Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard vs. Glider Battle Resumes Next Week
trawg writes "You paid for it, you have the DVD in your drive and the box on the floor next to your desk, but do you own the game? That's the question the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will rule on next week in the case between Blizzard, publisher of World of Warcraft, and MDY, publisher of the Glider bot. The Glider bot plays World of Warcraft for you, but Blizzard frowns on this, saying it voids the license agreement — you don't own the game, you only have a license to use it, and bots like Glider invalidate the license. The EFF has a good summary of the case as well. The case is due to be resumed on Monday."
Still waiting for a Nethack bot that can ascend.
I'm really enjoying living in the Future, I have to say. When I was young, I never imagined a trial over the right to have a computer play a game for you... Just wouldn't have made sense to my eight year old videogame-loving brain.
Does this case have much wider implications (as summary hints at) for the software licensing at large?
I haven't read the article yet, but it seems so.
.. waiting for them to overturn this ruling. the bottom line is that blizzard has all the resources they need to fluff this case up as some kind of crime against humanity and the loss of freedom for every man woman and child in america when the bottom line is they are fighting to poison themselves for the long haul. I must say that as a consumer I HATE when any company wants me to pay for something I wont own. my first thought is always "if you dont want me to own your products, I wont buy them." They will learn this lesson eventually along with the "if we dont make things work easily, the pirates will" lesson after billions wasted and a soured market turns around and bites them in the ass.
You've to realize that this game is a service provided not for a single person, but for everyone who is in one the game. Blizzard has crafted a meticulous balance to ensure that people will continue paying to play for the game and be happy, and this balance greatly requires that people don't get to use shortcuts which bypasses aspects of the game which Blizzard deems as crucial for balance. For that alone I can understand why Blizzard would want to prevent bots.
The case opening brief makes for interesting reading.
There's one curious omission though (as near as I can tell, I only skimmed it). Ongoing payments.
Although the brief does mention that the game is available for retail purchase, or download, it makes no mention that an online account that requires an ongoing service charge is required in order to play. I suspect that Blizzard could argue that while the Glider author may not be circumventing the game client itself, it's making an illegal copy of the data stream for which the gamers pays an ongoing fee.
That said, I believe Blizzard is in the wrong on this one by going the legal route. I believe they have every right to modify their Warden software to scan for and ban accounts which use glider and other bot programs. They're just worried about losing revenue by banning customers, rather than by going directly to the source.
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
I still find it amusing that Blizzard is going after the makers of Glider, when the license violation is on the part of each player using it.
Sure, maybe Glider is infringing on some trademark or copyright, but the company making it did not facilitate the user in violating the license any more than the authors of libpcap facilitated someone running ShowEQ and violating Sony's license. The route Blizzard seems to be going ends up at, "The user violated our license, and so we want them to pay the next 20 years of subscription fees while we also cancel their account. After all, they would have paid us anyways." which is patently, and I hope legally, ridiculous. Nothing at all shows that these users would have continued playing if they did not have access to a program like Glider, in fact I recall back in the peek of EQ people quitting when seq or mq or any of the other programs got defeated. If they just got banned, they bought other accounts.
If Blizzard is really egotistical enough to claim, in a court of law, that the user would play if only they had played by our rules, than let them sue the user. Better yet, let them track down which users are not only still playing, but purchased new accounts to do so. Then lets hope the judge laughs them out of the court room.
If you're needing a bot to play for you its time to give up the game.
Even though wow is a shadow of its former self.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
As if intellectual property owners didn't have ENOUGH legal clout these days (including guilty-until-proven-innocent instaverdicts)! Cheating or not, no software company should be able to tell us what programs can run in tandem with theirs.
This case is one of the few that is testing EULA vs you know, actual sane things like property ownership.
granted Botting is generally reviled by all who play MMOs... (same with spammers and gold farmers).
however the main reason they exist is simple: Time = Money.
botting = more Time playing thus more ingame Money / gear such to use to play the game yourself.
That being said some of the EULA's i've worked my way through are so much legal bullsh!t that it'd take a lawyer a week to work through what exactly it says.
EULA are barely enforced at the moment... however... if EULA become enforceable then what the laws giveth the small print can take away
(and another thing about the case was Blizzards use of Copyright Law to win the case)
And if you like owning software good luck in 5 years you won't be able to BUY software anymore
you'll just purchase a limited use license and heaven help you if you want to play the game 5 years down the line.
