Slashdot Log In
Blizzard Wins Major Lawsuit Against Bot Developers
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Jul 14, 2008 06:59 PM
from the gliding-off-into-the-sunset dept.
from the gliding-off-into-the-sunset dept.
Captain Kirk writes "World of Warcraft owners Blizzard have won their case against the programmer who wrote Glider, Michael Donnelly. (We discussed the case here when it was filed.) Blizzard won on two arguments: first, that if a game is loaded into RAM, that can be considered an unauthorized copy of the game and as such a breach of copyright; second, that selling Glider was interfering with Blizzard's contractual relationship with its customers. The net effect? If you buy a game, you transfer rights to the game developer that they can sue you for."
Related Stories
[+]
Games: Blizzard Sues Creator of WoW Bot 701 comments
Ponca City, We Love You writes "Blizzard, the makers of World of Warcraft, are suing Michael Donnelly, the creator of the MMO Glider program, which performs key tasks in the game automatically. Blizzard says the software bot infringes the company's copyright and potentially damages the game. 'Blizzard's designs expectations are frustrated, and resources are allocated unevenly, when bots are introduced into the WoW universe, because bots spend far more time in-game than an ordinary player would and consume resources the entire time,' Blizzard wrote in its legal submission to the court. More than 100,000 copies of the tool have been sold while more than 10 million people around the world play Warcraft. Donnelly says his tool does not infringe Blizzard's copyright because no 'copy' of the Warcraft game client software is ever made. The two parties are now awaiting a summary judgment in the case."
[+]
Blizzard Tries To Forbid Open Sourcing Glider 638 comments
ruphus13 notes a new development in Blizzard's case against MDY, which we discussed last week. Blizzard, the maker of World of Warcraft, has now requested another injunction — to prevent the open sourcing of Glider code. Quoting: "Blizzard has asked the court for a relatively unconventional order prohibiting MDY from making the source code for its MMO Glider software available to the public, and prohibiting MDY from helping people develop other World of Warcraft automation software. Blizzard had previously asked the court to shut down MDY's WoW operations in its motion for summary judgment, but the court's summary judgment order did not address Blizzard's request. Blizzard's requests to prohibit open-source release of MDY's software and prohibit MDY's assistance in development of independent WoW bots are new to this motion — and seem likely to raise eyebrows in the open source and digital rights advocacy camps."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
Meh. No problem. Clearly my feeble attempts to play WoW are covered as parody.
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
The court essentially found that if you violate the EULA then the use of the software constitutes a copyright violation.
This is the only precedent here and it's hardly an alarming one.
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
Except that it specified unauthorized copy. It can be assumed that any chunks of code that the program causes to enter RAM are authorized, by dint of the programmer doing it.
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
exactly now it is possible to site this case and say anyone who runs your program by loading it into ram is violating copyright, and thus should pay you extra.
If I follow the judge's logic, then anybody looking at me on the street has created an unauthorized copy of me on their retina. They even have the gall to create additional unauthorized copies in other brain areas.
Lawsuits galore!
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
No. It doesn't. The 9th Circuit cases are indeed the most likely to be overturned, (not the same thing), but that is because there are more of them than any other circuit (the 9th Circuit covers about 20% of the US population).
Proportionately speaking, the 9th Circuit is about average for the chances of any individual case being overturned.
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
the point was, this 'cheat' was running warden(the name of WoW's anti-cheat run time) in a sandbox that couldn't 'detect' the cheat, because it was loaded into a sandbox where it could only see what the cheat programmer allowed it to see.
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, grow up and go read TFA.
You are allowed by the license to use one copy at a time.
The infringing software allows you to load multiple copies in such a way as to eliminate the copy protection and violate the license.
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
I cant even imagine any buiness.........
wait a second....
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are allowed by the license to use one copy at a time.
Yeah, but which copy goes in RAM, which copy goes in the L2 cache, which copy goes in the L1 cache, and which copy gets loaded into the microcode decode logic?
Not to mention the game is probably copied onto the hard disk in a couple places (install and swap).
I thought other courts have said that "loading software into RAM" is an essential part of using it (not even an affirmative fair use defense, but simply a normal use).
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
you're guilty of copyright infringement simply by using the product that you paid to use. Quite the precedent.
It's also completely and utterly wrong, according to copyright law.
US Title 17, section 117 [copyright.gov] explicitly states that copying a program into RAM so you can use it is not an infringement.
it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
The judge quite clearly erred in application of this statute. IIRC the law was amended specifically because of courts ruling that copying to RAM was infringement (which the judge apparently didn't understand.)
