Slashdot Mirror
Court Upholds Blizzard's Anti-Bot DMCA Claim, Denies Copyright Infringement
An anonymous reader writes "The Ninth Circuit reversed a $6.5 million judgment for Blizzard against MDY Industries, saying that making bots is not copyright infringement. The bad news for MDY? The court found that they did violate DMCA Section 1201(a)(2) (PDF), which prohibits trafficking in products that circumvent technologies designed to control access to copyright-protected works."
Now if blizzard would only take care of its battle net servers. I swear the damn bots are everywhere in D2 bnet, every single realm.
You can't have a non password protected public game without them constantly entering and advertising websites to buy items. (which should also be illegal)
To say nothing of the bots that autorun the game and hunt for items killing the damn economy fffffffff....
As much as it hurts me to say it, it seems that the DMCA is useful in this case.
This is what it was made for. The original spirit of the act.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
As Blizzard I would have gone with a case about improper access and interfering with the operation of computer system. The game clients are authorized to access and interact with the servers, the bots are an unauthorized access mechanism to the game servers. Simple plain and shut and clearly puts the bot runners in with the people that do destructive access to systems.
-- and not enough characters to put "with a computer" in the title :(
That's, uhh, what the summary said.
I get that this may be further appealed again, but it does seem like the right decision. I might have ideological problems with bots like Glider, but secondary infringement? Really?
Then again, there is still part of the decision I'm not a fan of with the violation of:
The first provision, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A), is a general
prohibition against “circumventing a technological measure
that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the
Copyright Act].”
Though the court is right, it was violated. Its just a bad law.
I am not sure if it's because of the advent of modern media, with its up-to-the-second news cycles that maybe only makes this seem true, but it really seems to me that our government is becoming more and more openly aggressive in showing that corporations are in complete control of our system.
Some may think that this story is not related. It is. In a world where corporation control everything, laws like the DMCA are able to pass. I just can't imagine something like that happening 30 years ago, but perhaps it's just because they didnt have the tech which gave them the need.
More and more, it seems you own nothing you buy.
People complain sure, but no one does anything about. What can we do? Sure, I vote with my pocket book, since that's the only votes that actually matter anymore.
Many it's time to go all French on our government? Maybe it's time to say, fuck no, the RIAA does not control our lives. Fuck no, the MIAA does not control our legal system. Fuck no, the government does not get to say that we look at on the Internet.
Then again, perhaps not. Better just to wait until it's too late.
There is a famous saying in Russia; Until thunder strikes, a man won't cross himself. Nice to see we have something in common.
original article
can the circumvent technologies clam be used by virus? fake anti virus? spyware?
The game clients are authorized to access and interact with the servers, the bots are an unauthorized access mechanism to the game servers.
Except glider doesn't access the game servers.
They access the game client - which then accesses the game servers.
Glider itself doesn't send or receive any data across the network, only the client does and that traffic is no different in nature or content than what could be generated by a human accessing the game client.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
"Glider itself doesn't send or receive any data across the network, only the client does and that traffic is no different in nature or content than what could be generated by a human accessing the game client."
The same could be said of using ssh to connect to a server, it is no different in nature or content from what a human could send.
Yet if you used the ssh connection and a client side script to cause the server to send lots of spam that would be improper use of the connection.
It is not the connection nor the data stream, it is the entire interlocked system that is meant to be used for a specific purpose and in a specific way. The data stream between client and server is to be driven by a human in at the client controls. Fudging with the client end generates out of specification traffic for the system and represents a violation of the terms of access given to the account holder. The account access is authorized to only operate the client with human hands. The account access is not authorized to stick glider in control.
Also when we are given accounts on systems we are not authorized to "do anything" we are authorized to only do specific things. There are many things we could do which would mess up the system. These things are considered sabotage of the system.
sudo rm -rf /
#!/bin/sh
# This script is called "die"
die &
die &
die &
die &
"Glider itself doesn't send or receive any data across the network, only the client does and that traffic is no different in nature or content than what could be generated by a human accessing the game client."
The same could be said of using ssh to connect to a server, it is no different in nature or content from what a human could send.
