You don't know what you're talking about. Anything that is purely intrastate can't be regulated, unless it (1) uses the channels of interstate commerce or (2) has a significant effect on interstate commerce. What you grow in your backyard likely doesn't; wheat production at the time did because of the Depression and the war. And our new, enlightened conservative Supreme Court hasn't seen fit to overrule that bad precedent, because it is very clearly the right decision.
Maybe when you've been on the receiving end of oppression for 10,000 years, maybe when you live in a society that isn't geared toward promoting the dominance of your sex, maybe when you weren't raised in an environment of almost absolute privilege, you get to complain. But on the whole, the fact that you might be complaining that women are smarter than you and dominate a few areas of the job market, while still lagging significantly behind in most others, is just fucking pathetic. Grow a pair, be a man.
Just the opposite, I think. As long as there isn't a clause forbidding you to run WoW in VMWare, you should be OK. Contracts are governed by their express terms, not any implied terms, and the operative terms of the license seem to speak to bots and trainers, not virtual machines. What we're getting at is not the fact that you have WoW plus any other program in RAM at the same time, but rather that you're loading WoW in to RAM with a program or program type (bots, trainers, hacks, etc.) specifically forbidden by Blizzard.
As for your understanding of a licensee, it's pretty much correct. A licensee is given rights to property (but not ownership rights) specified by the terms of a bargained-for agreement, or a contract. If you're a licensee to an amusement park, you have the "right" to enter and remain on the property, and to enjoy such rides and amusements as the property owner (licensor) offers. That's what WoW is: a virtual amusement park. But you don't have ownership rights to anything at the park... you can't make changes to the scenery, or decide that you'd really like the ferris wheel to go faster, or cut in line -- these things aren't given to you as rights. But as for conduct from which you are forbidden, most licenses don't list everything you're forbidden to do. You are of course forbidden to do anything illegal or that would be a violation of a civil law, or to breach the contract, but in this case, Blizzard has specifically forbidden people to load WoW and a bot, hack, or cheat at the same time. That's what makes this a case of violation, according to the law. It is pretty broad, but then again, the terms of the EULA are pretty broad. I think that if it needs to be made more specific, we ought to look to Blizzard to define exactly what it is that breaches, rather than look for courts to supply it, because a court is going to want to construe the terms of the contract strictly.
I don't think so, because you'd still need to have Glider going when you loaded the game. If, somehow, you could possibly run the bot without running the game at the same time, I don't think it would violate the terms of the EULA. But again, I'm not really sure based on the opinion itself, which is (as you might have noticed) light on the technical details. From a legal standpoint, however, I can tell you that it's not as expansive as the summary claims.
OK, then I wasn't clear -- you're not making an unauthorized copy in the sense of a duplicate, but rather you're not authorized to "copy" (e.g., move) the data from storage to RAM when you load the program. While this is normally OK, Blizzard's argument was that this is not OK when you do it while violating the terms of your license, because you're a licensee rather than a buyer. A good analogy would be a guest a theme park -- she is a licensee. She has been given specific rights to do certain things, and only those things. She doesn't actually own any part of the park, though she can use it.
(1) As I understand the argument, the users of the software were the ones who violated the license, made the violating copy. But, much like Napster or any other software service whose purpose is to violate a license, the developer of that software is apparently liable as well. I don't think it's exactly analogous to the making available argument put forward by the RIAA, but copyright isn't my specialty. I would say, however, that this is sort of analogous to MDY making malware: even if they didn't release it in to the wild, they're ultimately responsible for its existence and so culpable.
(2) Well, the "use" here that is at issue is whether it is "copying" within the meaning of the statute to load a program from storage to RAM. That is, apparently, enough. In other words, if you load any program in violation of its EULA, you're potentially liable (in theory) under this law. Now, whether you could be successfully prosecuted, or whether the presence of a commercially-sold (i.e., for profit) program that enabled you to violate the EULA would make a difference, I can't say. I have a feeling that had Glider been given away for free as an OSS project or something similar the result would have been different. But to a court, it probably looked like MDY was profiting off of enabling users to violate a contract.