This is pretty much a slam-dunk appeal.
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you even read your own quote?
and that it is used in no other manner
That's the crux of it, right there.
Parent
Sorry, read it again! (Score:5, Informative)
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
The plain meaning of this text is that you're allowed to copy it into RAM if that copying act is an essential step in the "utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine", with the exception that this rule does NOT give you permission to copy it if you are also using the copy for something other than "utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine".
Now playing World of Warcraft, with or without Glider, and with or without obeying the terms of Blizzard's EULA/ToS, is still "utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine". People running Glider are not doing some magical-fairy-dust thing to their WoW program; they are simply running it on their computer like everyone else. Which requires copying it to RAM, which according to the text of 117(a) is not an infringing act.
For example, if you decided to print out a hex dump of the whole program on paper, that would be something other than "utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine", and that action would not be protected by 117(a)(1).
This decision is wrong because the judge interpreted 117(a) incorrectly (as did the Ninth circuit court that he's following). As a result, a software developer who sells a product which happens to help people play World of Warcraft, is now guilty of *infringing Blizzard's copyright on the software program World of Warcraft* even though he didn't copy World of Warcraft himself, and didn't induce any other parties to copy it either. Simply because Blizzard includes a unilateral contract in the box with the software they sell, this other guy (who they haven't sold it to) is now guilty of copyright infringement. Wonderful.
It's a very dangerous precedent, and hopefully those decisions will both be overturned before they cause too much trouble.
Parent
Ouch. (Score:5, Interesting)
There goes the legality of most current Virus Scanners in the US then.
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
However, a reading of what the court actually found is much less worrisome.
The Court reaches the following conclusions on the basis of undisputed facts, construction of the EULA and TOU, and controlling Ninth Circuit law: Blizzard owns a valid copyright in the game client software, Blizzard has granted a limited license for WoW players to use the software, use of the software with Glider falls outside the scope of the license established in section 4 of the TOU, use of Glider includes copying to RAM within the meaning of section 106 of the Copyright Act, users of WoW and Glider are not entitled to a section 117 defense, and Glider users therefore infringe Blizzardâ(TM)s copyright. MDY does not dispute that the other requirements for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement are met, nor has MDY established a misuse defense. The Court accordingly will grant summary judgment in favor of Blizzard with respect to liability on the contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims in Counts II and III.
Basically, because the users of Glider are violating the terms of the contract with Blizzard, their copying of the software (to RAM or not to RAM) is not covered under US Title 17, Section 117 (regardless of what the sibling post states).
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
Unfucking believable.
Seriously.
I can't believe you just said that.
There's no way in hell that that could possibly be even remotely true.
No one on slashdot lost only four years to Diablo.
Parent
Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow.
I guess now the *AA can now start telling us what hardware we're allowed to play movies/music on, and simply loading it into RAM on a non-approved device constitutes copyright infringement, as a copy is being made in a way not granted under the license.
Lets here it for vinyl. Nothing is ever removed, just vibrations sent down the needle to the speaker. (Talking about the old phonographs.)
Parent
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Funny)
You're screwed even with vinyl records. An unauthorized copy is stored in your brain, from which it may be illegally distributed by such devious pirating methods as humming and whistling!
Parent
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Funny)
Derivative works; fair use. However, the copy that's being stored in the amplifier for a split-second between the needle and the speaker absolutely needs a license, as does each wall in the room unless they're certified to be 100% reflective to audio waves.
The license for your pants' copy of the song is, of course, easily avoided. Though it does drastically change the nature of public performance.
Parent
Parody (Score:5, Funny)
Derivative works; fair use. However, the copy that's being stored in the amplifier for a split-second between the needle and the speaker absolutely needs a license, as does each wall in the room unless they're certified to be 100% reflective to audio waves.
The license for your pants' copy of the song is, of course, easily avoided. Though it does drastically change the nature of public performance.
Most people suck at whistling and humming. I think they clearly qualify as parody.
Parent
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Funny)
You know as well as I do that the RIAA is searching for God if only to send him a bill.
Parent
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Then talk to MDY's counsel.
To me, this is the smoking gun.
Here, MDY's counsel is agreeing that "Copying to RAM" is copying, an act that it reserved and controlled by the copyright holder. They agree that if you are no longer in compliance with whatever license you agreed to in order to access the content, then you are no longer entitled to the content -- since the license controls that access on behalf of the copyright holder.
Regardless of how you may feel, this is what MDY's counsel agreed to. He basically said "Yes, this it true".
The case then proceeded to prove that Glider is, in fact, a breach of the license.
