?
As many have already stated, a copy made to RAM is a copy, but that does not mean it is copyright infringement.
The main issues that will arise out of this ruling are:
1) It considers it very easy to take software out of sales and put it into the realm of licenses
2) It makes it much easier push EULA/TOU violations into the realm of copyright
Hopefully MDY will bring an appeal and get some help with it. I imagine there will be several groups interested in seeing this overturned. I think the court got this one wrong, and at the least, summary judgment should not have been found for Blizzard on the copyright claims.
You mean it was legal before?
Derivative works; fair use. However, the copy that's being stored in the amplifier for a split-second between the needle and the speaker absolutely needs a license, as does each wall in the room unless they're certified to be 100% reflective to audio waves.
The license for your pants' copy of the song is, of course, easily avoided. Though it does drastically change the nature of public performance.
Most people suck at whistling and humming. I think they clearly qualify as parody.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
See, this is what is wrong with these layered ridiculous decisions. Here we go....
WoW runs from my Soul? If I am created by God, and have accepted one of the several covenants regarding proper use of my Soul to perform certain actions, does this court decision become blasphemy because Blizzard's game interfes with my contractual relationship with the higher power by interjecting unauthorized portions of modified scripture?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Blizzard allows multiboxing, and people abuse the crap out of this in battlegrounds.
Try gaining territory when you're one-shotted by some guy with 5 shamans wired together on some frankensteinian setup. No you can't cc him, there are 5 tremor totems up.
When blizzard refuses to act on this, which is a serious impediment to a vast majority of peoples' contractual relationship with them, I have no sympathy for their little "bot problem".
here's hoping they lose the appeal and walk away with egg on their face.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"This disc will install Vista on top of your existing Linux installation. Cancel or Allow?"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
No. The EULAs state that upon installation of the software your soul becomes property of Blizzard.
There's been a bit of a misinterpretation here. Loading your game into RAM is legal. Violating the EULA is illegal. The EULA for World of Warcraft says that you may not copy the game into RAM (run it) while glider is running. So, if you run Warcraft first, then Glider, it's perfectly legal.
However, glider must invoke Warcraft, so it knows which data is stored in which memory locations. So glider needs to re-code to attach to a running WoW, instead of doing the executing itself.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
1999 called.
Gator wants their adware back.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
all you anti EULA tin hat types can calm down... Over the weekend I found some old C64 games in original boxes with docs as well as other C64 documentation . What I found interesting was a printed EULA which described a "license" to use the software on one computer only, etc, etc. It was worded EXCACTLY like today's EULAs, yet many Slashdotters scream about EULAS as if they are an ever-worsening practice, new to us in the 21st century. Not quite... its at least as old as home computing itself.
If someone has more details about how glider works (and understands how debuggers and windows memory management, and messaging works), I would love to see your thoughts.
From the FAQ:
'Q: Does Glider modify my game files?
A: Definitely not. Glider does not use a UI mod or make any changes to the game, either on disk or in memory.'
I take this to mean that Glider scans either network traffic or the game process address space for certain values and then harvests those, kind of like a debugger.
If the latter case, there is no need to make any copies of ingame memory. If they use Windows memory mapping APIs correctly, there is in fact NO NEED FOR PHYSICAL COPYING GOING ON IN RAM other than the launch of the game - which can occur normally before you start glider, anyway. The claim that analyzing the process topology and dynamic data about critters and loot is copying a copyrighted work is ludicrous, anymore than calculating the hash of a file is, in the same way a virus scanner would.
Or, if they screen scrape, I don't see how that content is covered by copyright law, either.
As for the actual work? It sounds like they just use messaging APIs to signal keypresses and so forth.
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
The plain meaning of this text is that you're allowed to copy it into RAM if that copying act is an essential step in the "utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine", with the exception that this rule does NOT give you permission to copy it if you are also using the copy for something other than "utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine".
Now playing World of Warcraft, with or without Glider, and with or without obeying the terms of Blizzard's EULA/ToS, is still "utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine". People running Glider are not doing some magical-fairy-dust thing to their WoW program; they are simply running it on their computer like everyone else. Which requires copying it to RAM, which according to the text of 117(a) is not an infringing act.
For example, if you decided to print out a hex dump of the whole program on paper, that would be something other than "utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine", and that action would not be protected by 117(a)(1).