(3) No, not really. Although the two programs are in RAM at the same time, it is probably not a violation of the EULA to run both the software and the virus scanner. Central to the issue here was that Blizzard makes WoW players licensees, rather than buyers. In other words, you pay Blizzard for the right to use their software and servers (like you pay an amusement park to ride rides) but you don't actually own any of it yourself (like you don't own the rides). Because you're just a licensee, the scope of your rights is no larger than the license contract, or the EULA. As long as what you're doing is within the EULA terms, you're OK under this statute.
(4) This is where it gets tricky: if the virtualization or emulator is a violation of the software EULA, then it would seem that this law applies. However, as with the statement above, I think what secretly rankled the court's nose was that MDY charges(ed) people for Glider, and was making a profit off of encouraging people to break their EULAs. A more passive thing like an emulator or a virtual machine might pass muster.
(5) No. The terms of the contract control, and courts are generally loathe to imply terms not bargained-for by the parties. So, if what you do isn't covered by the EULA, then you can't be brought up for violating it, and MDY couldn't be held liable for providing a service not covered by the contract. That's why you have to re-up your EULA every time Blizzard updates the game, so that the EULA can change to accommodate whatever changes the bot makers have made. But in more general terms, as long as the contract is silent on something, and it's not illegal or a violation of a civil law for you to do that thing, you can do it without being in breach of the contract.
They didn't go after end users because you can't win anything from them. Believe it or not, unless you're one of the wealthiest people in the world, you're virtually judgment proof. Courts just can't get at the assets of the majority of people, so they're suing someone with money. And because there isn't a contract between MDY and Blizzard, they couldn't use a contract theory -- so they used contract law. And, for the record, there is such a thing as tortious interference with a contract, though I don't think that's present here. It also wasn't the judge that got anything wrong here: the cases construing the statute say that copying into RAM is "copying" for the purposes of the statute.
The reason they chose copyright law was to get at the big money damages. Contract law doesn't provide much in the way of damages, especially for a party foreign to the contract like MDY. So they chose to find a legal strategy that would allow them to assess monetary penalties against MDY, hopefully (thereby) putting them out of business.
I don't think I was clear enough: it is not the copy-vis-a-vis-duplicate in RAM that is the problem, but rather the fact that you are "copying" data from storage to the RAM while at the same time violating the EULA that brings it within the purview of the statute.
My analysis came from the section of the opinion applying the case of MAI Sys. Corp., page 6, line 6 et seq. of the opinion, prior to the discussion of Title 17 Â 117. That, as I read the case, was a defensive issue raised by MDY to avoid summary judgment. But, as you point out, it wasn't sufficient to raise a fact issue because the statute is not on point.
The main holding of the case, and the one that does fall within the ratio decidendii of the court, was whether this is "copying" within the sense of MAI Sys. Corp., which the court discusses supra.
First sale is similarly off point, I would think, because of the EULA. What you buy in the store is the game disc itself, the physical thing. Playing the game, however, requires that you accept the "License Agreement." I know that forms and captions don't control substance, but what you're getting out of the deal is really the license to create an account, log in to a computer not owned by you, manipulate data largely not stored on your own machine, and interact in a virtual world. It's like saying you should be able to disregard amusement park policy because you bought a ticket and possess the physical ticket still.
None of that matters. It's not the extra copy in RAM that's the problem. It's the fact that according to the express terms of the contract players sign with Blizzard, they're not supposed to run anything like Glider. Doing so is a prima facie breach of contract. Breaching a contract + loading the game in to RAM = copying for the purposes of the statute, and that means a violation and civil damages result to the party that creates the program that is used to violate the EULA... hence, Blizzard can sue MDY, who profits off of encouraging gamers to breach a contract.
OK, let me break this down for everyone (I am a law student).