Steam is a nice example of this... its done well... but at its core is this...
YOU no longer OWN your game. you cannot sell the game to anyone, you cannot lend the game to a friend, and the game owners or Steam can decide you can't play the game for any reason with little to no recourse.
I'm glad Blizzard was able to shut down MDY and go a long way towards interrupting Glider and it's ilk. But I'm afraid Blizzard's lawyers are being too smart for everyone's good. The legal tactic has been successful in achieving this goal. And I'm not sure that there's a more effective way to go about it. However, the legal ramifications are startling.
Blizzard worries - and should worry - the other users. No-one could care about bots if it didnt affect the users (or, optionally, a disproportional (24/24) load on the game servers).
The game is a competition. As in other sports, there are rules that regulate the competition. No doping, no cheating, no helping by others. It goes as far as that new clothing materials may have to be tested and approved or disapproved.
The reason is obvious: to allow a fair competition. As soon as someone breaking the rules is 'allowed', the other competitors will rightfully complain. It's not else in the blizzard game - you -knowingly- obstruct other user's gameplay. Thereby hinder other users.
Having said that all, i'm not sure why they have to go the 'legal' way - blizzard could just ban all involved accounts.
Legally, i'm not sure if this ownership discussion is needed at all. Blizz should use this competition element, and the aspect of fair play / breaking the competition rules. Because, suppose this situation: A free game, open-source if you like, no monthly fees. Someone setting up a gameserver for this and banning users that cheat. Who owns the software in this case? Does the owner of the game server _not_ have the right to ban users (or: have the right to ask them to create an account in the first place?). Taking away all copyright ownership issues, Blizz should still be able to make the case - they offer the service of a competition, they must be able to regulate such competition and disqualify cheaters. No more no less.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't the summary a bit misleading? It's not ownership of the copy of the game you've bought that's being contested; it's the right to play it on Blizzard's own servers. Now, admittedly, the game isn't much use if you can't connect to those servers, but it's not as if you didn't know that when you bought the game.
However, Blizzard is not talking about going into anybody's home and taking away their physical copy of the game, or requiring them to delete it from their hard drive. People like to say that piracy isn't theft because it doesn't deprive the rights-holder of their original copy of the software. Ok, I can buy that. It doesn't mean that piracy isn't A Bad Thing (TM), but I can agree that it isn't theft. So by the same token, Blizzard isn't contesting anybody's ownership of the game - just the right to play it on Blizzard servers.
As a former WoW player (quit cold-turkey 6 weeks ago due to needing my life back) I'm supportive of Blizzard. Stuff like Glider just ruins the experience for legitimate players and I'm glad they take steps to guard against that.
Did your parents have any children that weren't retarded or are you an only child?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You paid for it, you have the DVD in your drive and the box on the floor next to your desk, but do you own the game?
Yes you do. ...but do you also have the server in your room?
You can add any bot or cheat you want to the game, as long as you don't connect it to the official server.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The most bizarre thing about this lawsuit is that Blizzard is suing MDY for lost revenue, because Blizzard chose to ban players. Blizzard didn't have to ban those players. They could have taken away their money and levels and allow them to continue playing. Blizzard made a choice. It's completely ridiculous that they blame that choice on someone else.
It might have made sense if MDY was sued by its customers who got themselves banned for using an MDY product. That I would understand. Blizzard suing MDY is completely retarded.
Hoping for a so-so verdict here. The court should allow anyone to modify software they've purchased in any way they wish.
However, the court should allow Blizzard to block connections from any modified software they detect (just like Apache disconnects clients which violate the HTTP protocol).
However, their should be recourse for false-positives to get their money back.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
If your game can be successfully "played" by a bot in this day and age, then it's a pretty bad game.
Back to the question of why do so many people want to play a game that effectively makes them a bot?
Maybe if your game is so broken that "It becomes unbalanced if you play it for a really really long time" is something you need to get the U.S. Government to step in and help you work-around, it's time to make a game that isn't so hideously broken?
I'll choose Microsoft for an example, although this sort of boilerplate is fairly standard. I quote from the license terms for Microsoft Office:
And many other restrictions.
So Microsoft can (successfully, in the Central District of California) sue you for copyright infringement the moment you load Office into RAM after: fixing their product for them; using it for any purpose that is "against the law" (which law?); borrowing it from anyone; buying a 2nd hand copy.