This decision is wrong because the judge interpreted 117(a) incorrectly (as did the Ninth circuit court that he's following). As a result, a software developer who sells a product which happens to help people play World of Warcraft, is now guilty of *infringing Blizzard's copyright on the software program World of Warcraft* even though he didn't copy World of Warcraft himself, and didn't induce any other parties to copy it either. Simply because Blizzard includes a unilateral contract in the box with the software they sell, this other guy (who they haven't sold it to) is now guilty of copyright infringement. Wonderful.
It's a very dangerous precedent, and hopefully those decisions will both be overturned before they cause too much trouble.
They, as developers, are undermining their own position by supressing development. They've created a marvelous world, and people want to play in it. Part of the play is discovering through automation... while Blizz may not like the bots, they'll get nowhere by supressing the same type of innovation that lead to their own system.
This hypocritical behavior seems to not be out of place in the entertainment industry in general. Shut up, enjoy and pay you uncreative leech is the message, I guess. Time for the actual creators to overthrow the management and lawyers, methinks.
I went down to Best Buy and paid for a fucking copy of World of Warcraft. Best Buy didn't sell me a license, they sold me a fucking box with a fucking digital data disc in it, filled with little ones and zeros that make up a copy of World of Warcraft that I now own.
Also, here's the best part: this retail transaction, in which I aquired ownership of a copy of World of Warcraft, did not involve Blizzard in any way!
Blizzard does NOT get to dictate what I can or cannot do with this copy, except where copyright law expressly reserves the right to them to dictate that. They don't have to let me use their servers if they don't want to, and if I refuse to agree to their EULA or ToS then obviously they don't want to.
But whether or not I agree to their EULA, it cannot possibly be copyright infringement for me to copy their software into RAM for the sole purpose of running the software, regardless of whether I am running it the way they wanted me to, or not running some other piece of software like Glider at the same time. Section 117 specifically says that this is a non-infringing act. The judge in this case seriously f'd up the summary judgement, and I think MDY has a slam-dunk appeal.
I hope I have used enough bold to get my point across, here. Peace/out.
There wouldn't be any Unreal Tournament if it hadn't been for the Reaper Bot. Surely it wouldn't be such a bad thing to have bots in WoW , but allocate "bot only" servers.
It works with Chess, so why not with MMORPGS? Hold competitions, hire the best bot developers. Geez. Get a grip on the future Blizzard! (before someone else does).
Andy
What exactly is "Stalin"ist about Stallman's attitude?
This is a Goodwin-lite violation...
Stallman proposes an ideal, but demands no exclusion, has no progrom, and uses the absolute of capitalist methodology in the form of producing a better product at a better price to cause the market to adopt his policies along with his products.
He _is_ an ass personally, but calling Stallman a stalinist is like saying every adamant geek is a secret nazi.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Could someone potentially copyright both the "on" and "off" states of a single bit, then turn around and sue the entire electronic using population on earth for millions of dollars over trillions++ of charges of infringing upon their copyright? Has there even been a quantified limit set on how big something must be before it can be copyrighted?
8==8 Bones 8==8
I guess this means EULAs are legally binding?
Or was it only shrink-wrapped EULAs that we were worried about?
There goes the legality of most current Virus Scanners in the US then.
Great, now I have to invent a RAM-free computer...
Phew.... good job I use ROM-DOS then!!
I have karma to burn, so here's for a counterpoint:
I like it that they fight bots. As a player, bots make the game less enjoyable for me. While I think games should be built without grinding, bots provide other players with an unfair advantage, in a competitive sense. I've seen many games in which bots have destroyed the in-game economy. Where, for example, you can forget about crafting the way it was intended, because only the top 1% of craftable items sell at all, since there are so many on the market that nobody would buy anything less.
You could argue that if everyone would use bots, the playing field would be level as well. Yes, it would. It would also remove the main reason for actually playing the game, when most of it is automated. You see, maybe I would like to enjoy being just a mid-level crafter and still be able to sell my stuff? Lots of us who have jobs and wives and a real life don't have any ambitions of slugging it out with the 16-hours-a-day gamers in the top-tier PvP areas. We're quite happy with the game below level 50 (or whatever the max is), as weird as that concept might appear to some hardcore gamers who apparently consider the first 49 levels to be some kind of tutorial and a challenge to get through as quickly as possible.
