Did the person legally obtain the software? If the answer is yes then they don't need a license or a EULA to have the right to use the copy.
"Did the person legally come into possession of the apartment? If the answer is yes, then they don't need a license or a rental agreement to have the right use the property."
The real question here is if World of Warcraft is a rental/lease, or if it is ownership. That there is a monthly subscription fee that if you fail to pay, you retain essentially nothing about your game play is a pretty convincing argument for the former.
As a renter/licensee, the free use of the copy are contingent upon compliance with the licensing agreement, the EULA, and Terms of Use.
1. The phrase "You cannot" can imply that something is impossible. 2. We know it isn't actually impossible, so we have to examine the context 3. The current context is law.
Final interpretation: In the context of law, inducing others to violate their contracts is an impossibility.
And yes, like the grandparent I did notice this upon the first reading, ending up with two contradictory interpretations, causing me to stop and consider the true meaning in the greater context. All stemming from the careless use of the word cannot.
Thanks, got it. This is why language sucks... ambiguity abounds, and it's nearly impossible to see it yourself.
My point was that historically if you've bought something rather than rented or licensed it, you had a right to do as you wanted with it, and this is what I was referring to be precedent,
I'm having trouble figuring this out... if you own something, do you pay a monthly fee to use it?
Users are merely in possession of the binaries, and license the right to use the program. This is well-supported by the monthly payment model used to access the game.
They're not going crazy out of precedent, they're simply pointing out that possession does not equal ownership. Anyone aware of rental and leasing law should be clear on this.
Count 49 is an assertion of facts, not a claim for relief.
Prayer for relief F:
Awarding Blizzard monetary relief including damages sustained by Blizzard in an amount not yet determined.
"(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)."
Use of WoWGlider impoverishes Blizzard by altering the game balance in World of Warcraft®, damaging Blizzard’s reputation with players dissatisfied with the pervasiveness of cheaters and the effect of cheating on the game, and depriving Blizzard of monthly membership revenue by enabling users to progress in the game more quickly than legitimate players.
So, not for "capped and left".
The final judgement gave claim 4 to Blizzard as well. They did not get it by summary judgement, but did get it by bench trial.
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.
MDY didn't make the argument at all, Blizzard made the argument that it was unauthorized... specifically for the points that you raised.
MDY is then required to answer as to how Blizzard is wrong, otherwise they stipulate to the claim.
This raises the question: can a person in possession of a piece of software, make a copy necessary for its use, when such use is in violation of the EULA?
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.
I'm going to take the high road, and point out Claim 49 of the counter claim. They did.
The most bizarre thing about this lawsuit is that Blizzard is suing MDY for lost revenue,
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.
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.
This is what every person playing WoW has agreed to by contract with Blizzard.
They're using a legal answer, to a technical/gameplay problem.
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.
The courts holding is very specious, its like saying I can't run two copies of Word at the same time. Its a copy running in memory according to the link you sent. This decision is stretching the meaning of copying software and I wonder if they even understand what they are talking about. I can't wait till the current batch of the judiciary is replaced with a younger generation that understands technology.
The courts ruling is not specious.
Gilder created another unauthorized copy of the game, which is not necessary to play the game.
This copy was for the specific purpose of avoiding detection by the anti-cheating software Warden.
The first proves the copyright violation, the second proves the inducement to violate the terms of a contract.... this coming from a girl with extensive history in emulation and virtualization.
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.
To take a little spin, perhaps you own your copy WoW, pay for a license to log onto Blizzards servers?
I'll take the high road and say, this requires speculation about how the law should be. I'm not anywhere in the position to do that. I just know a bit how the law works.
The most bizarre thing about this lawsuit is that Blizzard is suing MDY for lost revenue, because Blizzard chose to ban players. Blizzard didn't have to ban those players. They could have taken away their money and levels and allow them to continue playing. Blizzard made a choice. It's completely ridiculous that they blame that choice on someone else.
It might have made sense if MDY was sued by its customers who got themselves banned for using an MDY product. That I would understand. Blizzard suing MDY is completely retarded.
Blizzard didn't sue them for lost revenue (as I was able to see.) Blizzard obtained a judgement against MDY copyright infringement, and inducement to violate a contract.