Yet if you used the ssh connection and a client side script to cause the server to send lots of spam that would be improper use of the connection.
Wrong. A malicious script behind a ssh client is significantly different in nature and content. A regular human typing those same commands would be just as unauthorized as the script. But a human using the game client to generate the exact same commands as glider does would be considered authorized.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
A*nd Julie7 40,000
What would happen if you had the bot software installed first and it had protections in it to stop warden from doing things to it... If you then installed the game, and Warden messed up your bot, wouldn't Blizzard now be guilty of the same thing they are accusing MDY of?
This is great news.
1) The Copyright infringement thing made no sense. Loading software into memory is not a copy. Especially if you are the person who owns/licenses the software. If it was, every person on earth would be liable for 5 trillion counts of copyright infringement.
2) This is *exactly* what the DMCA was made to stop. So if we are to debate the merits or downsides of the DMCA, this is perfect case to make an example of it.
P.S. IF you don't like this ruling, don't blame the judge. He ruled according to the law. If you don't like it, write your congressperson explaining that this is why this is a bad law.
Although frankly, I don't see why this isn't a simple contract dispute. The contract for WoW says "no bots" and this guy made a bot. I'm unclear why this is even a big legal issue. It should be a simple civil matter.
What if instead of hacking the WoW client, I build an android to play the game and sell it on the free market. If I could accomplish the same thing, would my WoW playing androids be violating any of WoW's IP/CR?
The real problem here is that Blizz is a corporation trying to deal with irrational customers. They try to be user friendly, but a certain segment of users aren't friendly. Those users feel they pay their $15 and are free to crap all over Blizz's servers and all of the other customers. "I have a right to my bot", "they owe me an API", "it's none of their business what code I run on my machine". I call BS. It is their BUSINESS when you screw with their customers and their servers. Personally, I'd love to see alot less QQ and a lot more account bans. Blizz doesn't owe anyone access to their servers beyond what they've paid for, and Blizz is free to stop accepting the money and kill the accounts.
They went the DCMA route to try to attack the problem builders rather than their own customers. Unfortunately for Blizz, those specific customers are the real problem.
Don't blame the gun manufacturers for the murderers.
Don't blame the beer companies for the drunks.
Don't blame the car manufacturers for the reckless and intoxicated drivers.
Don't blame the restuarants for the obesity.
It is the people choosing to abuse the tools and services, with no respect for the impact on others, that are at fault here.
They are the ones that should be held responsible. They are entitled to nothing.
According to the court, making bots is not a DMCA violation, so by that token the bots are NOT "designed to circumvent copyright protection". Yet on the other hand, trafficking in them is? Is it just me, or is the court not completely contradicting itself here?
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, whatever you think about the DMCA.
Why is DMCA being used when contract law should be more than sufficient anyway? Boot the bot users, if they're so horrible. Even if you're going to be a dick about it, computer crime laws are way worse than enough. Why are courts enshrining the DMCA as the be all and end all? Whole thing reeks of covert agenda.
So let's make a car analogy in hopes that someone making a decision about this will one day read it, also, while I have your attention, FUCK the 9th CC, more and more bullshit precedents come out of this court than any other I've ever seen.
So let's say car manufacturer A designs a car X. This car upholds all regulations set forth for road-worthy vehicles in the country. Now, they design the car so well that it's capable of far more than what the average person needs, so they minimize the interface with the person so that all they can do is some basic operations heavily limited by their interface and the onboard computers. For the sake of analogy, let's assume they also came up with this awesome new technology to use a separate motor to turn the wheels and that your steering wheel merely feeds rotational data into the car's onboard computer.
Now you and I get together and we want to make the car remote controlled. Why? Because a fully sized remote control car is fucking awesome, as MythBusters has amply demonstrated. Now we have 2 options, we can design a physical system that presses the gas pedals and turns the wheels (like MythBusters does) [aka, in this analogy, something like an Auto-IT bot that scrapes the screen and clicks on shit], or we can be a little more sophisticated and figure out the electrical connections from the steering wheel and using an Arduino or something, write a little program that can handle input from our controller and convert it into the proper signals (and because we're awesome, it'll also handle accel/decel in a similar way). So now we're interfacing with the electrical lines (read: path of execution in a process) to the car's onboard computer (read: WoW client). Our remote control car works and we're having tons of fun driving the car while being on top of it, etc. This is awesome, and we record lots of videos and upload them to YouTube to demonstrate our awesomeness. Because it's so awesome, we decide to start selling these kits to people so they can make their own epic-style RC cars.