You think that's ridiculous? The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California doesn't think so. They think that the EULA gives Microsoft exactly that right.
This is not hyperbole or speculation; this is now established case law in that District (pending appeal).
You don't think Microsoft would ever exercise this power? OK, pick a different name then. Adobe. Apple. SCO. Choose your poison.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Whether you own the software or not, you're still bound by the terms of service to connect to their network and use their servers.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I mean ostensibly I can see how the Glide bot could be considered 'legal' in and of itself, I am of the firm belief that if you buy a game you can use (or abuse if you so desire) it any way you want.
Now in the case of WoW the EULA is not just for the game (which you own, or ought to anyhow) but also for the servers (which are owned by Blizzard). So seems to be that it is entirely fair that Blizzard can dictate what you can and cannot do on their servers, if they decide that they do not want a bot running on their servers then a they are in the clear when they ban the user of said bot.
I mean it is fairly commonplace for people who run multiplayer notepad servers (excuse me I mean 'IRC servers) to say that they do not want unauthorized bots on their servers and most FPS games implement anti-cheating and systems and will ban people who cheat.
So Blizzard are not so much telling you what you can or cannot run on your computer as much as they are telling you what you can and cannot use on their servers.
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Yes. You own the client. Not the server. You pay for access to the server. This is how Blizz makes it's cash. Why hasn't this been thrown out?
You paid to agree to certain rules. If you don't like it. Don't play on their servers.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
You own the Car, but not the race track. In order to race on the track you are not allowed to use any device that drives for you.
If you are going to do that, they will not let you race with the other racers. But by all means take your modded car and race it in your own backyard, see how far that gets you.
The questionable thing here is that the race track owners are going after the manufacturer of the device, and not the racer at fault.
This is much like how Hollywood goes after ISPs instead of individual file sharers. Blizzard is enforcing its ToS, simple.
Keeping in mind that the person who click the "I agree" button and installed the game is not the one playing but rather a collection of scripts and programs, will anyone ever try and sort if a bot can be considered a person for the purpose of upholding legally binding agreements between game publishers and gamers? Skynet would be scary in PvP, is all I'm saying.
The reason why bots and gold farming exist is because the game is flawed. If sections of the game are not overly long, boring, and repetitive, there won't be a demand for services to skip that part of the game or play it for you.
Stop designing games that waste the players' time without providing fun. If you want to keep people as subscribers design your game to have replay value instead of long travel times or grinding.
If they didn't sell the client, just the service, this wouldn't really be an issue, would it?
This is a sig. It is like every other sig in the world, except that it is mine, and it is different.
What happens when Square-Enix decides to shut down the last Final Fantasy XI server? I'm pretty sure they won't release the server program, the server source code or even the game protocols.
What the hell is wrong with Square-Enix? I can still pick up a used copy of Astrosmash and play it on an Intellivision but I won't be able to play FF XI in a few years? We have to rely on hackers who do reverse-engineering on the protocols to try and emulate the servers to keep the game alive?
It would be one thing if WoW wasn't a game where you joined the world with millions of other players. If you are playing offline, do whatever the hell you want with the game you bought. However, my gameplay suffers when others violate the terms of agreement and flood the game with bots.
So yes, you do own the CD and you can do whatever you want with it...as long as you stay off of my server.
You are wrong here. The whole purpose of glider is greed. The purpose of any bot in the game is greed. The player wants something and doesn't want to work for it - be it gold, honor, experience/leveling, etc. Some can be attributed to laziness. A lil bit can be getting around a repetitive thing, sure, but there are choices.
Gold farmers farm gold using bots/scripts so they make gold faster so they can sell it to people too lazy to earn it themselves.
Obviously you have no idea how MMO economies work - if every player were allowed to have unlimited/superfast earned amounts of money, the inflation would be enormous, raising prices, causing players to look to buying money anyways so they can purchase the highly-inflated items.
To a smaller extent, the earlier argument about the end-user breaking the EULA is correct. However, the way Glider works (and why you don't see Blizzard going after other script engines - like AutoHotKey) is because of how Glider actively injects into the system in memory, changing the client, to evade the Warden security system. Which is copyright infringement to an extent (no one has a license to distribute an application that changes the WoW client) - and is why Blizzard went after Glider. Sure, user accounts are banned, and people here won't complain about that much.