The judge made no law here, nothing new here. It's all been done before in other cases. He's simply applying it.
Parent
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
But at the same time if a company has one program and doesn't like a different web browser (like Opera) they could ban you from using opera while their program is running.
"Your choice of software has been approved, Comrade. We'll be watching..."
How long before other major software developers start using this to stifle innovation and competition? 'specially {though I'll not name names} the "popular" OS firms...
Parent
Except (Score:5, Insightful)
The enforcement of the GPL is not predicated on the idea that executing a program is the defacto creation of a copy.
This ruling is stupid, because it could lead to all sorts of infringements based on technicalities - and "technical" belongs in that word.
We now have an entire can of worms open - for example, when the program is executing and makes a copy of the stack, I now have 2 copies of certain parts, both in RAM. I quite possibly have one copy in main memory, and another copy in a disk buffer RAM cache. I may have those two copies, and a third copy of part loaded into the processor's cache. The code from RAM is being copied into the cpu for execution. When I run low on RAM, part of the program is moved back onto ANOTHER copy on the disk in the form of virtual memory. How many copies are we up to now?
This "convict you of copyright infringement using some nuance about how computers work" is insane.
Anything your computer does in the process of executing anything you get as a program should be considered fair use, as it is clearly for your personal enjoyment.
I completely sympathize with Blizzard's motives; the desire to keep WoW "clean" is a great one, and I think virtual/mmo gaming has a huge future, and some day, we'll all be joking about how ridiculously small WoW was as a game. That having been said, these things seem to have a way of snowballing. First it was shrink wrap licenses, and before long, there were shrink-wrapped textbooks showing up. First, Blizzard sues over this... the next thing you know, the RIAA is successfully proving in court that ripping a CD is copyright infringement, because format-shifting is legal, sure, but a computer putting the bits into RAM in order to format-shift them is illegal.
Parent
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
The decision is about EULAs (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA? What about software companies? Ever hear of the BSA? If any of them can selectively prosecute anyone who runs their programs even if it was legally paid for, then we are all in trouble.
Though, I finally got through to the site, and it may not be quite as bad. It looks as though the court found you have to obey the EULA. I'm not sure I like that either. After all, you often don't get to see the EULA until after you buy the software and open the box. Even more so, because the stores claim some "copyright law" requires it, they won't take back opened software. Certainly sounds like they are making people sign a blank contract to me...
Parent
Tell me the summary is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
if a game is loaded into RAM, that can be considered an unauthorized copy of the game and as such a breach of copyright
Since the game must be loaded into RAM in order to play, how is it determined that this particular copy is unauthorized?
selling Glider was interfering with Blizzard's contractual relationship with its customers.
This one I could buy, but honestly, isn't that between the customers and Blizzard?
Ah, well. Expect a "Generic MMO Glider" in the near future, that will in theory work with any MMO, but just so happens to be perfectly matched to WoW. Just like the "Generic MMO Servers", which, when given a particular (contraband!) MySQL dump, and a few files off the install disks, just so happen to make an excellent WoW server.
Oh, oh, idea! (Score:5, Funny)
New business plan:
1. Write a game that loads itself into RAM.
2. Give it away for free.
3. Sue everybody who plays it for copyright infringement.
4. Profit!
Performance of WoW is gonna suck (Score:4, Funny)
Performance of WoW is gonna suck now that everyone has to disable their cache before starting the game.
I thought loading into RAM was "fair use" (Score:4, Insightful)
I was under the impression that loading a program into RAM in order to execute it was fair use, or otherwise a legal copy (since the program needs to be loaded into RAM to run).
Is the argument that the loading into RAM is not playing the game, and thus not authorized, when it's a bot, not a human, that's "playing the game"?
I get the impression that this case is sufficiently at odds with other decisions that there is plenty of ground for appeal.
Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
That's actually a reasonable position. I am not sure if it is a correct one, but it is reasonable. WoW is a subscription game with a contract and 3rd parties who interfere with that service could be sued with that position. I am not sure what damages are really done to Blizzard however. Regardless of said interference, what damages occur to Blizzard if any or to the consumer? I dunno.
Now here is where it gets ridiculous. Ludicrous. They have gone PLAID . Technically if I took my music CD, put it into a player and "copied" the information off it into "memory" I have infringed upon somebody's copyrights? Has the player, and indirectly, the manufacturer infringed upon somebody's copyrights?
To anybody that has even the most basic understanding of how technology works, that sounds downright RETARDED.
We desperately need some judges in this country that have an understanding of technology to prevent software companies like Blizzard from abusing their "intelligence". This is no different than fooling Corky out of his candy bar. Blizzard should be ashamed of themselves for espousing a position they clearly know is wrong. They are software developers for CHRIST'S SAKE!