Your argument at first sounds about right, but unfortunately it is specious.
An individual can be responsible for inducing someone else into violating the terms of their contract.
MDY knew that use of their program violated the terms of use of World of Warcraft. There is no use of Glider that does not violate the terms of use for WoW. Therefore selling this induces people to violate their contract.
If people did not enjoy the game under the ToU, then they have a contractually allowable response: cancel their account.
They do not have the right to break that contract, and MDY suggesting to them that they are allowed to do so, is textbook inducement to violate the terms of a contract.
i don't think there is a problem with a ruling stating you don't own the game, but it better be worded very very carefully. you own the right to play it, and there needs to be strict as hell limits on just what blizzard can do to restrict HOW you play it.
Renters actually have very few rights, and they have those rights simply because one's residence is so necessary.
As a better example perhaps, take a gym membership.
Fundamentally, you do not "own the right to play it" not at all. And any limits on how Blizzard can restrict you in playing on their servers needs to be strongly considered before restricting them.
They own the greater part of the game experience that you're playing.
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.
Well that's the key point. Does Blizzard own/rule the communal experience of the players? Is this position implicit or explicit, and precisely what are the boundaries of their authority and responsibility?
Good question. If I stop paying for my account, what do I get to keep?
Slashdot Mirror
Did the person legally obtain the software? If the answer is yes then they don't need a license or a EULA to have the right to use the copy.
"Did the person legally come into possession of the apartment? If the answer is yes, then they don't need a license or a rental agreement to have the right use the property."
The real question here is if World of Warcraft is a rental/lease, or if it is ownership. That there is a monthly subscription fee that if you fail to pay, you retain essentially nothing about your game play is a pretty convincing argument for the former.
As a renter/licensee, the free use of the copy are contingent upon compliance with the licensing agreement, the EULA, and Terms of Use.
1. The phrase "You cannot" can imply that something is impossible.
2. We know it isn't actually impossible, so we have to examine the context
3. The current context is law.
Final interpretation: In the context of law, inducing others to violate their contracts is an impossibility.
And yes, like the grandparent I did notice this upon the first reading, ending up with two contradictory interpretations, causing me to stop and consider the true meaning in the greater context. All stemming from the careless use of the word cannot.
Thanks, got it. This is why language sucks... ambiguity abounds, and it's nearly impossible to see it yourself.
My point was that historically if you've bought something rather than rented or licensed it, you had a right to do as you wanted with it, and this is what I was referring to be precedent,
I'm having trouble figuring this out... if you own something, do you pay a monthly fee to use it?
Users are merely in possession of the binaries, and license the right to use the program. This is well-supported by the monthly payment model used to access the game.
They're not going crazy out of precedent, they're simply pointing out that possession does not equal ownership. Anyone aware of rental and leasing law should be clear on this.
Count 49 is an assertion of facts, not a claim for relief.
Prayer for relief F:
Awarding Blizzard monetary relief including damages sustained by Blizzard in an amount not yet determined.
"(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)."
Use of WoWGlider impoverishes Blizzard by altering the game balance in World
of Warcraft®, damaging Blizzard’s reputation with players dissatisfied with the pervasiveness of
cheaters and the effect of cheating on the game, and depriving Blizzard of monthly membership
revenue by enabling users to progress in the game more quickly than legitimate players.
So, not for "capped and left".
The final judgement gave claim 4 to Blizzard as well. They did not get it by summary judgement, but did get it by bench trial.
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.
MDY didn't make the argument at all, Blizzard made the argument that it was unauthorized... specifically for the points that you raised.
MDY is then required to answer as to how Blizzard is wrong, otherwise they stipulate to the claim.
This raises the question: can a person in possession of a piece of software, make a copy necessary for its use, when such use is in violation of the EULA?
Blizzard isn't contesting anybody's ownership of the game
Blizzard's Counterclaim 82. "Users of WoW are licensees, and are permitted to copy WoW only in conformance with the EULA."
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.
I'm going to take the high road, and point out Claim 49 of the counter claim. They did.
It's also part of their pray for relief F.
- Inducing others to violate their contract is not a valid legal position (and hence cannot be deemed illegal).
