Blizzard Wins Major Lawsuit Against Bot Developers 838
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."
Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
Meh. No problem. Clearly my feeble attempts to play WoW are covered as parody.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
Much more importantly, you're guilty of copyright infringement simply by using the product that you paid to use. Quite the precedent. It's all this nonsense about per-device licensing, except in some sort of insane micromanagement level (which I suppose is to be expected from a company that's developed as many RTS games as Blizzard). This could very well outdo the RIAA in their quest to banish everyone from listening to music while simultaneously charging everyone for every song a dozen times.
This kind of bullshit really makes me want to avoid D3 (as if not losing four years of my life wasn't reason enough).
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.
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.
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.
Ouch. (Score:5, Interesting)
There goes the legality of most current Virus Scanners in the US then.
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).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, unless Blizzard and their lawyers are completely brain-dead, there will be some sort of presentation of the Terms of Service when you connect to their servers that requires you to explicitly agree to abide by the ToS before you can log into the game. Any rights you may have to the physical copy of the software are separate from the license you are granted to use that software connected to Blizzard's servers. The ToS for connecting to the servers would, I expect, also specify what you are and are no
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.
Did everyone miss the massive irony here? (Score:3, Interesting)
Blizzards own Warden program sits inspecting other files and processes on your system to ensure they're not cheating tools, this is easily and equally demonstrable as against the EULA/ToS of the other applications it scans.
In winning this case, Blizzard have quite arguably declared their own Warden anti-cheating application illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Given how long the RIAA extortion scheme has been going on by the time the mess is cleaned up it will be too late.
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.
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!
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.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Proportionately speaking, the 9th Circuit is about average for the chances of any individual case being overturned.
Incorrect, I smelled poo when you didn't back up your assertion with incontrovertible internet links. ;)
From the LA Times:
In other words, although the 9th Circuit decided only one-third more appeals on the merits than the 5th Circuit, it was reversed nearly five times more often.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/11/opinion/oe-fitzpatrick11 [latimes.com]
Too bad the author of this article didn't bother to cite where HIS statistics comes from either, but he's a "journalist" so I guess I'll defer to him. ;)
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.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
I cant even imagine any buiness.........
wait a second....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But you only use one copy. The other copies are there to bypass functional checks. This is legal under scenes a faire.
To put it another way, the copy they patch is the one that you are lawfully using. The other copies exist only to pass a security check, where only that exact code will pass the check. Copyright doesn't cover cases where there is only one way to get something done, you need patent for that. Copyright only covers one way out of millions of equally good ways. What are the other equally good wa
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).
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.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And that's why I don't understand how bliz won this case. You get fair use over you music and, despite their best efforts, the MAFIAA hasn't been able to stop you from ripping CDs to your computer and MP3 player.
How is it that software can be treated so differently? I don't buy into the click-thru EULA's as 1) there's no proof that the individual in question was the one to accept it and 2) existing laws supercede an arguably invalid contract.
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.
My theory (Score:3, Insightful)
They ran into a judge who happened to be a casual WoW player.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
That sounds like some serious restraint of trade.
"You can't load up (product) if your computer's memory contains a copy of (insert competing product here)."
I mean, what's next? Making cars require keys with the car company's logo to start so they can enforce "you're not going to transport Toyota parts with our Dodge truck"?
Thank God I don't live in the US of Insanity.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but on the other hand, my completely non-electrical car with its flintlock sparkplugs isn't so much fun either ;).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the EULA says you cannot mod or you cannot create an add-on then you can't. Just don't use that software.
Your second paragraph is just totally stupid. You have a choice to support vendors with permissive EULA's. Alternatively, you have a choice to use Blizzard software which does everything it can to protect gameplay. The point is YOU HAVE A CHOICE.
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
(I am a law student) ...this section of copyright law [cornell.edu] which says that it is not an infringement for you to make a copy of a legally acquired program provided "that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program ...