But being able to enjoy gameplay at level 10 means that the stuff you can make there has to have value - for you or for others. That works when the level 20 people have better things to do with their time, and would, for example, pay the level 10s for harvesting, farming or crafting the low-level ressources they need for their level 20 stuff. If bots allow them to automatically harvest during their off time, the interplay between various levels vanishes.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I would have thought the point of playing a game is to play the game - in person. I haven't followed this is any detail, but to me it seems that somebody has developed a tool to circumvent the "play" part of the game; if you are playing alone on a computer at home or somewhere, one could say that this is no problem, as the only one that is cheated at the end of the day is yourself. But when you are many players together, having a few players that cheat and thereby dominate the entire thing, ruining the game for everybody else - that is an entirely different matter. For one thing, everybody else will feel they have wasted their money and the company that expected to earn money on hosting the game will lose business on it.
This, as far as I can see, is the essence of the matter - whether or not laws and contracts reflect this, I don't know, but it is why we are not allowed to cheat in any game. In a way this is also a very good illustration of the collision between "freedom" and "fairness" - I mean why should we not be allowed to cheat? Why is doping illegal in all competition sports? Why can I not, if I play chess, just ram my queen right through five rows of the opponent's defence and knock the king down? Not being allowed these things, having to follow rules, is a limitation of my freedom. In this case the freedom of one company to make money out of helping people cheat in WoW is being limited - and as far as I can see this is entirely appropriate.
Now, I'm sitting here with a strange feeling, writing this - I mean why on Earth should it be necessary to even put these things into words? But on the other hand, from the comments I see people making, and from the fact that there is even a market for a way to cheat in something as inconsequential as WoW, it seems that this is far from clear to a lot of people. And we wonder why society seems to be falling apart.
No, buying the software would be outside your pay scale. You bought a license to USE that software under a certain set of rules. I don't like 'em either but that is how it works in the current system. You paid $50 for a license to drive an automobile, that doesn't mean you can drive any way you want nor does it mean you can drive anything you want and not accept the penalties. I don't LIKE the ruling any more than you but he was following the law as the law is both intended and writen.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
WoW (pun intended) this is scary. This basically says that a copyright infringement can occur if one programs puts its hooks into another program. A BIG can of worms.
What if Microsoft decided decided it didn't like a particular printer manufacturer and slapped a term in their EULA that prohibited loading that manufacturer's drivers? What about anti-virus programs hooking Windows? Adobe reader plugins? Dis-assemblers? They all modify the behavior of the original program.
Like I said a BIG can of worms.
Blizzards own Warden program sits inspecting other files and processes on your system to ensure they're not cheating tools, this is easily and equally demonstrable as against the EULA/ToS of the other applications it scans.
In winning this case, Blizzard have quite arguably declared their own Warden anti-cheating application illegal.
RMS might hear you!
What if someone were to write a bot that parsed video and played by sending i/o down a keyboard cable, possibly via a usb loopback?
What if the bot was on an entirely separate machine, communicating only via a video link and a keyboard cable?
It's gonna be pretty hard to legislate what's "intended gameplay" and what isn't.
I guess, if nothing else, we can be thankful for the advances in AI that are slowly being inspired.
Can you BUY a copy of Ubuntu and do what you want with it?
Yes. The vast majority of each Ubuntu edition (and the entirety of Gobuntu) is free software, and by FSF's definition, a free software license preserves freedom 0, the right to run the program. In this case, the license lets the owner of a copy be the "owner of a copy" under section 117 and privately reproduce the software as needed. The terms of the license come into play only for preparing derivative works or making copies for distribution.
IANAL - but licensing software requires entering a contract with whoever licenses the software. I'm not entering a contract with Blizzard.
I'm entering a contract with the retail store where i bought the box.
A whole another topic is the whole subscribtion thing, where completely other rules come to play.
I agree that using glider or similar "bots" it's morally wrong and should cause the account ban, but I don't see how a court can decide that a program that interact somehow with another program is not legal... I mean if I do "mv Wow.exe Wowz.exe" I'm legally persecutable? That's a sad day for the USA law...
Lots of whining. Lots of 'oh god now they will do xxxx'.
Glider is a piece of crap software that allows botting. Botting is very bad (and btw, has very little to do with game genie - perhaps you need to play an MMO) - it screws up game economies, screws up spawn rates and in general is used by people trying to gain an upper hand in one way or another.
I've found blizzard pretty even handed - they pretty much leave the multi-boxers alone as long as they aren't using automated tools.
The glider people basically wanted to make cheating tools 'legal'. Blizzard NOT winning this case would have been really bad. The guy deserves what's coming to him - and I hope he loses the eventual appeal. The took a gamble and they lost. Sort of reminds me of NAMBLA - these kinds of people are SUPPOSE to be hiding. It's a serious issue when they try to come into the light and we don't basish them. Somewhere along the way, we forgot what was right and what was wrong.
