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.
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!
Better go through and rewrite my OS so I can make sure that nothing goes into RAM...
Guess where I'll be for the next 10 years?
My wife is going to kill me...
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!
My thoughts exactly. the RIAA would have a FIELD DAY with this ruling. It basically says that you can't play ANY song in digital format on a PC since it's necessary to load it into RAM in order to get it to play. GAH!
Thankfully, this IS the Ninth "Circus" Court, the single most overturned federal bench in all of American Jurisprudence. I expect there will be an appeal and a smarter outcome in a smarter court.
I hope so, anyway.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Performance of WoW is gonna suck now that everyone has to disable their cache before starting the game.
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.
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
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'
I have known many people to play WoW, I mean, it's insane.
The judge probably plays WoW.
The plaintiff's lawyers probably play WoW.
The defendant's lawyers probably play WoW.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
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
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.
"the loaded-into-RAM-equals-copy argument is absolutely dumb"
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
No, most of the time, copies that you make of the program aren't "...in excess of a license."
Agree or disagree, fine - but the meat of this discussion isn't "programs are copied on execution," but "...in excess of license."
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.
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
I have some mixed filling about that.
Congratulations, you are now officially a sandwich!
Forget world peace, bring on -1 pointless
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.
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.
No, I'm New Here
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!
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.
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.
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!!
No. The EULAs state that upon installation of the software your soul becomes property of Blizzard.
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.
There goes the legality of most current Virus Scanners in the US 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."
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.
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.
In-game cheating should be prevented by leveraging real-world laws? Not only does that not have anything to do with the issue at hand, it's fucking stupid.
btw, you just lost the game.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All