You cannot possibly enjoy a peice of software WITHOUT loading it into memory in the first place. That is an intrinsic property of running code or "software".
Is playing some sheet music, that was legally purchased, copyright infringment by the mere act of strumming the guitar?
The whole argument is just plain lunacy. The WoW subscribers paid for the software, they pay for their subscription. They pay for Glider (or it's free, I dunno) as well. The developer of Glider is not performing copyright infringment. That is just ridiculous.
There is no legal, ethical, moral, or intelligent argument against somebody loading up multiple copies of the game inside their computer's memory.
Pathetic.
The opposite of Nintendo vs. Game Genie (Score:5, Informative)
A long, long time ago, in a galaxy not so far away, another major gaming corporation lost a lawsuit against a not-so-similar game "enhancing" device.
Nintendo was attempting to stop the creators of Game Genie from releasing their product via a lawsuit, but the creators of Game Genie were found to be within their rights to permit such altered play.
I fully realize that Nintendo/Game Genie are a very different beast compared to World of Warcraft/Bots, but at the same time, they are still relatively similar.
I don't have much else to say on this subject, even though I feel bots in online games cross the line, but it does make me wonder if any other gaming companies will attempt to revisit the old issue with cheat devises (such as Game Shark).
Anyway, here's a link to a bit more info about the Nintendo vs. Game Genie bit. Sorry it's from Wikipedia, but it is a semi-decent summary (emphasis on summary) that is readily accessible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys%2C_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America%2C_Inc [wikipedia.org].
I was once working for a company (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I was once working for a company (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Violation of the EULA/TOU - Derivative work (Score:5, Insightful)
The key word here is an "unauthorized" copy, not any copy in RAM.
The judgment says that a copy to RAM is "unauthorized" when it is loaded alongside other code that creates an experience outside the scope of the World of Warcraft license (EULA and TOU). You're creating an unlicensed derivative work when you use such code. If you're running bots, turning WoW into nothing more than a fancy screensaver that farms resources, you're outside the scope of the TOU. Period.
This is breach of license, folks. It's explicitly forbidden in the TOU and EULA.
The court has simply ruled that if you are running a bot program, the limited license granted to the user by Blizzard forbids you to load or keep the program in RAM.
This is not the same as forbidding any copyrighted work to be loaded into RAM for licensed uses. You already have purchased a license to play your music, so if you load it into RAM to do so, you're legal. All the common legal precedents and arguments in favor of transferring it to a different device to listen to it also apply. You are allowed to listen to your music.
This ruling regarding "copy to RAM" is very narrow in scope, and was made in order to determine that WoWGlider itself is illegal to sell because it has no purpose other than to abet license violation, i.e.: It's only useful purpose is to violate the TOU, and there is no way to keep it from violating the TOU when used.
Therefore, it had to be established that loading the program with the express intent to violate the TOU or license agreement is an infringement.
I think it is, and I think it even makes sense. If you're violating your agreement, you're violating your agreement. No one should be able to sell a program whose sole purpose is breach of contract, or infringement!
So no one's going to be sued for loading WoW into RAM for any licensed purpose, but it's a necessary step towards the determination that the bot software cannot be sold.
The guy deserved what he got. He'll be lucky if damages aren't awarded, but at the very least the injunction against the sale of the program seems completely grounded in common sense and law.
There's really nothing to see here. Just people who read "copy into RAM violates copyright" and either a) misunderstood, or b) have an agenda against copyright law in general, and are being sensational and more than a bit dishonest.
--
Toro
Re:Violation of the EULA/TOU - Derivative work (Score:5, Insightful)
By transforming a contract violation into a copyright violation, this ruling crosses the line and will have serious unintended consequences. What's next, a EULA that grants the software company my indentured servitude?
Parent
essentially, good (Score:5, Insightful)
I have karma to burn, so here's for a counterpoint:
I like it that they fight bots. As a player, bots make the game less enjoyable for me. While I think games should be built without grinding, bots provide other players with an unfair advantage, in a competitive sense. I've seen many games in which bots have destroyed the in-game economy. Where, for example, you can forget about crafting the way it was intended, because only the top 1% of craftable items sell at all, since there are so many on the market that nobody would buy anything less.