People who cheat can't be trusted and pretty much are on the lower rungs of society - consider the mindset required to cheat on a regular basis. It's not the type of person you want to be around, much less have any sort of business deaings with.
EK
Huge corporations can do whatever they want. Sure Blizzard has a beef with the Glider guy... But so does Microsoft when you run a VM with Linux while your MS OS is running. It's Occam's razor in real time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
Well, the thing is, that wouldn't even make sense for a MMO. WoW is useless without a server, and to use the server, pay attention, you need to log in. Which needs you to enter a serial number of a bought copy, i.e., of a valid license.
WoW doesn't even contain any copy-protection on the client side, because that's not what matters. Blizzard even lets you download the full version of the client for free, right from their own server. Yes, seriously.
And you don't need any hack to load multiple copies of WoW. Try it. CTRL-ESC out of it, and double-click the icon again. Voila, a second copy of WoW. Without any hacks. It's trivial to make a program not launch a second copy (Mozilla does it, COH does it, etc), but Blizzard already chose to not bother. You're allowed to run as many copies on as many machines as you wish, as long as all the running copies have a valid login.
So there is _no_ copy protection to circumvent there. It's as stupid as if I were claiming that you lockpicked my door... which didn't even have a lock, and was widely open anyway.
So, sad to say, the whole "Oh, grow up and go read TFA." wisecrack does nothing for me, sorry. Grow up and have a clue what you're talking about. I don't care if one uninformed article claims that black is white, and north is south. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't work as you describe.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It would be thrown out. You can't sign your freedom away (the military being something of an exception). So any contract that has you do so is invalid on the face of it and thus unenforceable.
It's already happening. A lot of games, for example, refuse to run if they even think that you have some kind of CD emulator installed on that computer. It doesn't even mean trying to detect if they're actually run off an emulated drive. No. If you have any traces of software which _could_ be used to run an unauthorized copy, they'll refuse to run at all on that machine.
Most won't even tell you why. The program will simply not start, or exit with some uninformative error message, or crash after 10 minutes of playing, just because the copy protection thinks you have a program they don't approve of.
So, well, sad to say nobody waited for this kind of a legal decision to do that. They already do it just because they can.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
This is actually written into the copyright act, stating that loading a licensed copy of software into memory in order to run it is a protected act. The judge ruled that because using Glider violated the EULA, the license was invalid & therefore the memory copy was not offered the protection of the clause.
However, unless Blizzard and their lawyers are completely brain-dead, there will be some sort of presentation of the Terms of Service when you connect to their servers that requires you to explicitly agree to abide by the ToS before you can log into the game. Any rights you may have to the physical copy of the software are separate from the license you are granted to use that software connected to Blizzard's servers. The ToS for connecting to the servers would, I expect, also specify what you are and are not permitted to do with the client software when used to connect to the servers, and the use Glider makes of the Warden software would therefore be in violation of the ToS.
Under the doctrine of first sale, you own the copy of the software that you bought -- but as soon as you use that software to connect to servers operated by the company, they can put clauses in the ToS that you must agree to if you want to play the game. The ToS could specify that the end-user is required to put the software box in a glass case and genuflect toward it three times before logging in, and until the customers actually read the ToS and get sufficiently bent out of shape over it to pressure the company to remove such asshattery, they're agreeing to do so every time they click the 'I Accept' button to get past the ToS and log into the game servers, and can be prosecuted for failing to comply.
Offer servers that do not allow any player to player trade. Or have a check box on the character sheet that shows that this character has never traded. Once you take anything from/give anything to another player, that status is revoked forever. While you are a trade virgin you get some kind of XP bonus, or maybe it's just an honor thing. i think the former might work better than the latter.
Trade between players allows gold farming and twinking as emergent behavior. This is one of the things that made me leave WoW. Some kid with more allowance than sense could buy his way into a better character.
Before someone whines at me about "but trade is part of the game/is important to some people"... reread the post and note that my suggestions are designed to make it a choice. The former means you'd be in a world where everyone has earned what their character is wearing (unless they bought a character). In PvP you'd never see a low level with uber equipment. Players who want to twink and buy virtual property with real currency can have their hollow victories elsewhere.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Since loading (part of) a game into RAM is considered copying, and copies not required for the execution of said game aren't authorized, does that mean that any user app that loads copyrighted files is making (unauthorized) RAM copies? If I make a tool that lets me look at game levels, I have to load the original levels, which causes copies in RAM that are unrequired for proper execution of the game.
