Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blizzard Wins Major Lawsuit Against Bot Developers

Posted by kdawson on from the gliding-off-into-the-sunset dept.

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."

11 of 838 comments (clear)

  1. Wow... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Wow... by schon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      you're guilty of copyright infringement simply by using the product that you paid to use. Quite the precedent.

      It's also completely and utterly wrong, according to copyright law.

      US Title 17, section 117 explicitly states that copying a program into RAM so you can use it is not an infringement.

      it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
      (1) 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 judge quite clearly erred in application of this statute. IIRC the law was amended specifically because of courts ruling that copying to RAM was infringement (which the judge apparently didn't understand.)

      This is pretty much a slam-dunk appeal.

    2. Re:Wow... by Kristoph · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The court essentially found that if you violate the EULA then the use of the software constitutes a copyright violation.

      This is the only precedent here and it's hardly an alarming one.

  2. Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright by KookyMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wow.

    I guess now the *AA can now start telling us what hardware we're allowed to play movies/music on, and simply loading it into RAM on a non-approved device constitutes copyright infringement, as a copy is being made in a way not granted under the license.

    Lets here it for vinyl. Nothing is ever removed, just vibrations sent down the needle to the speaker. (Talking about the old phonographs.)

  3. I was once working for a company by zonky · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I was once working for a company by zonky · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Never went to trial; the smaller company went bust first. Legal fee's probably didn't help.

  4. The decision is about EULAs by sowth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

  5. Re:But wait, there's more... by m.ducharme · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What makes the copy illegal is not that it was put in ram, but the way it was put there.

    Click on the WoW executable, windows sticks a copy in RAM; that's a legal copy, per the license agreement.

    Click on the Glider executable, glider calls the WoW executable, that's an unlicensed copy of WoW and hence is infringing.

    The specific copy of WoW in your RAM is illegal not because it's a copy, but because of how it got there.

    --
    Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  6. Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Glider doesn't make the copy. If the user loads the game first, then loads Glider, then the copy was authorized to make at the time it was made.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  7. Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright by UncleTogie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But at the same time if a company has one program and doesn't like a different web browser (like Opera) they could ban you from using opera while their program is running.

    "Your choice of software has been approved, Comrade. We'll be watching..."

    How long before other major software developers start using this to stifle innovation and competition? 'specially {though I'll not name names} the "popular" OS firms...

    --
    Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
  8. Ouch. by Xest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There goes the legality of most current Virus Scanners in the US then.