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

Still waiting for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Still waiting for a Nethack bot that can ascend.

Re:Still waiting for...

[IorDMUX]

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.

I like living in the future.

[watanabe]

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.

I am not going to hold my breath...

[Tepshen]

.. 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.

Re:I am not going to hold my breath...

[mr_gorkajuice]

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.

Re:I am not going to hold my breath...

[Xest]

"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.

Re:I am not going to hold my breath...

[snowgirl]

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.

Re:I am not going to hold my breath...

[Rogerborg]

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.

Blizzard is not completely guilty

[Psaakyrn]

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.

Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty

[_Sprocket_]

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.

Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty

[beowulfcluster]

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(!).

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.

Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty

[bloodhawk]

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.

Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty

[snowgirl]

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.

Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty

[Rogerborg]

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.

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.

Funny

[muridae]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

Re:Wider implications?

[GasparGMSwordsman]

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.