So unless a game specificly allows you to mod it, it is illegal to do so because you have to violate copyright to do it (even if the end result is otherwise fair use).
Also, if I install a game that installs (copyrighted) videos for cutscenes and I browse to that directory in Konqueror, Konqueror will automatically generate a thumbnail image for all playable videos in a directory. To do so, it must open the file and read from it, which copies it into RAM. Such a copy is unauthorized, because it is not required for game execution. To make matters worse, it uses that unauthorized copy to make the image.. a an unauthorized derivitive work! So even though such a thumbnail could be considered fair use, it was made from an unauthorized RAM copy making the thumbnail illegal.
imho the decision is dangerous.
proper tools for proper problems. if the issue is stopping cheating, sue or stop the users. not the bot developer and definitely not the concept of sw programs talking to one another.
.. but to the best of my knowledge, EULAs don't exactly have the best track-record when they goto court.
Also, can't most licenses be retracted by either party; an at-will contract?
(Isn't that how MMO's can Ban users, essentially at-will?)
The OPs statement of "If you buy a game, you transfer rights to the game developer that they can sue you for." is misleading and false.. you never had rights on the software begin with; beyond the whole 'Run A Copy on your machine'.
I figure most Licensing breaches are handled/settled well before the lawsuit step though (I know that's the case for alot of vendors, M$ included).
---
As for the whole retina thing.. I believe it would fall into a realm of 'un-enforcable'. Gouging out your eyes for looking at a supermodel without a license isn't considered a reasonable activity in most 1st world courts.
----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
Who here does NOT understand perfectly well how Glider was being used to abuse WoW?
Who here can see ANY use for Glider that is NOT abuse, misuse, a violation of EULA, and a violation of fair play?
Griefers and cheats: two classes I have no use for.
Good riddance, and good for Blizzard.
As hairyfeet wrote: "I hope Blizzard enjoyed it,because that is the last red cent they are getting from me."
Seems he has made his choice for the future. Personally, I'm drifting in the same direction:
Software makers that annoy me with stupid DRM, copy protection and EULAs are increasingly unlikely to sell something to me. The same goes for companies that are overly aggressive in asserting their copyright.
Blizzard is among the latter category, not so much because of the current lawsuit (which I consider somewhat justified) but because of the BnetD ligitation. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_v._BnetD. In that case, I disagree with the courts and for starting that lawsuit Blizzard is on my boycott list.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Does that mean that you can't place their software on a solid state disk?
Looked like I was reading the forums for the whiners caught cheating, instead of slashdot
Cut the crap and stop the bitching about not being able to CHEAT FFS.
Since when was it your F'ing right to cheat at a game??????
What I was disappointed at was that the USA no longer allows flogging/caning as a punishment...a few public canings and the cheaters and zealot exploiters would suddenly be very nervous if not scared shitless about what they do.
If only we could just beat the living crap out of assholes that cheat.
I get this, but then how is this a copyright infringment case, and not a contract law case where you've broken your contract?
I can see getting fined or something because you broke your contract. I can see getting banned from the game. I don't see how you're infringing copyright...
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
If this case makes you cringe, the correct question to ask is, how can a company like Blizzard legally protect the legitimate players from having their whole game ruined by annoying buggers that create hacks for the game? I love gaming, but more than once I've stopped playing a game b/c hacks became rampant and completely ruined my experience. Screw the 3rd party people that are causing problems... although I'd like there to be a clearer definition of when someone should be sued or not.
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/
I disagree with your statement that bot players make the game more prosperous, though I would like to hear your reasoning. I hate that you were marked troll, but I have no mod points to add.
I have always been curious about the motivations behind botters, what aspects of botting do you enjoy? What about botting helps the economy or other players?
From my personal experience: a friend of mine stole my account and used it to try glide. I had not played WOW for over 2 years at this point... But I recieved an email informing me that my account was to be banned for botting. Through some investigation I found that it was a friend I had fallen out of touch with who knew some of my older passwords. I still haven't spoken with him, but I do wonder what makes a person load up a botting program knowing there is a decent chance they will lose anything they gain.
the next thing you know, the RIAA is successfully proving in court that ripping a CD is copyright infringement, because format-shifting is legal, sure, but a computer putting the bits into RAM in order to format-shift them is illegal.
Unless you used a random bit generator to randomly come to the exact bit configuration of the file, how you would check it against the file to see if you got it right or not without loading it into ram may be another story...
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corporation ?
