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."
Not WoW. WoW, like Diablo II and Starcraft before it, runs from your soul itself, slowly filling your life until there is nothing but the game.
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 anyone is interested, you can find a copy of the actual decision via the glider forums ---> link (27 page PDF).
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.
Meh. No problem. Clearly my feeble attempts to play WoW are covered as parody.
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.
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.
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.
Then talk to MDY's counsel.
To me, this is the smoking gun.
Here, MDY's counsel is agreeing that "Copying to RAM" is copying, an act that it reserved and controlled by the copyright holder. They agree that if you are no longer in compliance with whatever license you agreed to in order to access the content, then you are no longer entitled to the content -- since the license controls that access on behalf of the copyright holder.
Regardless of how you may feel, this is what MDY's counsel agreed to. He basically said "Yes, this it true".
The case then proceeded to prove that Glider is, in fact, a breach of the license.
The judge made no law here, nothing new here. It's all been done before in other cases. He's simply applying it.
But that's how it will be interpreted. It doesn't matter anymore on what a court case means, but rather what it says. The USA has had a long history of interpreting various court rulings different ways to prosecute/defend and to push an agenda.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
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.
It's by number of cases. The overall percentage is completely within the norm; this is the old "Oh the 9th Circuit is a bunch of liberal activist crazies that the high court always overturns because they're crazy" bullshit turned into "common knowledge" for the sake of wishful thinking. In reality, they just see a much larger number of cases, and most cases that reach SCOTUS are overturned, from any circuit.
I once saw a very thorough breakdown over a number of years showing the data, and the 9th was by far the most active, and it's reversal rate was not out of line, it was more that other courts had such low number of cases the difference was immaterial. Can't find it now; a few seconds of googling showed a blogger who -- of course taking the "9th is doing a bad job" angle -- said the 9th was reversed 19/22 times last year, and that the next busiest circuit, the 5th, was reversed 4/5 times. Frankly I'd like to see more than 5 cases with one upheld before I start saying the 5th is doing any "better" than the 9th.
The enemies of Democracy are
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
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.
However, a reading of what the court actually found is much less worrisome.
The Court reaches the following conclusions on the basis of undisputed facts, construction of the EULA and TOU, and controlling Ninth Circuit law: 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 Blizzardâ(TM)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.
Basically, because the users of Glider are violating the terms of the contract with Blizzard, their copying of the software (to RAM or not to RAM) is not covered under US Title 17, Section 117 (regardless of what the sibling post states).
So people can stop saying "EULAs have never been held up in court?"
Put identity in the browser.
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.
well, you are playing their game. it would just be plain stupid if blizzard sued their own customers.
I cant even imagine any buiness.........
wait a second....