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.
And this is the reason why people still play Rogue, and will be tapping away at Nethack and Dwarf Fortress long after WoW is gone.
I am not trying to claim that these games will ever be as "successful" (read: profitable) as World of Warcraft, but I would say they far more closely approach video-games-as-art.
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
Exactly. I'm perfectly fine with them banning bots. What's stupid is that they sue another company over the revenue lost because Blizzard chose to ban bots. They didn't have to do that. Their decision.
No, they sued over copyright infringement and inducement to violate terms of a contract.
Nowhere did they claim any damages for lost revenue.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
It might have been reasonable if they'd argued that, but they didn't. Their case is entirely about your local copy of the client. They have argued (successfully) that if you do not follow their license terms then the act of copying it to RAM is a copyright violation.
Perhaps we could stick to discussing what they have argued, not what they haven't?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
It might have been reasonable if they'd argued that, but they didn't. Their case is entirely about your local copy of the client. They have argued (successfully) that if you do not follow their license terms then the act of copying it to RAM is a copyright violation.
Perhaps we could stick to discussing what they have argued, not what they haven't?
You are correct that they argued about a local copy of the client, however you fail to acknowledge that Count I is "Tortious Interference With Contract"
It is not the ONLY thing that they argued. As for their copyright argument, they asserted that Glider produces an unauthorized copy of the program into memory in order to disable and/or defeat Warden. Such a copy they argue is not authorized.
It's difficult for MDY to argue that making their altered copy of the program is necessary for play... especially when such play is directly a violation of the contract to play said game.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
That would have been bizarre if they'd done it, but they didn't.
Since you made me read the whole Counterclaim, claim 49.
MDY’s sale of WoWGlider has caused Blizzard great harm in the direct loss of
revenue from terminated users, the loss of subscription revenue from WoWGlider users availing
themselves of the cheat, and from the severe damage to the goodwill of the non-cheating
population of WoW users.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
1) Farming resources: resources spawns at nodes in a first come, first serve basis.
2) AH sniping: I don't think they've fixed this issue yet (they didn't the last time I played.) Bots do it better naturally.
3) PvP: Bots have better reflexes. Speedhacks also allows much faster travel, an obvious advantage in battles where travelling is an issue.
I think that answers your 3 questions.
Fair enough on the tortuous interference, but that's small beer compared to the ownership and copyright issues.
MDY shouldn't have to make any argument regarding whether the RAM copy is "authorized" or not, since Title 117 disallows copyright claims against the owner.
Note carefully that Blizzard's argument isn't against Title 117, it's that their EULA means that the purchaser doesn't "own" the copy that they bought, and so the enjoys no Title 117 protection. That's the significant precedent here.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Count 49 is an assertion of facts, not a claim for relief.
They successfully claimed: Tortious Interference With Contract; Contributory Copyright Infringement; Vicarious Copyright Infringement.
They failed in their claims of: Violation of the Digital Millennium; Trademark Infringement; Unfair Competition (where they claimed to have been damaged but couldn't prove any damages); Unjust Enrichment (where they did attempt to claim lost revenues, but only because - they said, but could not prove - people capped and left, not because Blizzard chose to ban them, as the GP asserted).
So, OK, little from column A, little from column B. The core issue remains that of ownership and Title 117; just about everything else is a distraction.
If I had to call it, I've have given them claim 4, the DMCA violation, since that's the more pertinent legislation.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If the only argument is that because World of Warcraft is heavily dependent upon server-side interactions, that there is a leasing of the software to interact with that code.
Except this is not the argument. The issue is that Blizzard claims that no one EVER owns a program "purchased" from them. They argue that any user of any licensed software product is forever bound by the terms of the license in every way.
Many people (myself included) believe that the purchase of a game or other software product is an actual sale (with all applicable first-sale doctrine rights). That is the issue at hand, do you purchase the program or are you renting the program (any program, even something with no network or server attributes)? This is by the way, even in the FIRST LINE of the summary on EFF's site.
From the EFF's summary:
When you buy World of Warcraft (WoW) in a retail box, do you own the copy of the software you bought? That's the critical legal question facing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a pending appeal in MDY v. Blizzard, and the question that Public Knowledge took on in an excellent amicus brief filed with the court earlier this week.
If you own your software, you have the right to resell it and the right to make copies and adaptations as necessary to use it. If you don't, well, then you face a possible copyright lawsuit for transgressing any limitations the vendor puts in the license agreement.