Slashdot Mirror
Sued Freelancer Allegedly Turns Over Contractee Source Code In Settlement
FriendlySolipsist writes: Blizzard Entertainment has been fighting World of Warcraft bots for years. TorrentFreak reports that Bossland, a German company that operates "buddy" bots, alleges Blizzard sued one of its freelancers and forced a settlement. As part of that settlement, the freelancer allegedly turned over Bossland's source code to Blizzard. In Bossland's view, their code was "stolen" by Blizzard because it was not the freelancer's to disclose. This is a dangerous precedent for freelance developers in the face of legal threats: damned if you do, damned if you don't.
For copyright infringement
This is a dangerous precedent for freelance developers in the face of legal threats: damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Well, not quite. I'm a freelancer. Would I work for a client that is a bad citizen in their particular niche? No, I don't think so.
I'm not a gamer, but if I understand correctly these bots give you an unfair advantage and are forbidden by Blizzard. Yeah well, don't look surprised if the shit hits the fan at some point.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
I avoid violating Blizzard's TOU by not purchasing any of their products.
It is illegal to ask someone to violate a contract unless ordered by a judge.
I don't have sympathy for people selling modifications to a game which the maker of the game says are illegal. Hell, if you are found to be using mods many sites ban your account, often permanently and without a refund.
I don't game like I used to, but when I do I refuse to play on-line FPS games. That refusal has at least something to do with the aim bot mods people use to install just to have their name in a high score list somewhere. You could truly be amazingly agile and great at a game, but I have experienced cheats so find it hard to assume the best.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Is violating game's TOU is a civil offense, let alone, crime?
IANAL, just wondering...
Is violating game's TOU is a civil offense
It's a violation of contract law, which is a civil dispute, and the courts can have jurisdiction over it. Which isn't to say that everything in the TOU is enforceable.......
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I have about this -->||<-- much sympathy for Bossland.
The code in question allowed users to violate a very reasonable clause in Blizzard's TOS: Don't cheat or use 'bots.
I hope that now Blizz can analyze the code and go after the users of said 'bots, which I'm sure is their intention behind getting the code.
Hopefully they'll go after the freelancers behind the other game's bots.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
... Fees and argued it was not his code to disclose instead of leaving him hanging and a forced settlement. Problem solved the 1st time around instead of trying to not spend money in hopes the contractor can spend pay for defense all the way through court.
But Blizzard is in hot waters too by accepting the source code in a settlement. They might be found guilty of handling stolen goods.
It's not immediately clear from the short search I did, but I'm working on the assumption that Apoc was sued in a US court (and that the legal proceedings between Bossland and Blizzard have been in German courts).
If that's the case, Apoc and Bossland screwed the pooch on this. Because Bossland (and its IP) is the real party in interest in the Apoc case, they had a right to intervene in the Apoc case. The argument boils down to "Hey you can't sue $randomGuy seeking $myStuff without me being involved; I have a right to fight this even though I'm not the original defendant." And likewise, Apoc had the right to try and rope in Bossland, on the flip side argument, "Whoa, I'm not the droid you're after, and what you're asking for isn't even mine."
It would seem that either:
-Bossland didnt know (that a freelancer possessing their entire code base was being sued by the object of all their bot programs??), or
-Bossland didn't want to cede personal jurisdiction in the US (very complex and nuanced, and there are plenty of creative arguments Blizzard could have used to get what it wanted, esp. with the source code stored by Apoc in the US), or, most likely,
-Apoc just freaked out and (too) quickly said "Blaaaaaughhh here take the source code go away!"
In any case, Bossland's claim of copyright infringement seems tenuous against Blizzard. If anyone, it was Apoc who infringed (and maybe broke non-disclosure) by distributing a copy of the code to Blizzard. But there's little point in Bossland suing its freelancer. Blizzard did probably make copies of their own, and so there's an interesting question as to whether Bossland could get them for infringement there.
Also, contrary to TFS, settlements may set behavioral precedents, but they don't set legal precedents.
Nothing posted to
You're standing by a button. If you press the button, a million puppies will be dropped into a blender. It would be very bad for you to press that button and you shouldn't do it. The consequences will be dire. For fuck's sake, you shouldn't ever press that button!
I walk up, and point a loaded gun at your face. "Push the button," I say. I say it very seriously, too.
If you don't push the button and kill a million puppies, I will kill you (whether the puppies will remain safe or not, you simply don't know). If you do push the button, a million puppies will die but you'll live.
You decide to push the button, even though for a long time you had thought "never push that button."
People learn what happened. Do they blame you or do they blame me? I think it doesn't matter if the puppies were yours to kill or the source yours to give. I had the gun so I was making the laws at that moment, and I said "do it."
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
in the first place? If he did have it then he should have had it illegally. I don't get to keep the code I write for my job, and for damn good reason. If someone tried to get me to give it up (such as it is :P ) I'd refer them to my employer.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
incorporate to remove personal liability. Though, in this case, I'm not sure it would be applicable to business assets, such as the source code. That is a sticky one.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Isn't that the Auschwitz defense?