I'm sorry, but please provide an explanation of how one could read this out of my response.
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.
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.
This is what every person playing WoW has agreed to by contract with Blizzard.
They're using a legal answer, to a technical/gameplay problem.
MDY started the lawsuit, Blizzard finished it.
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.
The courts holding is very specious, its like saying I can't run two copies of Word at the same time. Its a copy running in memory according to the link you sent. This decision is stretching the meaning of copying software and I wonder if they even understand what they are talking about. I can't wait till the current batch of the judiciary is replaced with a younger generation that understands technology.
The courts ruling is not specious.
Gilder created another unauthorized copy of the game, which is not necessary to play the game.
This copy was for the specific purpose of avoiding detection by the anti-cheating software Warden.
The first proves the copyright violation, the second proves the inducement to violate the terms of a contract. ... this coming from a girl with extensive history in emulation and virtualization.
Once the dust will settle we will look back to the days when the AI was not allowed to play games.
Right, but the AI has to be rational enough to make moral choices, and be held responsible for its own actions.
AI is not anywhere near that right now.
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.
To take a little spin, perhaps you own your copy WoW, pay for a license to log onto Blizzards servers?
I'll take the high road and say, this requires speculation about how the law should be. I'm not anywhere in the position to do that. I just know a bit how the law works.
As far as I can tell from the EULA, nothing (of value), since nothing can be traded outside their services.
Is this supposed to be an issue?
Point is that without your license to play upon their service, you don't have anything. Same as a renter.
A false narrative again from a lack of understanding of the law.
You cannot induce others to violate their contracts.
Oh thank god you're not insane.
Sometimes it's hard to spot sarcasm/satire/parody when you're trying to be serious.
The most bizarre thing about this lawsuit is that Blizzard is suing MDY for lost revenue, because Blizzard chose to ban players. Blizzard didn't have to ban those players. They could have taken away their money and levels and allow them to continue playing. Blizzard made a choice. It's completely ridiculous that they blame that choice on someone else.
It might have made sense if MDY was sued by its customers who got themselves banned for using an MDY product. That I would understand. Blizzard suing MDY is completely retarded.
Blizzard didn't sue them for lost revenue (as I was able to see.) Blizzard obtained a judgement against MDY copyright infringement, and inducement to violate a contract.
Your argument at first sounds about right, but unfortunately it is specious.
An individual can be responsible for inducing someone else into violating the terms of their contract.
MDY knew that use of their program violated the terms of use of World of Warcraft. There is no use of Glider that does not violate the terms of use for WoW. Therefore selling this induces people to violate their contract.
If people did not enjoy the game under the ToU, then they have a contractually allowable response: cancel their account.
They do not have the right to break that contract, and MDY suggesting to them that they are allowed to do so, is textbook inducement to violate the terms of a contract.
That would be equivalent to changing things in the game world so that it affects future gamers. That's not happening here.
No. Renters are not allowed to do those things because they are simply in possession of the property, but not the owners of the property.
Thus, renters are banned outright from doing just about anything but transient changes to the property.
Owners also have the right to forbid renters from changing the external appearance of the property as well... so, go chew on that one.
i don't think there is a problem with a ruling stating you don't own the game, but it better be worded very very carefully. you own the right to play it, and there needs to be strict as hell limits on just what blizzard can do to restrict HOW you play it.
Renters actually have very few rights, and they have those rights simply because one's residence is so necessary.
As a better example perhaps, take a gym membership.
Fundamentally, you do not "own the right to play it" not at all. And any limits on how Blizzard can restrict you in playing on their servers needs to be strongly considered before restricting them.
They own the greater part of the game experience that you're playing.
^^^^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.
If you like a game it does not imply you like every aspect of it. With a bot you skip the parts you don't enjoy (anymore).
I say, if you paid for it, do what you want. (moral exception applies).
Do this with your apartment. Just paint the walls, and put in your own walls.
See how far that gets you.
Well that's the key point. Does Blizzard own/rule the communal experience of the players? Is this position implicit or explicit, and precisely what are the boundaries of their authority and responsibility?
Good question. If I stop paying for my account, what do I get to keep?