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.
.. 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.
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
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.
Yeah, I hate cheating too, but this is too high of a cost. It's like using a guillotine to fix your dandruff.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are so 20th century. :)
:)
Free the AI!!
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.