Problem. Company A sees our video and is shocked. They specifically made a steering wheel and gas pedal for people to use them, not to go making epic things out of their invention! How DARE THEY DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH WHAT THEY PURCHASED!!!!!!! So they file a lawsuit. In this lawsuit, they claim that our manipulation of their vehicle results in a new vehicle B which is in violation of some regulation against the manufacture of vehicles, because they did not file for some bullshit approval process the modifications made to the vehicle [this is basically the DMCA in our analogy, a big pile of stupid shit that only stands in the way of innovation, btw] that our invention violates several rules, and because we modified their car, they'd like punitive damages for the modified X vehicles because their amazingly superior X vehicles were meant to be used a certain way and because this is not in line with their vision, they feel they have incurred a monetary loss in some way (yes, let's just ignore the fact that people bout X's specifically so they could make RC cars -- thus increasing sales, they'll try to make this out to be an unprovable statistic while trying to prove their own statistics as to how their sales somehow magically decreased as of late). They argue that the public image of an RC car made from the X vehicle has damaged the reputation of the company and many people believe that A condones the manufacture of these devices and is supporting what people believe is dangerous and probably UNFAIR on the streets, and this is the reason they need lots and lots of money, in fact, everything + some that we made on our little invention.
The court then awards A the desired punitive damages and all the while we've violated no street laws (we didn't manufacture a vehicle) [or in terms of this article, we didn't violate the DMCA since we merely told the client what to do rather than actually bypassing the encryption and security and doing it ourselves -- ie, hacking the onboard computer]. Now we're fucked and we have a new precedent which further stifles EPIC innovation and all of you fuckers who want to feel a little safer can go on with your fewer freedoms and feel nice and cozy.
what about useing the DMCA to lock in oil change at the dealer that is very over priced and sues jiffy lube under the DMCA.
Exactly. This was one of the most compelling complaints against DMCA when Congress passed it:
In the name of copyright protection it allows the content creators to build a fence. This 'golden' fence gets a special status under the law and is protected by the DMCA and people who breach it are considered law breakers. But the gross injustice is that along with legitimate copyrightable works, the content creators can put whatever else they want behind the fence. Want to deny a fair use? Integrate such use tightly with the enforced-by-law copyright protection mechanism. Activities that others would legitimately be able to do with the content that aren't infringing become untouchable, because to do so they must cross that golden fence.
In my opinion, if content creators overreach and try to prevent fair-use activities by fencing things off within their copyright protection/access control mechanisms (such as this case) then the access control technology should lose its special status as legally protected under 1201(a)(2).
You are a content provider who wants the protection of the law/legal-threat for your access mechanism? Don't want 'violators' to get a free pass? Tough. Only protect things that you had the right to protect in the first place.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
... was a wetware mod running on a human host? A mod that puts the gamer into a coma-like trance, with the gamer's digits grinding away at the boring repetitive task, making the first few level of the game less tedious? Oh wait, that's just smokin' a d00b to the forehead....
First, I'd like to say that not only is the DC9 a steaming pile of shit, but they also store their summaries in PDF format which makes them assholes too. And finally, slashdot developers can eat my shit for disallowing paste. That's just horrible, you cunts.
Let's quote from the summary:
The district court, however, ruled for Blizzard following the trial as to its 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) claims with respect to WoW's dynamic non-literal elements, or the "real-time experience" of playing WoW. It reasoned that Warden effectively controlled access to these elements, which could not be accessed without connecting to Blizzard's servers. It also found that Glider allowed its users to circumvent Warden by avoiding or bypassing its detection features, and that MDY marketed Glider for use in circumventing Warden. We turn to whether Glider violates DMCA 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) by allowing users to circumvent Warden to access WoW's various elements. MDY contends that Warden's scan.dll and resident components are separate, and only scan.dll should be considered as a potential access control measure under 1201(a)(2). However, in our view, and access control measure can both (1) attempt to block initial access and (2) revoke access if a secondary check determines that access was unauthorized. Our analysis considers Warden's scan.dll and resident components together because the two components have the same purpos: to prevent players using detectable bots from continuing to access WoW software.