Press 'ENTER' to win the game.
Games are fun the first time. Then you play it again, knowing whats ahead and suddenly the previously fun early part become overly long and boring. The only way to fix this would be that each time the player start a new game, it a completly new and unpexpected adventure. Good games try to do that, but soon you run out of new senario and it become boring again. The game is not the problem, it the human nature. Peoples are lazy, that all.
this sounds like apple vs psystar and others where the they try take control of what you do with software / hardware that you own.
Lexmark tried to pull shit like this to lock out 3rd party ink and lost.
apple vs psystar apple won round 1 but there are appeals and this case may impact apple vs psystar.
garage door openers tried to lock out 3rd party remotes and lost.
adobe and M$ tried to lock out resale useing stuff like this and lost under the rule of first sale.
Did anyone else read that Blizzard rick-rolled Donnelly by putting the link in the source-code that Donnelly was manipulating? .... hilarious.
Grinding is a waste of time.
:) The cool thing about it was that my little pets were running around the dungeons, fighting, eating when hungry, heading to the well when thirsty and resting when tired, etc while I was free to code away and work and do other more practical tasks.
;) Had fun playing with my pet GIR from the Invader Zim cartoon series :)
I once wrote several bots in Javascript for a MUD to get around horrible time-wasting grinding. The funny thing was that bots were illegal in that MUD and I got around it by having my bots notify me with audio cues on the different events happening in the MUD so I could take over manually when the admins started to suspect I was botting. Got away with it... hybrid cyborg chatbots can pass turing tests
Oh, btw: how to get away with botting more: roleplay that your character is a bot!
Also, question: Who is more robot-like? The person who does meaningless repetitive motions for hours or days at a time (grinding) or the person who sets a bot to grind, thus freeing himself to do other things and enjoy more of life?
From Wikipedia, origin of the word robot: The word robota means literally "work", "labor" or "serf labor", and figuratively "drudgery" or "hard work" in Czech and many Slavic languages.
So who is the real robot here? It's the people who waste their time meaninglessly grinding especially when it's no longer enjoyable.
http://www.object404.com
MMOs are competitive environments, the reason for botting is to get more stuff then everyone else faster than them even if they have been playing for months longer than you.
If the grinding was really that boring, there wouldn't be that much interest in the first place. How many people bother using Trainers in single player games?
If it ascends, would that restrict it from interfering with actions on the mortal plane, train or automobile? :P
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
While you do pay for the game, you also pay monthly for the ability to use it, i.e. access to blizzard's servers. Plenty of people run WoW private servers, but they're all pretty bad from my understanding. I think the idea here is that blizzard wants to limit what you can do on their server more than what you can do with their software. Speaking as somebody who has played WoW, things like glider are very bad for the atmosphere in the game, and they hurt it for everybody. I can see why they'd want to stop you from using that.
So really, the problem here is the fuzz between owning the game and using the game. If you don't like it, you could use glider on a private server, but if you want to use Blizz's server, you have to play by their rules. The only problem I see is that I don't think the license differentiates very well between what you do with the game on your computer and what you do with it on Blizzard's computer, as though they just assume you will use their servers.
This guy made a crapton of money off of Blizzard's game without giving anything back, in a manner that was questionably illegal, and unquestionably immoral.
Even then, Blizzard gives him a chance to bow out honorably, and he essentially spits in their face and makes funny faces at them while saying "neener neener neener, I'm gonna continue selling it and you can't stop me." If I was Blizzard I would have sued him too if I thought I could get away with it.
Running Glider was one of the most entertaining things I did while playing. Glider comes with default behavior for every class, but you can develop your own in C#. I ended up writing some code for my druid to be a "Healbot", basically causing my character to run around and heal nearby allies.
It was quite simple - it would search for nearby players and try to stay in the middle of everyone. It would throw heals over time on anyone within range that was slightly injured, and cast big heals on people taking a lot of damage. I used it to farm honor in the PVP battlegrounds. After letting it run for hours, I'd take a look at the chat log and see lots of tells from people thanking me (it) for heals. Never once saw a comment calling it out as a bot. The mod I used to queue battlegrounds took screenshots of the match results, and many times my bot was #1 on healing (often by a large margin).
It was fun tweaking all the settings, by the time I maxed out on honor the code was pretty robust. I ended up modifying it a bit to follow around specific people (awesome for power leveling).