What the decision is saying is that, under 9th Circuit law, it is "copying" to move a program from storage to RAM. So, any time you load a game, you are copying it. If you do this in violation of the EULA and TOU, which in this case prohibit you from loading the game in to RAM at the same time as running the Glider software, you are not authorized to copy the game. This is a copyright infringement. The reason Blizzard chose this method was to have some cause of action directly against MDY, because otherwise it would be a breach of contract suit against the users (who are judgment-proof) for breach of contract damages alone, which are so small as to be non-existent.
The decision is relevant in the 9th Cir. only, but the reasoning appears substantially correct. The rule that copying in to RAM is copying under the terms of the Copyright Act is not unique to this case: it is in fact cited under previous authority. This case rather simply applies this standard and says that it is a violation of the EULA to use a bot like Glider, and that copying in violation of the EULA/TOU is sufficient to constitute a copyright infringement.
Yes, that's why they make you sign them. If you could just switch providers with a phone call, there'd be little incentive for the companies to offer you any kind of package deal. They'd charge per use of the network. But contracts are bargained for, so you don't have to enter in to it. I have a hard time feeling sorry for people who don't want to sign contracts with people that are going to provide services to you. If you don't like the terms, attempt to change them. If they don't, don't buy. And if you do get in to one, especially a cell phone contract, you can always find a way to get out of it without paying a termination fee. There are lots of grounds for rescission or reformation of the contract, most of which are understandable by the non-lawyer populace.
Also, computer servers don't have the ability to handle lots of traffic at once! Kids listen to music too loud! Movies don't make sense anymore! You have to sign up for a contract!
While I don't support it, it's not quite as bad as the fearmongering makes it out. Most people don't understand what the liability limitations do, exactly. People lack standing to bring lawsuits of this type, unless you can prove that you were wiretapped. It's a judicial time-saving and cost-saving measure.
Now, I do oppose the expansion of the wiretapping program and the removal of judicial oversight, but this isn't a self-activating provision. Someone actively has to do it, and a vote not for Obama at this point is going to be a vote for McCain, especially in key swing states. If I had to choose between which one of those two yay-hoos I thought would be more likely to domestically wiretap, it's McCain.
If the kid's old enough to give an answer like that, he doesn't need his mom to look over his shoulder. While he (she?) may be neglected and want to spend time with his/her mom, I don't think it's quite to the level where Mom needs to be watching him for his own safety.
Yeah, that's totally what women sit around discussing. "Oh, I like Tim! He's an ideal genetic match, and if I mate with him, our children will have all the advantages they need to edge out those mutants from down the block!"
I think rather his point was that digital files, as not having a physical manifestation, lack what Marx calls "use-value." They have exchange value, in that you're probably willing to give up some other thing of value (currency, gold, bushels of wheat) for them, but they lack any true "use-value" to use because they're just bits of data. They're infinitely copiable, portable, and hard to exercise sole possession over. Basing an economy on purely digital bits of information is much like his H2G2 reference; they're as multifarious as leaves on trees. There's so much of it out there that it's nearly meaningless in terms of its value individually, apart from its conventional, relational exchange value.
Well, divisions in the law are artificial. There is quite a bit of overlap. Copyright law is technically the law of granting and litigating copyrights (and enforcing them) but it can also be things that are ancillary to that, like contracts suits. The various copyright laws (statutes enacted by Congress or the states which deal with copyrights) might even have a tort cause of action that allows you to sue for damages for violation of the copyright. As I've said, I didn't take copyright law because I lack the educational background to sit for the patent bar, and my job prospects lie more in the way of criminal law than civil, but I do know that "tort" statutes can be found in all different sections of the United States Code... if indeed Blizzard is suing under the USC and a state statute. I'd have to see their pleadings to know what the suit was actually for, which is why I rarely trust what news or media sites report a suit as being about... most people don't understand how it works because most people weren't subjected to the unmitigated torture of law school.:)
Roughly, tortious interference with a contract describes a doctrine whereby you commit a tort (which is just a civil wrong; it's not bad enough to be a crime, but it's still a no-no) and in the commission of that tort you somehow interfere with or frustrate performance of a contract between two parties. Let's say that ABC Company contracts with you to build a house for them, and I come out and steal all of your materials. The civil counterpart to theft is called "conversion." So I've converted your property. You can sue me in tort for conversion, but what about ABC? ABC might've lost money on the deal because they had to buy you substitute materials, or perhaps the homeowners had to move into a hotel for a month because their house wasn't built on time, and now ABC had to pay them for that? In order to make it so that ABC can sue me too, there's a cause of action for tortious interference with a contract.