No. You bought a COPY of the software.
Same as a CDROM...
Same as a Book...
Same as an audio cylinder made of wax...
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So I doubt my little comment will get noticed, but people, if you don't agree with how blizzard conducts their business, don't buy their product.
Cancel your wow subscriptions, and never buy another blizzard game ever again. Problem solved, let these companies EULA themselves out of existance, I won't lose a wink of sleep over it.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
You want to chase the needles in the haystacks...
Good luck with that.
These guys are not "Legitimate" developers...PERIOD.
End of Line.
I'm not a lawyer, but I read all these rulings on Slashdot. From what I can gather, this judge made a reasonable ruling. He said "You're breaking the EULA and doing so in such a way that ruins the contractual relationship Blizzard has with its customers". Seems fair to me.
And when I read the comments, all I see is "OH NOES, I'm infringing on copywrite everytime I launch a program". I say this judge made a logical ruling, and maybe the judge in the next yro ruling will do the same?
I doubt this will get read, but honestly, 99% of the stupid comments and bickering could have been avoided with a better summary.
/., I enjoy it here, but honestly can the editors learn their lesson and write better summaries so we can have better discussions?
Not to rag on
Glider does not call wow's executable. It attaches to the memory that is already assigned to wow by windows. This is where Blizz's case fails and why the judge is a moron. How can you copy a game when you never actually copy the game you just attached to the copy generated by Windows. Also means Blizz could go sue MS for the actual act of copying the game into ram.
I don't want to chase anything.
They should chase the needles.
Anyway they can sue whoever they
want.
What I think is wrong is to uphold
their claim, as it may serve other
less-legitimate/understandable claims
The decision is actually pretty straight forward if you read it. Basically it all hinges on one fact, which is self-evident due to precedence in contract law. According to the limited license for the end user you must agree to the EULA and the TOU to run an authorized copy of the program in memory. Since running another executable program that modifies the play of WoW is forbidden by the TOU, you are violating the license. Violators of a limited license are, in fact, violating the copyright of the program by making a copy in memory. Running Glide is using a separate executable program that affects the play of WoW therefore violating the license and resulting in copyright violation. Because the maker of the executable, Glide, knows that the executable is causing a violation and therefore a copyright infringement it is in fact infringing said copyright. The ability to do something to halt this behavior and failing to do so is another type of infringement. That's why the lawyer and PI told him to stop what he was doing. Failure to stop hurt him in this case. By the way, claiming that he didn't know about the violation of the TOU is ludicrous since the point is that Glide is hiding itself from the anti-cheat detection which wouldn't be required if it wasn't a violation. The idea is that binding a contract, the EULA and TOU, to a limited license which requires agreement to the contract to grant the license is the crux of the case. Violating the contract becomes a violation of a limited license which therefore becomes violation of copyright since the program is being loaded into memory. Like it or not making cheat programs that violate EULAs will always result in something like this. If you want to do it you'd better have an expensive law firm on retainer, you can bet they do.
is what we want here. The people playing and paying just want to know that the others also playing are playing by the same rules. When you program your computer to take over and make all the decisions while you go out and sun on the beach, it is not fair to the other players. Fairness and trust is what is being broken here. Laws and words aside common sense is a much better rule of thumb. People need to just play fair.
Does converting glider and running it as a proxy on a secondary box violate the EULA? So you would load your copy into RAM on one computer, proxy the traffic through a second box, that glider would then manipulate to cause actions to happen. That was you wouldn't have glider and World of Warcrack running on the same box. Would this scenario still be in violation?
They got their last cent from me when a retail version of one of their games wouldn't play in my CD drive because of copy protection. It was a burner - back when this was a bit uncommon (late 90s). When I emailed support they said it was a known issue and recommended that I buy a new CD ROM drive (not a burner).
I said this was too much and asked for a refund. They said no.
I asked for a special build (even with my name compiled in) that wouldn't check the CD drive. They said no.
I mentioned how it wouldn't have this problem if I cracked it. They said that would be illegal.
I told them selling products you know aren't going to work is illegal. They didn't reply.
Since then they've sued the bnet team, etc, etc, etc. Total jerks.
I was searching for this exact post and was going to make it if it didn't exist. EXACTLY!
