Slashdot Mirror


Judge Rules WoW Bot Violates DMCA

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that Blizzard has added another victory in their campaign against World of Warcraft bots. A federal judge has ruled that not only did the Glider bot break the EULA, it can be classified as a circumvention device under the DMCA. "As we've noted before, Blizzard's legal arguments, which Judge David G. Campbell largely accepted, could have far-reaching and troubling implications for the software industry. Donnelly is not the most sympathetic defendant, and some users may cheer the demise of a software vendor that helps users break the rules of Blizzard's wildly popular role playing game. But the sweeping language of Judge Campbell's decision, combined with his equally troubling decision last summer, creates a lot of new uncertainty for software vendors seeking to enter software markets dominated by entrenched incumbents and achieve interoperability with legacy platforms."

19 of 498 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Hopefully there's a silver lining by kcbanner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They paid for their accounts.

    --
    Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
  2. Doesn't matter. by SuperBry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This will just be appealed, this was just a judge not understanding the difference between breaking a contract (EULA) and breaking a copyright.

    1. Re:Doesn't matter. by Chabo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That was several months ago. This is about a judge not understanding the difference between breaking a contract and breaking access-control mechanisms.

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    2. Re:Doesn't matter. by nog_lorp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit. If Warden failed to detect ANY bots, despite being intended to do so, does that make ALL bots circumvention programs?

      Circumvention is an ACTION, requiring ACTION on the part of the bot. Otherwise Blizzard could have some debug comment: "This code is intended to prevent screenshots from stealing our copyrighted artz", followed by nothing. Then the Print Screen functions would be CIRCUMVENTING the "protection" by "not being detected".

  3. Blizzard is doing a lot of damage to the industry by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems like each and every time Blizzard has filed a suit over something related to "violating the terms of their EULA", they've been handed a victory.

    I've been troubled by ALL of these rulings over the years, and this just adds to the total.

    As far as I'm concerned, people who pay for a copy of their game software have *every* right to opt to use said software with other, alternate servers, if they so desire. They also have every right to run any manner of automated script or "bot" in lieu of physically sitting in front of their screen and hand-manipulating the character they've paid for the subscription to use on Blizzard's servers!

    It's a really BAD precedent to set, to legally enforce the idea that a software developer can FORCE a customer to use their product only in specific ways they outline. Imagine if Microsoft or Apple came along and dictated that their operating systems could no longer legally be used as a platform running any "p2p sharing software" (since as we ALL know, torrents and other types of p2p sharing are inherently bad, right?).

    Or imagine if you bought the latest edition of a "Call of Duty" game, only to find out the EULA stated it was illegal to play except on weekends? Blizzard has effectively won the legal ability for developers to state and enforce anything like this they'd like to put in the agreement!

  4. Re:Hopefully there's a silver lining by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I pay for my movie tickets but that doesn't give me the right to harass others.

  5. Re:Hopefully there's a silver lining by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are absolutely free to harass others in the theater. The movie theater can ask you to leave, and you have to do it or else get arrested for trespassing, but you are free to exercise free speech in the theater. As long as you're not endangering people (yelling "fire" for instance)... So you have the right to harass people, but the theater also has the right to ask you to leave.

  6. Re:Hopefully there's a silver lining by Zironic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because they want to keep the other 70%?

  7. Re:Blizzard is doing a lot of damage to the indust by OglinTatas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if 10 million people play WoW, do you think a few of them might be judges?

  8. Re:Blizzard is doing a lot of damage to the indust by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They also have every right to run any manner of automated script or "bot" in lieu of physically sitting in front of their screen and hand-manipulating the character they've paid for the subscription to use on Blizzard's servers!

    Not as long as you share a game world. Though it's not physical, whenever people meet there are rules to follow. Even if you paid membership to a sports club, they could deny you access if you came there shirtless. They could throw you out if you're breaking the rules and being an ass. You can't wave your membership card in their face and say "You can't touch me, I've paid to be here!". Client software and bots are exactly the same as dress code and club rules. With single player games you can do whatever the fuck you want, just as you can in the privacy of your own home. WoW is not your home (or if it is, seek professional help).

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  9. I don't get Siy and Pearlman... by Cookie3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FTA:

    Siy and Pearlman also expressed skepticism at the notion that these "dynamic, non-literal elements" constitute a distinct copyrighted work.

