Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blizzard vs. Glider Battle Resumes Next Week

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-blame-blizzard-again dept.

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."

60 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Still waiting for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Still waiting for a Nethack bot that can ascend.

    1. Re:Still waiting for... by IorDMUX · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    2. Re:Still waiting for... by Sparr0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      TAEB is getting there. It already plays better than I do about 10% of the time.

    3. Re:Still waiting for... by Sparr0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Better bots than glider can heal on raids more efficiently than a human (player, not character race) healer, interrupt in PVP more effectively than a human, travel while the human is AFK, etc.

    4. Re:Still waiting for... by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >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.

      I'm not so sure, there's a depth of emotion in WoW that they lack... they are purely intellectual leisure... WoW gets you emotionally involved.
      Example - when I did the Pamela Redpath questline... that's when I started to genuinely HATE Arthas... quite an extreme emotion to be feeling for a fictional character. I wanted to cry over that little girl. Now THAT is art.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    5. Re:Still waiting for... by Zerth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Clearly you've never had a mother dwarf, maddened by grief over the death of her child, kill the elephant that did the deed and then, leaving a trail of crippled dwarfs along the way, proceed to pull the lever that floods your fortress with lava and killing everyone.

      After I was done cursing, it was kind of poignant.

    6. Re:Still waiting for... by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Funny

      One might argue thought that if your license is not transferrable, then the 'bot' must also purchase a license to play?

    7. Re:Still waiting for... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      If you define "art" as "tedium", then I agree.

      But seriously, you are using a pretty limited definition of the word "art" there. They may be "art" in the same way that, say, chess is. But many video games are already "art" in the way that a good movie is... they put you in a character's shoes, they elicit emotions from the player other than frustration, they tell a story and they sometimes even teach you something new.

      It's silly to say that Nethack is "art" but (for example) System Shock 2 isn't. Or Starsiege: Tribes isn't. They're all "art" and they're all equally valid, just in different ways.

      (And Nethack doesn't appeal to me at all, not in the slightest. While I played WOW for several years. So, be careful not to assume that everybody is exactly like yourself.)

      --
      Comment of the year
    8. Re:Still waiting for... by ais523 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      TAEB developer here. Unfortunately, none of us have been working on TAEB in the last year or so; Real Life keeps getting in the way.

      The real problems with building a NetHack bot are dealing with all the special cases; even parsing the screen is nontrivial. You can come up with a few simple rules that handle a lot of situations in the game, but there are always going to be hundreds of exceptions that need handling of their own. In my TAEB AI, TAEB::AI::Planar, I try to handle this to some extent by noticing that actions are failing and not repeating them, but there's only so much you can do before you have to specialcase everything by hand.

      You can read more about TAEB development, and some other things related to NetHack automation on the TAEB blog: http://taeb-blog.sartak.org/. Unfortunately, it could probably do with a few more posts. Hopefully I'll get back to TAEBing some time later, or maybe someone else will take up the slack.

      --
      (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
  2. I like living in the future. by watanabe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I like living in the future. by Fred+IV · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A lot about World of Warcraft still doesn't make sense to my videogame-loving brain, but I'm not sure that the people who stick with WoW for years really love videogames to begin with.

    2. Re:I like living in the future. by Gravatron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's just doing the boring grunt work for you so you an enjoy the rest. It's like having an auto transmission on a car, or a grain combine doing all that cutting thrashing stuff so you can just sell the grain and be done with it.

  3. I am not going to hold my breath... by Tepshen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .. 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.

    1. Re:I am not going to hold my breath... by snowgirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the difference here between what is before and after is that one doesn't play World of Warcraft on their machine alone. There is a heavy amount of server-side interaction.

      I think it is entirely reasonable that World of Warcraft have restrictions on what can be done while you are leasing the allowance to use their servers to play their game.

      Now, as for Diablo 3, and playing on your own machine (or even connecting to a server for no other reason than copyright protection) there's simply no argument for being a licensee as opposed to an owner.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:I am not going to hold my breath... by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you even realize that WoW is an MMO?
      It's so utterly transparent that by "buying" WoW, you're paying a setup fee for you ongoing subscription.
      Hate them all you want. Your ideology just doesn't go with MMO's. I guess they're not your thing then, and I'm wondering why you can be bothered to post here.
      And btw, there's no (software) pirates (but plenty of the actual one-eyed, peg-legged, parrot-accompanied villains) in WoW. Unless you're counting private servers. Which I guess Blizzard don't really care THAT much about, since their activities aren't actually hurting the real world... of warcraft.

    3. Re:I am not going to hold my breath... by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think it is entirely reasonable that World of Warcraft have restrictions on what can be done while you are leasing the allowance to use their servers to play their game.

      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.
    4. Re:I am not going to hold my breath... by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I think it is entirely reasonable that World of Warcraft have restrictions on what can be done while you are leasing the allowance to use their servers to play their game."

