Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard Tries To Forbid Open Sourcing Glider
ruphus13 notes a new development in Blizzard's case against MDY, which we discussed last week. Blizzard, the maker of World of Warcraft, has now requested another injunction — to prevent the open sourcing of Glider code. Quoting: "Blizzard has asked the court for a relatively unconventional order prohibiting MDY from making the source code for its MMO Glider software available to the public, and prohibiting MDY from helping people develop other World of Warcraft automation software. Blizzard had previously asked the court to shut down MDY's WoW operations in its motion for summary judgment, but the court's summary judgment order did not address Blizzard's request. Blizzard's requests to prohibit open-source release of MDY's software and prohibit MDY's assistance in development of independent WoW bots are new to this motion — and seem likely to raise eyebrows in the open source and digital rights advocacy camps."
If the Glider software doesn't contain any copyright infringement (which MDY may be hard-pressed to prove - really, dunno), can Blizzard legally prevent them from Open Sourcing the software? It would seem to me that that's really not going to fly that well.
Informatus Technologicus
Your right to free speech is the right to speak freely against the government, not release another company's trade secrets.
Care to show me how this software is illegal?
It violates the TOS of another software product. That doesn't make the software illegal. I could write in my TOS that you must not run it on Windows, does that make Windows illegal? I kinda doubt it.
It violates the TOS of Blizzard to use the software in combination with WoW, which may void your license. But "illegal"? At least be correct with the terms you use, it's not like there's any lack of term confusion in the vicinity of copyrights, we don't need more people contributing to it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's really complicated. Whether by design or not, contract law is astoundingly complex and sometimes borderline irrational.
The basic point when it comes to 3rd party contract interference is intent. If you make a product or provide a service with the explicit intent of causing a breach of contract, the affected party can file a lawsuit claiming damages or requesting other court intervention.
How about Blizzard just fixes their software not not allow cheating?
They do this all the time, and people are often banned for using cheats. WowGlider used to actively probe resident memory for the values of variables but now WoW checks for such activity, so Glider sacrificed accuracy for stealth by only passively watching memory and controlling the character based on various criteria. In the eyes of WoW's anti-cheating scheme, Glider really does appear to be ordinary user input - especially when the user stays at they keyboard, occasionally doing some human-like stuff such as chatting with friends.
(from a presentation based upon a textbook)
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
A tort that arises when a third party induces a contracting party to breach the contract with another party.
The following elements must be shown:
- A valid, enforceable contract between the contracting parties.
- Third-party knowledge of this contract.
- Third-party inducement to breach the contract.
The difference is that your bot can be tapping a node for 24h/24h. I've had problems with bots doing that previously, and I've had to report them to be able to complete part of the quests.
Yes, that was a small server, so almost no one else than the bots in the zone, thus a very slow respawn rate. That was a PITA.
If you actually played WoW, you would understand the reasons against botting. However you don't, but it doesn't seems to stop you from trolling for comments...
This is another example of your lack of understanding. WoW has PvP servers. Within these servers, Players can attack other players. Asshats use a bot to get to the highest level possible and then proceed to attack lower level characters for their own amusement. This harassment slows down the legitimate player.
Of course nothing prevents a level 70 from being an asshat, but at least without bots you would have a lower number of dedicated asshats...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
You can't be serious. CAPTCHAs are annoying enough on normal websites already. Many people seem to accept that they have to only pass through them once during registration, for the sake of their own good, but asking them every once in a while is surely going to hurt. Losing customers to the inconvenience of protection measures added to retain customers is not exactly the price anyone would be looking to pay.
Admittedly this analogy is going a bit too far, but requiring every user to confirm every time that they are not a bot is akin to having everyone boarding a plane prove that they're not a terrorist. Many libertarian minded IT folks heavily oppose the inevitable privacy breaches that happen in the latter regard, theoretically, for their own protection. Why would these same IT folks advocate using a similar sort of thing online is beyond me :)
The problem isn't so much that WoW is boring. The problem is that the interesting content of WoW is hidden behind insanely boring leveling. So people are very tempted to skip the boring part.
It's a bit like skipping ads in your favorite TV show. Do you not watch your show because it has ads? No, you tape it and skip the ads.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
IAANAL, but is a breach of TOS the same as a breach of contract? That is, is a usage license the same as a contract?
EULAs are very sticky. Most of the issues stem from whether software is "licensed or sold," or from the fact that the consumer has little recourse if he or she does not accept the license ("No returns on opened software")
Terms of Service contracts, the type which you agree to prior to the exchange of funds or use of the service, are more cut and dry. Unless a clause is unconscionable, it is just as binding as any other contract.
To make things even more complicated and hard to research, many lawyer types and media outlets do not distinguish between the two of these, or the sometimes confusing terms "clickwrap license," "browserwrap license," "shrinkwrap license," etc.
More interesting reading.
How to leak source code.
Step one: Announce that you are going to go open source with your code.
Step two: Buy a new laptop, and copy the source code from a CD to the laptop.
Step three: Burn 100 copies of the source to CD's and mail it to 100 of your subscribers.
Step four: Destroy the data contained on the laptop by taking the hard drive out and melting it with a MAPP gas blowtorch. Same with the RAM.
Step five: mail the CD's by placing them in as many mailboxes that you can find that do not have security cameras pointing at them.
NOTE: Wear gloves, hat, long-sleeve shirt, pants, and if you really concerned--a full body wetsuit.
Burn all clothing you were wearing when burning the CD's and take a shower afterwards. ....
Or hire a intern and accidentally give him a copy of the source code.
The choice is yours.