If the MMOGlider then somehow prevents or frustrates the contract between Blizzard and the user, so much that Blizzard is suffering actual harm (i.e., they're losing money) then they might have a claim against the company that makes the program. Of course, it could really be nothing more than a flimsy smokescreen while Blizzard tries to bury this guy in litigation costs, effectively shutting him down without "shutting him down." They could always go before a court and request a permanent injunction (a legal order from the court telling him to knock it off, permanently) without having to sue for damages, but I suppose that might be harder for them to obtain.
If you really want to read up on the law (and you've got spare change to burn) head to your local law school's bookstore and pick up the West "Nutshell" series. They're meant to be study guides for students and lawyers but with some reasonable diligence you could probably slog through them well enough to teach yourself most of the law. It's not hard... it just takes a lot of work.
Even if you read up on law, you can still be wrong. You don't sue for tortious punitive damages. You can sue in tort, meaning you must find a tort cause of action authorized by the jurisdiction you're suing in. For instance, if Blizzard sued MMOGlider in federal court, they'd look to the United States Code to see if there was a statutorily-created tort cause of action that enabled them to sue. Damages are then recoverable if they are (1) authorized by law or statute and (2) proven with a reasonable degree of certainty. Damages are a measure of reward, but they are not a formal part of the suit itself. The suit is on a cause of action, and it may plead and prove certain cases of special damages, but damages are awarded, not sued for. Punitive damages are a special class of damages that exist (1) only where authorized by law and (2) only where found, usually to some higher degree of proof (e.g., in Texas you must have a unanimous jury vote on punitive damages). Their purpose is to "punish," or to serve as an example (exemplary damages). You cannot recover punitive damages without an actual damages award, and punitive damages generally have limits on them as to whether they can exceed your actual damage award. Thus, a $1 nominal damage award will not support punitive damages, and U.S. Supreme Court cases have held that a 4:1 ratio (where punitives are 4 times as much as the actual damage award) is presumptively unfair and a violation of due process (see, e.g., BMW of North America v. Gore.)
What does this mean? It means that in this case they are probably suing for tortious interference with a contract, since MMOGlider is a service that technically interferes with their customers. The disclaimer on the MMOGlider site (which is not what we mean in the law when we say "disclaimer") will not shield the author from liability to Blizzard. It might, as was noted previously above, give him a defense as against a user of MMOGlider who sued him. But probably not; merely saying, "I advise you not to do this with this program" is insufficient to have your end users waive their right to sue you.
Third, as this is a civil action, he can't be convicted, merely found liable or not. Liable means that they have proven a proximate causal nexus between the defendant's conduct and a legally-recognized injury to Blizzard. If that's proven, then he is liable for the damages that naturally and necessarily result from that causal nexus, as well as any special cases of damages (like punitives) that were both plead and proven to the required level in that jurisdiction. Blizzard would probably also ask for equitable relief such as a permanent injunction forbidding him for distributing any more copies of his program.
Lastly, I have never taken (nor ever will) any copyright or IP law courses, as it is outside of my sphere of interest or my future practice field, but do not assume that everything that falls under the topic heading of "copyright law" in the United States is so easy to define. All it would take is one statute authorizing a tort cause of action that sounds in copyright law and this could very well be a "copyright" case.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't know what you're talking about. Anything that is purely intrastate can't be regulated, unless it (1) uses the channels of interstate commerce or (2) has a significant effect on interstate commerce. What you grow in your backyard likely doesn't; wheat production at the time did because of the Depression and the war. And our new, enlightened conservative Supreme Court hasn't seen fit to overrule that bad precedent, because it is very clearly the right decision.