      Let's just be clear here, what are you saying, that when you lease allowance to use their servers, they have permission to do whatever they want to your local machine and define what software you can and can't run on it? because that's the issue here.

      Blizzard use pretty much exactly the same techniques to check processes on your local machine as Glider uses to interfact with the WoW process. Blizzard are saying that this technique should be illegal- in the case of Glider, making the whole piece of software illegal even if you wanted to use it on say, 3rd party custom WoW servers. They're saying it's okay for them to use the technique though to scan your other software.

      It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact the technical argument they're using can have massive implications for the software industry, for example, the same technique is used by anti-malware software. Potentially then if Blizzard's argument is held up in court, if someone is stupid enough to click through a EULA on a piece of malware, then the malware vendor could sue for the removal from sale of any anti-malware software by precisely the same argument Blizzard is using. Worse, the technical argument used by blizzard questionably even makes operating systems themselves outright illegal for also using such tecniques.

      It's a bad case in general, Blizzard are attempting to create a dangerous precedent for the software industry that has far reaching negative implications whilst also restricting people's rights to do whatever they want on their computer, and to use whatever software they want, even if that software is in itself not illegal.

      The issue is that Blizzard is going far too far just to protect their game, they're risking too much collateral damage for too many people just for the sake of stopping a handful of people cheating in their game rather than simply making their game less prone to cheating by making it worth playing rather than just macroing. Their actions are utterly reckless and selfish, their game just isn't important enough to create such a dangerous precedent for the millions of people who don't even play WoW. It's their problem to deal with, yet they feel the rest of us should have to suffer rather than them properly deal with it because the worst thing is, people will still distribute such hacks regardless of the legality of them, just as they always have.

      They're using a legal answer, to a technical/gameplay problem.

    5. Re:I am not going to hold my breath... by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think it is entirely reasonable that World of Warcraft have restrictions on what can be done while you are leasing the allowance to use their servers to play their game.

      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
    6. Re:I am not going to hold my breath... by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    7. Re:I am not going to hold my breath... by snowgirl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      MDY didn't make the argument at all, Blizzard made the argument that it was unauthorized... specifically for the points that you raised.

      MDY is then required to answer as to how Blizzard is wrong, otherwise they stipulate to the claim.

      This raises the question: can a person in possession of a piece of software, make a copy necessary for its use, when such use is in violation of the EULA?

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    8. Re:I am not going to hold my breath... by Xest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "This is what every person playing WoW has agreed to by contract with Blizzard."

      No, they agreed to it via EULA, there's no solid decision that EULAs represent valid contracts. Even then, does it explicitly state those things I mentioned in the EULA? Even if valid, can a user really give up fundamental human right of the right to privacy via a EULA simply by clicking a button when it's non-obvious that WoW would ever perform such intrusive actions? If you feel the answer is yes, do you also agree that a user should have to live with a piece of malware indefinitely if they accidently agree to install it because they weren't paying attention if the EULA of said malware states is the case?

      The situation is far from as clear cut as you seem to think.

      "MDY started the lawsuit, Blizzard finished it."

      As a defensive measure against Blizzard's assertion that they were infringing Blizzard's copyright and intended to sue them over it anyway you mean?

    9. Re:I am not going to hold my breath... by subanark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Blizzard has stated that any piece of input hardware that emulates another piece of hardware is fine provided that every hardware command sent to the game is backed by a direct (not delayed) human interaction. Such mapping from human interaction to input also needs to be consistent. You may map more than one button to a single action, you may multi-box as much as you like. You may not using "auto fire" sytle buttons, as that causes an input without direct human interaction, or even one that presses a button 5 seconds after you press one on the keyboard. You may not use programmable "combo"s that press a series of keys in sequence by you hitting a single key several times.

  4. Blizzard is not completely guilty by Psaakyrn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think the issue here is whether Blizzard should or should not work to prevent bots. The question is the tactic they're using to achieve that end. And, more to the point, the legal ramifications of those tactics being successful.

    2. Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty by beowulfcluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course they want to prevent bots, that's totally understandable. Most players probably wish them good luck with that. Does that mean players are committing copyright infringement when using something like Glider, and are the makers of Glider guilty of contributory copyright infringement? That's the question. Blizzard says yes. Sane people should say no(!).

    3. Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty by snowgirl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well that's the key point. Does Blizzard own/rule the communal experience of the players? Is this position implicit or explicit, and precisely what are the boundaries of their authority and responsibility?

      Good question. If I stop paying for my account, what do I get to keep?

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    4. Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ^^^^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.

    5. Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ^^^^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.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    6. Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty by snowgirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A false narrative again from a lack of understanding of the law.

      You cannot induce others to violate their contracts.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    7. Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No they aren't hurting there bottom line, they are helping there own bottom line, there are far more players that get pissed off and quit because of retards that bot then there are botters. It only takes a few in a battleground to completely throw off any chance of balance.