I would use Glider if it were allowed or undetectable. And I would never use Glider in PvP or to farm mats, rep, or exp. It would be used to fishing and dual-boxing only
That's pathetic. I'll use fishing as an example. You can safely fish for Stonescale Eel off the pier in Tanaris at an extremely low level. That's a three-fer. You cook most of the fish you catch to level cooking. You put the Stonescale Eel in the AH, hello level 40 mount, and you get your Fishing to 300. You'll need a Big Iron pole (easy to farm) and stacks of +100 fishing lures, but those are easy to come by too.
At 300 you qualify for the daily fishing quest once you get to level 70 and skill it the rest of the way for free while you are doing the daily. Fishing in Nagrand (The One That Got Away) is kind of dicey, but you skill up so fast now anyway it doesn't matter much.
Blizzard has nerfed the skilling requirements for fishing at least twice since I've been playing. What's the point of playing a grinding game if you have a robot do all your work for you? ... and Blizzard keeps making it easier any way?
William Patry, one of the leading authorities on copyright law and counsel for Google, has posted a very negative discussion of this decision on his blog. It sounds like there is a good chance of reversal on appeal. Unlike most ./-ers, this is someone who really knows what he is talking about.
Wrong! The court did not find this. The court found that you, as a purchaser of software, are not entitled to the legal protections given by 17 USC section 117 to owners of copies of software, because you can never be the owner of that copy! You are merely a "licensee" and are governed by USC 17 section 106, which makes *any* copy you make illegal and allows the publisher to set any terms they want for its use, including the denial of resale (also granted in 117). That is the precedent. It makes section 117 completely redundant and gives you no legal rights upon purchasing a copy of software. That is alarming to me.
EULAs are considered valid contracts, but until now, they have not legally governed the ability for legitimate purchasers of software to actually use the software. Section 117 explicitly gives that right to purchasers, and this court ruling sidesteps that law with a bizarre definition of who the "owner" of a copy is. If the owner of a copyright is also the only owner of all copies of the software, then section 117 makes no sense. You don't need to be granted the legal right to use a copy of your own copyright work. The law cannot have been intended to be read that way, and this judge is either dense or deliberately obtuse.
Person 1 says: "A game copy in memory is a copyright violation! That is stupid. How can I play?!"
Person 2 says: "The unauthorized copying the game into memory for the purpose of cheating violates the EULA and thus is a copyright violation"
Repeat over & over & over & over again
The users running Glider are violating the Blizzard ToS; they went after the author of Glider for marketing a tool whose sole purpose is to make an unauthorized copy of Blizzard's software in order to deceive it about gamehacking.
" The net effect? If you buy a game, you transfer rights to the game developer that they can sue you for." Nonsense. If you buy a game and your hacking around the EULA has a net effect on others playing the game, you get sued. Nobody cares if you are gliding Diablo II. lulz
You guys remember Diablo II and Open Battle.net? How come Blizzard can't implement the same such system? Allow bots and cheats on a purpose built set of servers. It's nice to be a God, every now and then. Shoot, if Bliz were to buy out Glider and sell it as a package, perhaps even adding on an additional dollar to the subscription fee, I'm sure they could make a mint.
What if I hire someone to play my character for me when I'm at work; am I violating Blizzards contract with me since the person playing isn't the person who bought the game? What if I have 2 accounts and multibox them? Am I violating their copyright by running 2 instances of the game even though I only bought 1 copy? This decision is idiotic and should be thrown out.
If I disagree with you it's because you are wrong.
Good to see those Blizzard dollars being applied towards lawsuits against cheaters. I wonder how long until they can enact legislation that people who use hacks in multiplayer games can be dragged out and shot in the street.
Blizzard Wins vs. Glider: What it means for the virtual currency market We posted a blog post on this over at GameRates.com on what this means for some other ToS/EULA violators such as virtual currency sellers. "What does this mean for the gold industry however? First off it may embolden Blizzard to actually take on major gold sellers in the courtroom. However, this could be a very dangerous move as if they lost or perhaps a U.S court found that virtual currency has real worth it could awake the sleeping giant of legal problems. For example if Blizzard bans someone accidently, or itâ(TM)s servers crash, or they nerf an item all which destroy virtual goods (with real legal value) in the process one may be able to sue Blizzard for these âoerealâ damages caused. For this and many other reasons we doubt that such a case will arise although the reverse may be true (a gold farmer suing blizzard for preventing them from selling its legally acquired in-game goods for cash outside the game). For those of you that have been around for a while you may remember the BlackSnow Case against Mythic where such a thing happened. Still the scary thing is the wide ruling that violating a Terms of Service (ToS) or End User License Agreement (EULA) that you haphazardly click every time you play the game can be counted as copyright infringement. An EULA can say virtually anything it wishes. Does violating any part of it really count as copyright infringement? If you choose to farm items by hand using normal game mechanics without interfering with anyone else and then you mail the items you acquire to another person that is fine (it would be considered "twinking" a friend or new character), yet if you do the same action and the person sends you $10 through PayPal for the gift is it then considered a copyright violation because it violates Blizzards ToS? That's ridiculous and as such we don't see the case ever being applied to the virtual currency market. In fact we think that if the case is appealed it has a very good chance of being reversed. It's simply too broad in its scope"
No. You in your idealistic world bought (and have ownership) of the software. I want, very much, to agree with you but I can't because you're not willing to understand. You did NOT buy the software. You bought a license to USE the software and probably paid a small portion of the sum for the physical media that the data was conveyed to you on. You don't OWN any software, hell you don't own much of anything.