IANAL, but this is how I understand it.
What the EFF article seems to overlook is how 117 is worded and how Glider actually works.
The relevant part of 117 states
From my understanding, Glider makes an additional copy of World of Warcraft in memory. Said copy is not used "for archival purposes only" nor is the copy "an essential copy in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine." In order to legally make an additional copy without a license granting you permission to make it, it has to be one of these two. Glider's copy is neither.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Hmmm, just cant seem to find the energy to rebut.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Allowing people to have an advantage by using 'bots to play the game for them has long been a bane of MMORPGs. Yes, it is stupid that people run a program to play the game for them, but keep in mind that legitimate players have to compete with these 'bot players for resources (e.g. crafting materials), and they really shouldn't have to.
I think u=you mean:
Press 'Uninstall' to win the game.'
The only way to win is not to play.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
All I can say is the user should have the right to define how input is entered ON their system, whether it be by hand or though a series of per-constructed actions, whether those action are used in a piece of software to make actions or commands easier or not is irrelevant, a company should not be able to define how you input into your system.
Have a new type of server : hackers servers.
They kind of did this with diablo 2 with open battle net. Worked well for us too lazy to level / wanted to create our own gear / wanted to duel other lvl 99s that we just made
Quite fun in fact.
^^^^THIS IS 100% UNTRUE^^^^
Glider was made for people to play with their own emulated servers at home not on the blizzard servers!!!!!
If someone chooses to use glider on the blizzard servers blizzard has every right to remove their account. Glider is not arguing with that.
Q: Can I run Glider on a private or emulated server?
A: Running Glider on non-Blizzard servers is unsupported, as the client on such servers is generally confused, old, or both. We strongly recommend running Glider on official, paid servers. Come on, it's a great game, there's no reason to try to job Blizzard out of their monthly fee.
save that for it's own court case!
My computer uses a modified version of Glider. Not only does it play wow, it actually went online, registered the account, purchased the subscription, downloaded and installed the software, clicked the 'I agree' button to the license agreement, etc. etc.
This wow account is therefore the property of the bot, and the 'copying into memory' done by said bot falls within the license agreement.
The only problem I have is that the damned bot "stole" my credit card to do so!
"I HATE when [entity] wants me to pay for something I wont own."
Like, perhaps, a girlfriend/wife does with a certain renewable resource?
Making a better game would only encourage the problem. I couldn't play World of Warcraft 24/7 because of things like having a job and sleep, but the bot could play when I'm not. Its an unfair advantage I'm gaining (regardless of how small) by having a bot play for me, and it degrades the experience of other players.
Uh...No.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be under the delusion that it's simply about "fun" but it's not. People are using a bot because they want to skip to the end. They don't want to stop and smell the roses.
At all. Ever. No matter how much fun they might have had, they're still going to want to take the lazy, short-cut EZ mode way.
This is not good for the game.
Now I'm sure you can find things that could be improved about the game itself, but no matter how much you tinker with them, it won't stop some people from Botting.
Because it's easier for them to cheat so that's what they are going to do.
Besides, you can't make all things equally fun for all people. Some people will just not enjoy some things. But they want the other things that come with it...so they're going to either grin and bear it...or find some way to avoid the bother but still get the reward.
If sections of the game are not overly long, boring, and repetitive, there won't be a demand for services to skip that part of the game or play it for you.
Bullshit. If that were at all true, people wouldn't bother cheating in first person shooters.
The bottom line is that no matter what the game, as soon as it becomes multiplayer, there will be assholes who will do whatever it takes to be "better" than the rest. Even if the game is conceptually a "cooperative" game where there's absolutely nothing to "win." (Hell, it doesn't even have to be multiplayer - there are competitive assholes who will cheat to prove their superiority at single player games!)
For some people, it may be about "skipping the boring parts," but for others, it's about being "better" than everyone else. And those people will use whatever advantage they can get. It's not about "fun" for them, it's about winning.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
By extension, does this mean that walk-throughs also violate the license agreement?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I think EULAs are a major underlying problem here. In my view, in order for an agreement to be binding, it would need to be presented as part of the sales transaction. Imagine if you bought a new car, had it delivered, and then the first time you turned the key a screen with a EULA popped up claiming that in order to use the car you had to agree to drive in a certain way. I don't think that would fly very well. To me, clicking "agree" or "accept" on a EULA window is just one of the standard steps for installing software; I never read them and I don't consider clicking "accept" to be an act of accepting it. There is also the matter that there is no way to prove who clicked on the EULA, and we know that no one ever installs software for anyone else, right?