What goods were stolen? We're talking about intellectual property here, so legally speaking a different set of rules applies (even if various propaganda from rightsholders likes to pretend it's the same as real property).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
If there were material agreements in place att he signing of the freelance work, then that is not anything new.
However, if there was no agreements in place with regards to material ownership and the court is forced to interpret, yeah...that could be a problem.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
You've agreed with him. The game includes the fun competitive part and the bullshit boring repetitive waste of life farming to acquire the resources needed for the competitive part.
It's all the same game. You're arguing that bots enable it to be fun, he's pointing out that if it was fun to start with they wouldn't be required. So you lose the argument, as you've acknowledged that the game isn't fun, because the bots are needed.
under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act maybe
Try the same thought experiment, but instead of "I will kill you", it should be: "you will lose your house". It makes a considerable difference to the outcome and people's view of your actions.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Which would made ir OK if the code was handed over as part of a court rulung or court order.
As much as I understood, handing over the source code was part of a settlement to avoid such a court ruling.
So most likely, that guy promised as a settlement something that he already sold to someone else.
OTOH, if this is a case in Germany, this might be something where the difference between Urherberrecht and Verwertungsrecht (ass opposed to the concept of copyright) may become relevant.
bickerdyke
If the code wasn't his, or he was under contract to keep it secret (NDA for example), then the court can either, UNDER ITS OWN COGNIZANCE, break the contract or force giving up the code. So the contractor is in the clear, AS LONG AS THE COURT ASSERTS IT MUST.
Blizzard may, being the recipients of someone else's code without license (and the court cannot grant that license without explicitly granting that license from the owner to Blizzard) are in trouble, though, since they are now in copyright theft trouble. And this one IS theft: Blizzard will assert and have asserted that they get the code and ownership,which they don't.
Bliz are in trouble.
The COURT may well be in trouble, if they didn't rule that the disclosure contract was anulled.
The contractor is only in trouble if they had the choice of not handing it over or did not tell the court it was not theirs to divulge.
The court COULD NOT rule that he be jailed for not handing over what was neither his nor Blizzard's property, though they would go and do it anyway, because the court doesn't give a shit about the law when it comes to their perogatives (they insist your solicitor should bring it up, else the law doesn't exist). But on being arrested, he could sue for wrongful arrest and unjust imprisonment.
> No more than a prenup, or a restraining order.
Not sure what you're trying to say, as laws vary wildly from locality to locality.
The concept, in California, is called "severability". This describes the condition. Invalidating one part of a mutual contract does not invalidate other parts. Because wording and legal statutes are complicated, this isn't as simple as it seems at a glance.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
A cheater got cheated. Not feeling any sympathy.
Different rules do apply when a human being does it. Laws certainly vary from one jurisdiction to another, but I don't know any jurisdiction where infringement of intellectual property rights is treated the same in law as theft of a physical item.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm 100% with you on that. For 15 years I was kind of a freelancer, runnung a three-person shop most of that time. Certain people we didn't do business with because they were devious or deceptive. Not necessarily -criminal-, but certainly not upstanding citizens who were careful to always do the right thing.
I've seen a lot of people get burned by associating with the wrong people, from business issues related to associates who push the limits of spam to charges of drug dealing against someone who hung around drug dealers and hookers. Sometimes the slimeball burns you, sometimes the slimeball gets involved with another slimeball who burns you, sometimes you're collateral damage when the authorities go after the slimeballs. All too often, when you lay with dogs you wake up with fleas, one way or another.
Why do people, almost invariably, try to make a physical item analogous with intangible property? It doesn't work - the two are simply so dissimilar that it doesn't really help.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Settlements are approved by judges and stand in stead of a final judgment. It's a judgment without the expensive judicial process. Therefore it stands that the transfer was ordered and legal unless a higher court decided otherwise in appeals and I think the time for appeal has long passed. This might not be the case in another jurisdiction (Germany vs USA) and that is the interesting part about international agreements.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Any freelancer should know that signing an NDA and touching any proprietary code puts him in danger.
And better do not work with companies which want to keep their code secret.
There should be big difficulty for the companies that do not publish their code under some kind of OpenSource license to get skilled developers.
Of course this case doesn't place employed developers in danger. They cannot disclose the code, which they touch only in the office.
Normally I would agree, but in this case Blizzard owns the server they accessed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
The terms of use may or may not be enforceable, but they definitely constitute what would be considered authorized access to the server owned by Blizzard.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
That's a good point.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You probably would have pressed the button yourself after shooting me.
Unless you are being sarcastic, you are also depriving yourself of the experiences that come with interacting with other people.
I avoid interacting with one or two individuals and a few corporations. Not playing certain games does not diminish my experience of life (on the contrary).
It is your choice and you may have you reasons to do so, but despite being easier in the short term, limiting your social interactions is likely to impact your personal growth.
Because one arrived at the conclusion, and the second tried to dispute it, but unknowingly arrived at the same result and never realized it. So the second 'lost' his argument, by the fact that he ended up arguing against his original point.