You could argue that if everyone would use bots, the playing field would be level as well. Yes, it would. It would also remove the main reason for actually playing the game, when most of it is automated. You see, maybe I would like to enjoy being just a mid-level crafter and still be able to sell my stuff? Lots of us who have jobs and wives and a real life don't have any ambitions of slugging it out with the 16-hours-a-day gamers in the top-tier PvP areas. We're quite happy with the game below level 50 (or whatever the max is), as weird as that concept might appear to some hardcore gamers who apparently consider the first 49 levels to be some kind of tutorial and a challenge to get through as quickly as possible.
But being able to enjoy gameplay at level 10 means that the stuff you can make there has to have value - for you or for others. That works when the level 20 people have better things to do with their time, and would, for example, pay the level 10s for harvesting, farming or crafting the low-level ressources they need for their level 20 stuff. If bots allow them to automatically harvest during their off time, the interplay between various levels vanishes.
The point (Score:5, Insightful)
I would have thought the point of playing a game is to play the game - in person. I haven't followed this is any detail, but to me it seems that somebody has developed a tool to circumvent the "play" part of the game; if you are playing alone on a computer at home or somewhere, one could say that this is no problem, as the only one that is cheated at the end of the day is yourself. But when you are many players together, having a few players that cheat and thereby dominate the entire thing, ruining the game for everybody else - that is an entirely different matter. For one thing, everybody else will feel they have wasted their money and the company that expected to earn money on hosting the game will lose business on it.
This, as far as I can see, is the essence of the matter - whether or not laws and contracts reflect this, I don't know, but it is why we are not allowed to cheat in any game. In a way this is also a very good illustration of the collision between "freedom" and "fairness" - I mean why should we not be allowed to cheat? Why is doping illegal in all competition sports? Why can I not, if I play chess, just ram my queen right through five rows of the opponent's defence and knock the king down? Not being allowed these things, having to follow rules, is a limitation of my freedom. In this case the freedom of one company to make money out of helping people cheat in WoW is being limited - and as far as I can see this is entirely appropriate.
Now, I'm sitting here with a strange feeling, writing this - I mean why on Earth should it be necessary to even put these things into words? But on the other hand, from the comments I see people making, and from the fact that there is even a market for a way to cheat in something as inconsequential as WoW, it seems that this is far from clear to a lot of people. And we wonder why society seems to be falling apart.
Re:wait...RAM? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:wait...RAM? (Score:5, Funny)
You sound... like an unbeliever. Like one of the washed masses. Impure infidel! We will get to you soon enough.
Parent
Re:Copyright? (Score:4, Interesting)
My thoughts exactly. the RIAA would have a FIELD DAY with this ruling. It basically says that you can't play ANY song in digital format on a PC since it's necessary to load it into RAM in order to get it to play. GAH!
Thankfully, this IS the Ninth "Circus" Court, the single most overturned federal bench in all of American Jurisprudence. I expect there will be an appeal and a smarter outcome in a smarter court.
I hope so, anyway.
Parent
Re:Most overturned by number or percent? (Score:5, Informative)
Most overturned by number of cases, or by percent of cases? If by number of cases, please consider that the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over a far larger population than any other court of appeals in the United States. In fact, it covers over 19 percent of the U.S. population.
It's by number of cases. The overall percentage is completely within the norm; this is the old "Oh the 9th Circuit is a bunch of liberal activist crazies that the high court always overturns because they're crazy" bullshit turned into "common knowledge" for the sake of wishful thinking. In reality, they just see a much larger number of cases, and most cases that reach SCOTUS are overturned, from any circuit.
I once saw a very thorough breakdown over a number of years showing the data, and the 9th was by far the most active, and it's reversal rate was not out of line, it was more that other courts had such low number of cases the difference was immaterial. Can't find it now; a few seconds of googling showed a blogger who -- of course taking the "9th is doing a bad job" angle -- said the 9th was reversed 19/22 times last year, and that the next busiest circuit, the 5th, was reversed 4/5 times. Frankly I'd like to see more than 5 cases with one upheld before I start saying the 5th is doing any "better" than the 9th.
Parent
Re:Dumb, dumb, dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
"the loaded-into-RAM-equals-copy argument is absolutely dumb"
Actually, there's no doubt whatsoever that being loaded into RAM would constitute a copy, but it's ludicrous to call such a copy unauthorized as it is _required_ even to just utilize the software as it was intended.
Parent
Re:But wait, there's more... (Score:5, Interesting)
What makes the copy illegal is not that it was put in ram, but the way it was put there.
Click on the WoW executable, windows sticks a copy in RAM; that's a legal copy, per the license agreement.
Click on the Glider executable, glider calls the WoW executable, that's an unlicensed copy of WoW and hence is infringing.
The specific copy of WoW in your RAM is illegal not because it's a copy, but because of how it got there.
Parent