We can all agree that it is wrong but the reality is that you don't even really own your car. If you owned it you could do anything you want with it. However you can not legally drive it down the road backwards at 100 MPH while drunk. For that matter you can't even drive it on your own property while drunk. You don't even own your own physical body - you can be drafted or you are prohibited from killing yourself legally.
You're living in a world of fantasy. Come to this one and then look at it. You might not like it, you might wish it to be different, but that is the reality. If you don't leave your idyllic world and accept the reality here you can do nothing to alter the rules which we are forced to live by. Simply making a denial of reality doesn't alter it, at all.
You don't OWN a book. You own a copy. If you owned it you could copy it and sell it or give the copies away for free. Nor do you own the cylindrical wax... You own a copy and have only the rights granted to you by the original author or their representatives. It sucks but that's the law.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You own a copy.
And the owner of a lawfully made copy of a work has specific rights under U.S. copyright law. This includes the right to resell your copy:
And in the case of computer programs, this includes the right to copy it into RAM and run it:
But per the decision in this case, WoW players don't even own a copy; they are in effect renting it from Blizzard.
You own a copy and have only the rights granted to you by the original author or their representatives.
Did you forget their senators? Everything in sections 107 through 122 of title 17 is an exception to the exclusive rights under copyright, a right reserved by the author's representatives and senators.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
(I'm aware that the original is allcaps, but the filter complains.)
Does this mean that any addon in wow or other applications (firefox, excel) which utilizes the existing code, by virtue of the program running, infringes copyright?
How long until that argument is extended to making a "copy" of a tune or written material in your memory can also constitute copyright infringement?
(No, I am not going to link to "the right to read" here, find it yourself).
Copies to cache's on your motherboard and harddrive, memory in your video card, bits floating through your video card processor, a few bits in your registers, math processor, code inside the CPU, or heck what about all the bits on the line, the representation of data on the screen, the transferred image to your face, since there is no information loss in physics the images are technically broadcasted from your monitor to the whole universe, you're basically warez'ing the game to the whole world and beyond.
I'm going to need a lot more licenses.
The individual user get a license to use the program UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS - if these conditions aren't met, he doesn't have the right. If he starts a bot first and then the program he has committed a violation, if he doesn't start the bot first but just the program there is no violation.
If they appeal this, they are going to die screaming (or at least loose - assuming they don't send a Death Knight after him)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
"that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
The plain meaning of this text is that you're allowed to copy it into RAM if "
IF you OWN it - you don't OWN world of warcraft - you are paying for a license. And that license (EULA/TOS) clearly states what you are allowed to do. You are not allowed to use bots. So if you use bots you have broken the contract, you are no longer a legal licensee and as such copying the program becomes a copyright violation because you don't have the right to do so any longer.
"Which requires copying it to RAM, which according to the text of 117(a) is not an infringing act."
IF you are the owner, and reading blizzard's license agreement its quite clear you are not an owner, you are paying for a license.
"This decision is wrong because the judge interpreted 117(a) incorrectly "
No, you just don't understand the case.
"Simply because Blizzard includes a unilateral contract in the box with the software they sell, this other guy (who they haven't sold it to) is now guilty of copyright infringement."
No, they are guilty of contributory and vicarious copyright
infringement - because they are making money of helping people break the copyright law.
"It's a very dangerous precedent, and hopefully those decisions will both be overturned before they cause too much trouble."
It is not a precedent, it is upholding existing law. So don't hold your breath.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
You could follow the link in the article!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Basically another big company has paid the courts to rule in their favor against common sense and decency. No surprise here at all.
Now you can vote against blizzard and ditch their product. There are alternatives. You can quit playing games and do something useful with your time for example.