So in summary of summary, they reasoned that access to the actual copyrighted content (the client and media distributed with it) were not seen as infringement, however because Glider is a bot that is undetected by Warden that it violates a DMCA -- Warden therefore is a DRM technology protecting the "copyrighted content" of the "online experience." That's right, the online experience is considered copyrighted (what next, are you going to copyright my thoughts you fucktards?). Further, this ruling is bad because it exposes an issue with the DMCA which I fully believe is unintended. People here say "this is what the DMCA is supposed to stop" -- no, you moron, it is not. Glider did not enable access to copyrighted content. You HAVE ACCESS already, you can log-in to the fucking game and play it. You do not need Glider to allow you to have access to the game. Nor does it remove a DRM so that you can pirate the game -- everyone using Glider had a legitimate copy because Glider interacts WITH A LEGITIMATE COPY OF THE GAME, it does not enable the use of it without a fully licensed copy. Let me quote from the DMCA the referenced portions:
(a)(2):
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological manner that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
(b)(1):
(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright own
Except glider doesn't access the game servers.
They access the game client - which then accesses the game servers.
Ah, the overly-literal geek mind trying (and failing) to interpret the law again. "I didn't rob those people, I merely built the robot that robbed those people!" If the game client accesses the servers under the direction of glider, then glider is effectively accessing the servers--it's just doing it indirectly, like the guy with his robot.
Ah, the overly-literal geek mind trying (and failing) to interpret the law again.
Ditto. Glider is operating under the direction of the user - the same exact user who sits down directly at the client. You might as well argue that the auto-repeat in the keyboard is is effectively accessing the servers because the firmware running on the keyboard's microcontroller talks to the client software.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I hope this makes it to the Supreme Court. This ruling does not jive with the Federal Circuit ruling in Chamberlain Group v. Skylink Technologies and 5th Circuit in MGE UPS Systems v. GE Consumer & Industrial that link circumvention with infringement. In short, that circumvention is only illegal if it is for the purpose of infringement.
what games can you think of that it wouldn't be easy to make a bot for?
Tetris is apparently one. The computer opponents in Tetris Party for Wii, for example, operate on the principle of brute force and ignorance: they play so fast as to out-TPM even the fastest Tetris players in the world instead of actually stacking for tetrises and T-spins.
nfl jerseys, wholesale jersey, cheap jersey, football jerseys, nba shop, nfl jersey wholesale jersey cheap jersey nba shop nfl jersey nba shop football jerseys winter cap, red bull cap, monster hat, music hats, dc winter cap, winter cap red bull cap monster hat music hats dc winter cap music Hats red bull caps winter caps http://www.jerseysshopsonline.com/ Our email:jerseysshopsonline@hotmail.com http://www.popbrandcaps.com/ Our email:popbrandcaps@hotmail.com
All of this seems fun... But Blizzard sucks... Where's anti-cheating for Mac platforms? So, you want to cheat? Drop Windows and use a Mac. That says it all.
music caps, red bull caps, monster caps, music caps red bull caps monster caps music caps red bull caps monster caps LV handbags, Hermes Handbag, Fendi handbag, LV handbags Hermes Handbag Fendi handbag LV handbags Hermes Handbag Fendi handbag mac 180 color eyeshadow, mac wholesale, mac makeup, mac 180 color eyeshadow mac wholesale mac makeup MAC 9 color eyeshadow MAC 12 color eyeshadow MAC 21 color eyeshadow http://www.sellingmac.com/ our email:sellingmac@hotmail.com http://www.voguecaps.com/ our email:voguecaps@hotmail.com http://www.handbagsexport.com/ our email:handbagsexport@hotmail.com