Was the idea that software is owner by the buyer not already decided in the Autodesk decision? Regardless, Blizzard does not have to provide access to their servers for those that violate the ToU/ToS/EULA. Bilzzard is wrong in that the customer does not own the software they are purchasing, but they might be sort of right in that we do not own their servers.
The fact of the matter is that this bot make no difference to the game. No one gives a shit about leveling content; it is all about the "end game" content. Blizzard seems to understand this with the increase in speed of leveling(less experience to reach certain levels and in-game clothing that increases experience given for killing and questing). Even with all of this, at some point, leveling from level one will push possible customers away from this game.
The closer the maximum level reaches 100, less new customers will start playing and more current customers will shy away from starting new customers and that will reduce some customers longevity. I am guessing Blizzard will do something to combat this, but it is time to stop it with the immediate account removal(well, immediate bannings) for people that use bots. Blizzard claims that will do anything "up to" permanent account suspension, but Blizzard always gives out their harshest punishment for actions like this by their customers.
I would like to add that it is not the place of any company to punish their customers. If a customer breaks the law, then government is there to step in and provide corrective action. For the minors out there, parents are there, unless they commit a serious crime, then it is up to government. When a non-government entity provides corrective action, there is no oversight as there is with government. Gaming companies "punishing" customers is sort of a small issue, but where does it end?
Do car companies get to come in and take away cars when customers are caught breaking speed limits? Do gun manufacturers get to take away guns from civilians and law enforcement when said guns are "misused" in their eyes? Will pharmaceutical companies take away medication if some patients take more pills than they were supposed to, even one time?
Due to Blizzard's arrogance, in believing that they can dictate what software people can create and sell, I hope they lose big. Blizzard's attorneys have played "fast and loose" with the law and they need to pay.
I'm not convinced you've played the game; at least, not the most recent expansion. When did you give up? The "grind" has been significantly reduced to near-nothing. Hell, you don't even have to *travel* to a dungeon anymore. You're just ported there automatically.
These are all Good Things. The game is more about playing your character and fighting than it is about stupid FedEx quests and going AFK because of a ten minute flight. In other words, very little of your "play time" is wasted. If you have put honest effort into playing the game over the past two months and you still think that the game is "broken", then I doubt that MMOs are the right kind of entertainment venue for you.
Did you even read what you're replying to? There's bullshit here, but it's your fucking post. We're not talking about cheaters here, we're talking about a game that's so fucking boring to play people would rather let the computer play parts of it required to get access to the fun bits.
Sorry, but in no world is allowing a computer to play BY THE RULES OF THE GAME cheating.
I rented out my pig sty with the TOC that no one can take a dump in it. The guy who rented purchased pigs. The pig seller while inducing the buyer to get bacon was also inducing him to violate my TOC. Therefore, I want to sue the pig seller.
No matter how many times you twerps keep claiming that is what blizzard did - it isn't. If you haven't got a valid license you are not allowed to run the program, copying to ram and all that rubbish has nothing to do with it nor have they said so.
Now grow the fuck up and stop posting things you don't understand.
That's a tired old argument that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. "long, boring, and repetitive" is not the sole reason people cheat in games, and for the game in question it's not even a distant second. People cheat in games because they want to win, especially when there are *other* people playing in the same game world. We've already passed the tipping point where even though the game keeps getting easier, the same percentage of players keep cheating.
Or, from another angle, a quick sanity check: you pay for a game, and then you pay a monthly fee for it too, yet you find the game "long, boring, and repetitive". Do you a) stop paying, or b) pay more money for ever more sophisticated ways for your computer to play the game for you while you continue to also pay the monthly fee for a game you don't like? You can figure out what the player *really* wants to do from the answer.
i'm surprised no company, especially one with a subscription service, has ever snuck a "you must never unsubscribe or uninstall our software or use a competitor's software" clause into their eulas. they'd get away with it too.
...
you don't own the game, you only have a license to use it, and bots like Glider invalidate the license.
Don't you mean violate the license? Typically violating a license's terms terminates your license, but if the license is invalidated, wouldn't that mean it is no longer binding?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?