Maybe when you've been on the receiving end of oppression for 10,000 years, maybe when you live in a society that isn't geared toward promoting the dominance of your sex, maybe when you weren't raised in an environment of almost absolute privilege, you get to complain. But on the whole, the fact that you might be complaining that women are smarter than you and dominate a few areas of the job market, while still lagging significantly behind in most others, is just fucking pathetic. Grow a pair, be a man.
You don't have to drink anyone's Kool-aid, but listening to scientists might help.
As for your understanding of a licensee, it's pretty much correct. A licensee is given rights to property (but not ownership rights) specified by the terms of a bargained-for agreement, or a contract. If you're a licensee to an amusement park, you have the "right" to enter and remain on the property, and to enjoy such rides and amusements as the property owner (licensor) offers. That's what WoW is: a virtual amusement park. But you don't have ownership rights to anything at the park... you can't make changes to the scenery, or decide that you'd really like the ferris wheel to go faster, or cut in line -- these things aren't given to you as rights. But as for conduct from which you are forbidden, most licenses don't list everything you're forbidden to do. You are of course forbidden to do anything illegal or that would be a violation of a civil law, or to breach the contract, but in this case, Blizzard has specifically forbidden people to load WoW and a bot, hack, or cheat at the same time. That's what makes this a case of violation, according to the law. It is pretty broad, but then again, the terms of the EULA are pretty broad. I think that if it needs to be made more specific, we ought to look to Blizzard to define exactly what it is that breaches, rather than look for courts to supply it, because a court is going to want to construe the terms of the contract strictly.
I don't think so, because you'd still need to have Glider going when you loaded the game. If, somehow, you could possibly run the bot without running the game at the same time, I don't think it would violate the terms of the EULA. But again, I'm not really sure based on the opinion itself, which is (as you might have noticed) light on the technical details. From a legal standpoint, however, I can tell you that it's not as expansive as the summary claims.
OK, then I wasn't clear -- you're not making an unauthorized copy in the sense of a duplicate, but rather you're not authorized to "copy" (e.g., move) the data from storage to RAM when you load the program. While this is normally OK, Blizzard's argument was that this is not OK when you do it while violating the terms of your license, because you're a licensee rather than a buyer. A good analogy would be a guest a theme park -- she is a licensee. She has been given specific rights to do certain things, and only those things. She doesn't actually own any part of the park, though she can use it.
(2) Well, the "use" here that is at issue is whether it is "copying" within the meaning of the statute to load a program from storage to RAM. That is, apparently, enough. In other words, if you load any program in violation of its EULA, you're potentially liable (in theory) under this law. Now, whether you could be successfully prosecuted, or whether the presence of a commercially-sold (i.e., for profit) program that enabled you to violate the EULA would make a difference, I can't say. I have a feeling that had Glider been given away for free as an OSS project or something similar the result would have been different. But to a court, it probably looked like MDY was profiting off of enabling users to violate a contract.
(3) No, not really. Although the two programs are in RAM at the same time, it is probably not a violation of the EULA to run both the software and the virus scanner. Central to the issue here was that Blizzard makes WoW players licensees, rather than buyers. In other words, you pay Blizzard for the right to use their software and servers (like you pay an amusement park to ride rides) but you don't actually own any of it yourself (like you don't own the rides). Because you're just a licensee, the scope of your rights is no larger than the license contract, or the EULA. As long as what you're doing is within the EULA terms, you're OK under this statute.
(4) This is where it gets tricky: if the virtualization or emulator is a violation of the software EULA, then it would seem that this law applies. However, as with the statement above, I think what secretly rankled the court's nose was that MDY charges(ed) people for Glider, and was making a profit off of encouraging people to break their EULAs. A more passive thing like an emulator or a virtual machine might pass muster.
(5) No. The terms of the contract control, and courts are generally loathe to imply terms not bargained-for by the parties. So, if what you do isn't covered by the EULA, then you can't be brought up for violating it, and MDY couldn't be held liable for providing a service not covered by the contract. That's why you have to re-up your EULA every time Blizzard updates the game, so that the EULA can change to accommodate whatever changes the bot makers have made. But in more general terms, as long as the contract is silent on something, and it's not illegal or a violation of a civil law for you to do that thing, you can do it without being in breach of the contract.