Loading a copy of WoW using Glider is not an essential step, Windows will load up WoW for you just fine.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
What is an "owner of a copy"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Compare section 109's language "the owner of a particular copy" to 117's "the owner of a copy". It's virtually identical, and courts (not this one) have treated it as such. I don't know how you can own a physical disc but not own a copy of its contents. That seems almost nonsensical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to have a historical perspective to understand how the first sale doctrine plays into everything. The concept of first sale was created to prevent copyright owners from prohibiting resale of books in certain circumstances. Another case summarized it as follows [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, I think they are (mis)using the law for the purpose of protecting the game play of their multiplayer online game from miscreants who think it's their god given right to cheat.
Their methods may be under dispute, but their aim in this case is not evil. Anyone who values a fair game and has played WoW during the widespread Glider bot epidemic would agree with that.
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:The decision is about EULAs (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Tell me the summary is wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
For point #2... In a way, Blizzard is defending their customers whom are negatively affected by Glider. "Your rights end where mine begin." So I am torn here, because I agree with many of you that this may set a bad precedent, but nothing irks me more than a 13 year old LOLn00b script kiddie running mods cheating in games. ;)
Re:Tell me the summary is wrong... (Score:4, Informative)
Even more strange, how is making a copy of something illegal? I thought only distributing copies was illegal. Personal copies should be legal.
No, lots of things are illegal. The main exclusive rights that comprise copyright are at 17 USC 106. Not all are applicable to every kind of work, but basically they are: reproduction (i.e. making a copy), preparing derivatives, distribution, public performance, public display. The reproduction right has always been part of copyright.
As for personal copies, there's not an exception that applies to all personal copies, all the time, in every situation. Sometimes they're allowed, but usually not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But doesn't 17 USC 117 protect ordinary operation of the program?
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, 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
I'd hope that copying the program into RAM is an "
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And here we are back to the "I purchased a license to use" argument again. Fine. I purchased a license to use the software, so if my disk goes tits up, then I should be able to get a replacement for no cost to me, since I did purchase a license, not the physical medium.
Download links for the entire game can be found on your Account Settings page.
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!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not quite how the ruling worked. Making a copy of something to RAM in and of itself is not considered copyright infringement. Doing so without agreeing to the terms of the End User License Agreement is.
In order for your plan to work, you would have to create an EULA that stated that making any sort of copy of the program is illegal, including copies in RAM. However, since by default YOUR program is the one doing the copying, even something like that wouldn't work. You have to rely on users making
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.
Two wrongs (Score:3, Insightful)
If you purchase something, you own it and as an owner you can do what you like with it. This is a natural freedom that exists so long as property and ownership have meaning. When someone purchases a copy of software, they may not have the legal right to redistribute it in any form, but if they purchase property, they own property. Services are not the same thing, and the right to use a service in a way that is not agreed upon is an abuse against the person providing the service.
In the case of a EULA, or at
Re:Two wrongs (Score:4, Informative)
If you purchase something, you own it and as an owner you can do what you like with it. This is a natural freedom that exists so long as property and ownership have meaning. When someone purchases a copy of software, they may not have the legal right to redistribute it in any form, but if they purchase property, they own property. Services are not the same thing, and the right to use a service in a way that is not agreed upon is an abuse against the person providing the service.
You're quite right. It should also be noted that "World of Warcraft" is, in fact, a service.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's unfair in the eyes of the law is illegal in the eyes of the law.
If the rules were as 'unfair' as you're implying they are, they wouldn't be as successful as they are today.
If fair was synonymous with successful, how do you explain politics? Neither party is fair, but the most successful one is the one that convinces the most people they are unfair in their
Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)
This assertion, if true, means that every single user of the software commits copyright infringement, as it _MUST_ be loaded into ram to simply execute normally.
EULA Repurcussions? (Score:4, Interesting)
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 Blizzard'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.
I think this means that TOUs/TOSs/EULAs now have the full force of copyright law, if a copyrightable portion of the media reaches your computer.
The section 117 defense is this:
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
If you're violating the EULA, it is "used in an other manner".