    If I'm reading the trial order correctly (IANAL), it seems to cite the following cases in support of "non-literal elements" being copyrighted:

    See Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 888 F.2d 878, 884-85 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Midway Mfg. Co. v. Arctic Int'l, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009, 1011-12 (7th Cir. 1983); Williams Elec., Inc. v. Arctic Int'l, Inc., 685 F.2d 870, 874 (3d Cir. 1982); Stern Elecs., Inc. v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852, 855-56 (2d Cir. 1982)

    What I'd like to see from Siy and Pearlman is a description of what these cases are, and why their citation is somehow irrelevant with regards to non-literal elements and copyright enforceability. The judge certainly seemed to think they applied. (Again, if I'm reading the order correctly. I might be wrong. Who knows.)

    --
    present day... present time... hahahaha...
  10. Re:Blizzard is doing a lot of damage to the indust by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure. So kick off the people abusing their terms of service. Suing the company making the bot is a completely different issue, and has (rather, SHOULD have) no legal grounds.

  11. Re:Hopefully there's a silver lining by Thinboy00 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there even any point to the game if you can't even be buggered to play it yourself?

    --
    $ make available
  12. It's a *dumb* game, that's why this problem exists by hdon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I the only one who is pretty disgusted at the trend of games where the primary skill function is just how much time your character spends doing stuff? It might as well just be an online store where you buy virtual skills and pay with your blood over firewire. Sacrifice your lives to something worthy, chumps! Develop some actual talents while you're at it!

  13. Re:Hopefully there's a silver lining by Alyred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps the game does suck, that's for the individual playing to evaluate. However, since those people who use the bot to cheat interact with (and gain advantages over) those that do not, it ruins the enjoyment of others that have purchased the product when the terms explicitly state that such cheating is not allowed.

    See the Battlefield series.

    If someone wants to cheat on a singleplayer game, more power to them. But doing it in an environment where others are playing reduces the value of others who abide by the terms of service.

  14. Re:Hopefully there's a silver lining by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're not really free to do it. Otherwise you could stay there (as you would like to) but you can't. As you said they will throw you out.

    Freedom isn't about doing whatever you want with no repercussions. There are always repercussions which is the way it should be in a lot of instances.

    It's all well in good to say that you're free to say nigger and people are free to react in whatever way but the fact is the way they will react makes it more or less impossible to use the word in most cases. Secondly if you are free to do something wrong and people are free to retaliate then even if you have the freedom to use a WoW bot then Blizzard should have the freedom to stop you and protect the majority of their paying customers that dislike it.

    If it were a single player game where you only affected yourself then go nuts and do whatever you want but it's a multi-player game where people have to pay a monthly fee and if most people don't want it then the majority win. As I said Blizzard has the right to retain as many customers as possible.

    Whether or not the DCMA route was the right way to go about it may be debatable. Part of me does say they're not circumventing copyright protection but another part of me says that bot users in any game are scum so fuck 'em.

  15. Re:It's a *dumb* game, that's why this problem exi by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I the only one who is pretty disgusted at the trend of games where the primary skill function is just how much time your character spends doing stuff?

    Go play a FPS and you'll find autoaim bots, wallhacks, and other assorted cheating tools. Corner a cheater and they'll complain about how they have a "real life" and can't spend all their time playing the game to get the skills to compete with other players. This is simply more of the same.

    There are thousands of folks who want instant gratification. Twitch monkeys who can't stand not being at the top of whatever hill they see but don't want to invest the time it takes to get there (nevermind that being at the top of the hill doesn't HAVE to be the point of a lot of these games). So they go for the short-cut.

    Yeah, treadmills and grinds aren't for everyone. But that doesn't mean you get to ditch the rules because they're inconvenient for you. Play the game... or don't play at all.

  16. Re:Hopefully there's a silver lining by Ghworg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We should reinstate the draft and send these people to some foreign country to get blown up. Or at the very least, basic training.

    Yes because it is much better when the annoying people are trained killers. Military training doesn't necessarily stop you being an inconsiderate twat.

  17. Re:Hopefully there's a silver lining by Sj0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    WoW is a painfully boring game.

    Think about how boring this game is: It's so boring that an entire economy of real money has sprung up based on paying people or machines to do the horribly boring task of playing the game.

    This is why I tried it for a weekend then quit right away: I have a job that pays me about 70k/yr to do incredibly boring things. Why would I come home and pay Blizzard $120/yr plus expansion packs for the privilege of doing incredibly boring things?

    If it was because I want to keep up with my friends who are also playing, it makes sense to hire a Chinese kid to play the game for me, so I can have the L70 character so I can play with my friends without having to go through the boring, months long process of levelling up a character.

    --
    It's been a long time.