They didn't go after end users because you can't win anything from them. Believe it or not, unless you're one of the wealthiest people in the world, you're virtually judgment proof. Courts just can't get at the assets of the majority of people, so they're suing someone with money. And because there isn't a contract between MDY and Blizzard, they couldn't use a contract theory -- so they used contract law. And, for the record, there is such a thing as tortious interference with a contract, though I don't think that's present here. It also wasn't the judge that got anything wrong here: the cases construing the statute say that copying into RAM is "copying" for the purposes of the statute.
The reason they chose copyright law was to get at the big money damages. Contract law doesn't provide much in the way of damages, especially for a party foreign to the contract like MDY. So they chose to find a legal strategy that would allow them to assess monetary penalties against MDY, hopefully (thereby) putting them out of business.
I don't think I was clear enough: it is not the copy-vis-a-vis-duplicate in RAM that is the problem, but rather the fact that you are "copying" data from storage to the RAM while at the same time violating the EULA that brings it within the purview of the statute.
The main holding of the case, and the one that does fall within the ratio decidendii of the court, was whether this is "copying" within the sense of MAI Sys. Corp., which the court discusses supra.
First sale is similarly off point, I would think, because of the EULA. What you buy in the store is the game disc itself, the physical thing. Playing the game, however, requires that you accept the "License Agreement." I know that forms and captions don't control substance, but what you're getting out of the deal is really the license to create an account, log in to a computer not owned by you, manipulate data largely not stored on your own machine, and interact in a virtual world. It's like saying you should be able to disregard amusement park policy because you bought a ticket and possess the physical ticket still.
None of that matters. It's not the extra copy in RAM that's the problem. It's the fact that according to the express terms of the contract players sign with Blizzard, they're not supposed to run anything like Glider. Doing so is a prima facie breach of contract. Breaching a contract + loading the game in to RAM = copying for the purposes of the statute, and that means a violation and civil damages result to the party that creates the program that is used to violate the EULA... hence, Blizzard can sue MDY, who profits off of encouraging gamers to breach a contract.
What the decision is saying is that, under 9th Circuit law, it is "copying" to move a program from storage to RAM. So, any time you load a game, you are copying it. If you do this in violation of the EULA and TOU, which in this case prohibit you from loading the game in to RAM at the same time as running the Glider software, you are not authorized to copy the game. This is a copyright infringement. The reason Blizzard chose this method was to have some cause of action directly against MDY, because otherwise it would be a breach of contract suit against the users (who are judgment-proof) for breach of contract damages alone, which are so small as to be non-existent.
The decision is relevant in the 9th Cir. only, but the reasoning appears substantially correct. The rule that copying in to RAM is copying under the terms of the Copyright Act is not unique to this case: it is in fact cited under previous authority. This case rather simply applies this standard and says that it is a violation of the EULA to use a bot like Glider, and that copying in violation of the EULA/TOU is sufficient to constitute a copyright infringement.
Yes, that's why they make you sign them. If you could just switch providers with a phone call, there'd be little incentive for the companies to offer you any kind of package deal. They'd charge per use of the network. But contracts are bargained for, so you don't have to enter in to it. I have a hard time feeling sorry for people who don't want to sign contracts with people that are going to provide services to you. If you don't like the terms, attempt to change them. If they don't, don't buy. And if you do get in to one, especially a cell phone contract, you can always find a way to get out of it without paying a termination fee. There are lots of grounds for rescission or reformation of the contract, most of which are understandable by the non-lawyer populace.
Also, computer servers don't have the ability to handle lots of traffic at once! Kids listen to music too loud! Movies don't make sense anymore! You have to sign up for a contract!
Now, I do oppose the expansion of the wiretapping program and the removal of judicial oversight, but this isn't a self-activating provision. Someone actively has to do it, and a vote not for Obama at this point is going to be a vote for McCain, especially in key swing states. If I had to choose between which one of those two yay-hoos I thought would be more likely to domestically wiretap, it's McCain.