      Secondly most people are DEFINITELY not happy with the botting situation, the majority of players are screaming at blizz to do something about it.

    8. Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
    9. Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their use of the Blizzard gaming service is on Blizzard's terms...

      Which may be relevant to the tortious interference with a contract action, but is utterly irrelevant to the copyright violation action.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    10. Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty by Psaakyrn · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty by snowgirl · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      I'm going to take the high road, and point out Claim 49 of the counter claim. They did.

      It's also part of their pray for relief F.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    12. Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty by Mechanist.tm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thanks for that. makes sense now.

  5. The brief is interesting reading... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:The brief is interesting reading... by Krneki · · Score: 2

      There isn't a way to ban Glider. the fact is, the program is using the same input a human does. This is why they are taking legal action.

      Having an AI to play the game for you is not any more unfair then being jobless and playing 20 hours a day.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    2. Re:The brief is interesting reading... by Krneki · · Score: 3, Funny

      You are so 20th century. :)

      Free the AI!! :)

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  6. Re:Wider implications? by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  7. Funny by muridae · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Funny by Psaakyrn · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to Wikipedia, Glider makes a copy of the WoW client (as opposed to just running on top of the client), so the software itself does infringe on the license.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot)

    2. Re:Funny by snowgirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your argument at first sounds about right, but unfortunately it is specious.

      An individual can be responsible for inducing someone else into violating the terms of their contract.

      MDY knew that use of their program violated the terms of use of World of Warcraft. There is no use of Glider that does not violate the terms of use for WoW. Therefore selling this induces people to violate their contract.

      If people did not enjoy the game under the ToU, then they have a contractually allowable response: cancel their account.

      They do not have the right to break that contract, and MDY suggesting to them that they are allowed to do so, is textbook inducement to violate the terms of a contract.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    3. Re:Funny by snowgirl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The courts holding is very specious, its like saying I can't run two copies of Word at the same time. Its a copy running in memory according to the link you sent. This decision is stretching the meaning of copying software and I wonder if they even understand what they are talking about. I can't wait till the current batch of the judiciary is replaced with a younger generation that understands technology.

      The courts ruling is not specious.

      Gilder created another unauthorized copy of the game, which is not necessary to play the game.

      This copy was for the specific purpose of avoiding detection by the anti-cheating software Warden.

      The first proves the copyright violation, the second proves the inducement to violate the terms of a contract. ... this coming from a girl with extensive history in emulation and virtualization.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    4. Re:Funny by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you missed the point tho.

      It is the people that run glider that are violating that copyright, not the people that authored glider.

      If anything, the authors would be in violation of the DMCA and not copyright, right?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re:Funny by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right, because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is not about copyright.

      Violating the DMCA (with its anti-circumvention rules) is not the same as violating copyright. Seriously... you are grasping here.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  8. really? by acehole · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!
  9. Re:High Price of Success by mykos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, I hate cheating too, but this is too high of a cost. It's like using a guillotine to fix your dandruff.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Re:Blaming someone else for your own decisions by snowgirl · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    Blizzard didn't sue them for lost revenue (as I was able to see.) Blizzard obtained a judgement against MDY copyright infringement, and inducement to violate a contract.

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  12. Iffy on this one by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  13. The consequence of this: by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  14. Re:Don't tell us what programs we can and can't ru by f3rret · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  15. Re:Blaming someone else for your own decisions by snowgirl · · Score: 3, Informative

    The most bizarre thing about this lawsuit is that Blizzard is suing MDY for lost revenue,

    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
  16. Re:Blaming someone else for your own decisions by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  17. Re:missing the point by nschubach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right, but they aren't going after the users that violate the terms. They are going after another product that enhances or extends their product in a way which they do not approve.

    Woo, a car analogy...

    Just as you are licensed to drive on the road, you have to follow the rules. If, however, you wanted to drive off roads you do not need a license or comply with any rules (except those of the land owner...) but you bought your vehicle for the expressed purpose of driving on a road, then found out later that you can drive it in your field.

    Now, you find out that it isn't quite as fun in your field so you go and modify your vehicle.

    From what I gather, Blizzard is saying that since you bought the game to play on their servers, any modification of that game is illegal, even if you intent to play that game on another server not owned by Blizzard.

    This would be kind of like GM suing aftermarket part companies for allowing you to put a lift kit on your vehicle and change the way it handles.

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  18. To stop botting and farming... make a better game! by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  19. Glider is fun by mcb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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).

    1. Re:Glider is fun by bckrispi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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).

      "Kudos" for writing a clever application. "Go screw yourself" for being a lousy, stinking cheater.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    2. Re:Glider is fun by bckrispi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. The poster is just a cheater. He gets off on cheating in battlegrounds. He gets off on the wholly unearned praise he gets from other players. He gets off on "finishing #1" when that honor fairly belongs to someone else. Don't blame the game for this loser's social inadequacies.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  20. Re:Wider implications? by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.