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."

Comments

Re:Wider implications?

[snowgirl]

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.

It depends on the arguments being made. 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.

To have the WoW binaries alone is fairly useless. Most games are not the same way.

Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty

[snowgirl]

^^^^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.

Glider is saying people who own the software can run glider with it!!!!

This is the exact same as making a bot that plays starcraft single player.

This is why we have real lawyers fight this stuff in court. Your argument admits all the key parts necessary to prove liability on the part of MDY in inducing people to violate their contract with Blizzard.

The primary purpose of Glider is a violation of Blizzard's license agreement to use WoW.

The consequence of this:

[Rogerborg]

I'll choose Microsoft for an example, although this sort of boilerplate is fairly standard. I quote from the license terms for Microsoft Office:

The software is licensed, not sold. [...] You may not:

• work around any technical limitations in the software;
• use the software in any way that is against the law;
• rent, lease or lend the software;

The first user of the software may make a one-time transfer of the software, and this agreement, directly to a third party.

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.