If the kid's old enough to give an answer like that, he doesn't need his mom to look over his shoulder. While he (she?) may be neglected and want to spend time with his/her mom, I don't think it's quite to the level where Mom needs to be watching him for his own safety.
Mostly by people who don't understand evolution or biology. Or psychology.
Yeah, that's totally what women sit around discussing. "Oh, I like Tim! He's an ideal genetic match, and if I mate with him, our children will have all the advantages they need to edge out those mutants from down the block!"
I didn't know EVE Online had a native client. Hm.
I think rather his point was that digital files, as not having a physical manifestation, lack what Marx calls "use-value." They have exchange value, in that you're probably willing to give up some other thing of value (currency, gold, bushels of wheat) for them, but they lack any true "use-value" to use because they're just bits of data. They're infinitely copiable, portable, and hard to exercise sole possession over. Basing an economy on purely digital bits of information is much like his H2G2 reference; they're as multifarious as leaves on trees. There's so much of it out there that it's nearly meaningless in terms of its value individually, apart from its conventional, relational exchange value.
No. My point was not remotely like your summary.
Roughly, tortious interference with a contract describes a doctrine whereby you commit a tort (which is just a civil wrong; it's not bad enough to be a crime, but it's still a no-no) and in the commission of that tort you somehow interfere with or frustrate performance of a contract between two parties. Let's say that ABC Company contracts with you to build a house for them, and I come out and steal all of your materials. The civil counterpart to theft is called "conversion." So I've converted your property. You can sue me in tort for conversion, but what about ABC? ABC might've lost money on the deal because they had to buy you substitute materials, or perhaps the homeowners had to move into a hotel for a month because their house wasn't built on time, and now ABC had to pay them for that? In order to make it so that ABC can sue me too, there's a cause of action for tortious interference with a contract.
If the MMOGlider then somehow prevents or frustrates the contract between Blizzard and the user, so much that Blizzard is suffering actual harm (i.e., they're losing money) then they might have a claim against the company that makes the program. Of course, it could really be nothing more than a flimsy smokescreen while Blizzard tries to bury this guy in litigation costs, effectively shutting him down without "shutting him down." They could always go before a court and request a permanent injunction (a legal order from the court telling him to knock it off, permanently) without having to sue for damages, but I suppose that might be harder for them to obtain.
If you really want to read up on the law (and you've got spare change to burn) head to your local law school's bookstore and pick up the West "Nutshell" series. They're meant to be study guides for students and lawyers but with some reasonable diligence you could probably slog through them well enough to teach yourself most of the law. It's not hard... it just takes a lot of work.
What does this mean? It means that in this case they are probably suing for tortious interference with a contract, since MMOGlider is a service that technically interferes with their customers. The disclaimer on the MMOGlider site (which is not what we mean in the law when we say "disclaimer") will not shield the author from liability to Blizzard. It might, as was noted previously above, give him a defense as against a user of MMOGlider who sued him. But probably not; merely saying, "I advise you not to do this with this program" is insufficient to have your end users waive their right to sue you.
Third, as this is a civil action, he can't be convicted, merely found liable or not. Liable means that they have proven a proximate causal nexus between the defendant's conduct and a legally-recognized injury to Blizzard. If that's proven, then he is liable for the damages that naturally and necessarily result from that causal nexus, as well as any special cases of damages (like punitives) that were both plead and proven to the required level in that jurisdiction. Blizzard would probably also ask for equitable relief such as a permanent injunction forbidding him for distributing any more copies of his program.
Lastly, I have never taken (nor ever will) any copyright or IP law courses, as it is outside of my sphere of interest or my future practice field, but do not assume that everything that falls under the topic heading of "copyright law" in the United States is so easy to define. All it would take is one statute authorizing a tort cause of action that sounds in copyright law and this could very well be a "copyright" case.
If you're looking at the Slashdot logo, you've never left your mother's basement.