You know that tiny little link, "terms of use", at the bottom of every web page you visit? Better read that 20 page document behind that link, or you could be infringing copyright without even knowing it.
Re:EULA Repurcussions? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're misapprehending what the EULA is: by definition, it is a license to use the software (EULA = End User License Agreement). If you conform with the EULA, the 'copying into RAM' is allowed because you are doing it with permission. If you violate the EULA, the copying is not allowed and is therefore a violation of copyright.
I can't think of a very good analogy off the top of my head, but it's something like hiring someone to build a fence on your property. As long as they come on your property to build the fence, they're not trespassing. If they invite all their friends over and throw a wild kegger, they've exceeded the limited license you granted them and are now trespassing.
Not saying I agree with the court's decision -- in fact, I think allowing software companies to claim that you only purchase a 'license' as opposed to the software itself is a crock of shit -- but it does make sense if you look at it in the proper context.
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)
But wait, there's more... (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess Blizzard is feeling real good about themselves for winning this suit. And I feel strongly that there should be a consumer backlash about the way that they did it.
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.
This is bad news (Score:4, Interesting)
because if someone writes a plug-in to help gamers, they will use this case to sue them as well.
This case shows that no consumer can own a copy of a video game, the game development company still owns the copy but only gives the consumer the right to use it in a native copy of Windows, and not modify it in any way. I guess it also means you cannot sell it used, nor can you run it inside of WINE, or a virtual machine or emulator either. You can only run it in a native copy of Windows, anything else is considered modifying it and violating the EULA and could get you sued.
Lawsuit not over yet (Score:4, Informative)
The headline here is misleading. Blizzard has won summary judgment on a portion of their lawsuit during pre-trial motions, and MDY won summary judgment on a couple of the counts of Blizzard's suit against them (though Blizzard's victories here are hugely more devastating to MDY than the parts that MDY has prevailed on). The trial on the rest of the suit is still pending, and only after that comes the calculation and awarding of damages.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
You already have purchased a license to play your music,
What kind of crap nonsense are you talking about? I have NEVER "purchased a license" to play my music. I PURCHASED the media that the music was stored on and I have every right to listen to it any damned way I feel, even through my computer, which incidentally places it into RAM to play. I do not ask for nor do I require someone's permission to ever play what I bought for my own personal pleasure.
Copyright has NOTHING to do with restriction of USE...EVER! Copyright deals with restriction of DISTRIBUTI
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's next, a EULA that grants the software company my indentured servitude?
You do understand that you don't have to agree to an EULA, don't you?
Too many people these days have an unwarranted sense of entitlement. It really is very simple: If you wrote the software, you can do whatever you want with it. If you didn't write the software, you have to abide by the wishes of the person who did. If you don't want to, don't use the software. Period.
Oh, and in case you think that you are forced to agree to a license by reading it, or opening a box, or downloading a link, you're not.
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:wait...RAM? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm entirely uncomfortable with the idea that Diablo III is the new face of Dianetics.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes... (Score:4, Insightful)
In point of fact, as far as copyright, it is the only use.
Re:wait...RAM? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. The EULA is a license that gives you permission to load it into RAM. If you violate the EULA, you don't have that permission, and therefore copying into RAM is not allowed.
I don't think the whole 'license' model for software should be considered valid, but given that it is, the court's decision makes sense. The submitter either doesn't know what he is talking about and/or is trying to make it sound as bad as possible (gasp!). The court didn't do anything crazy or new here.
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.
Most overturned by number or percent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Thankfully, this IS the Ninth "Circus" Court, the single most overturned federal bench in all of American Jurisprudence.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I have known many people to play WoW, I mean, it's insane.
The judge probably plays WoW.
The plaintiff's lawyers probably play WoW.
The defendant's lawyers probably play WoW.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, most of the time, copies that you make of the program aren't "...in excess of a license."
Agree or disagree, fine - but the meat of this discussion isn't "programs are copied on execution," but "...in excess of license."