Slashdot Log In
Blizzard Folds on WoW Guide Suit
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jun 09, 2006 03:23 PM
from the easy-way-out dept.
from the easy-way-out dept.
Agent writes "You may remember the suit that Brian Kopp brought against Blizzard, Vivendi and the ESA in March of this year. He sued due to wrongful takedowns under the DMCA of his ebay auctions. The case was settled today, allowing him to resell his guide on eBay and his personal site. The settlement helps more than just Kopp, as it sets a precedent for future interactions of this nature with game companies."
Related Stories
[+]
Games: Blizzard Sued By Game Guide Creator 285 comments
Gamespot reports on a suit brought by a game guide creator against Warcraft-maker Blizzard Entertainment. The two parties will be going to court because of an attempt by Blizzard to quash a guide the plaintiff created for the World of Warcraft MMORPG. Offered electronically through eBay, the company claims that the guide creator is infringing on their IP. From the article: "Kopp's complaint argues that his book does not infringe on any of the companies' copyrights for several reasons: The book presents a disclaimer on its first page about its 'unauthorized' nature, contains no copyrighted text or storylines from the game, and makes "fair use" of selected screenshots under copyright law, the complaint said."
[+]
More Unintended Consequences of the DMCA 205 comments
BrianWCarver writes "In the seven years since Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), examples of the law's impact on legitimate consumers, scientists, and competitors continue to mount. A new report released today from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 'Unintended Consequences: Seven Years Under the DMCA,' (pdf) collects reports of the misuses of the DMCA -- chilling free expression and scientific research, jeopardizing fair use, impeding competition and innovation, and interfering with other laws on the books. The report updates a previous version issued by EFF in 2003, which Slashdot also covered."
This discussion has been archived.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.

Re:First??? (Score:1)
You cannot tell if an abbreviated article is in the mysterious future or not (normal articles have a red tint, and the abbreviated ones used to as well).
Either that or its just a crappy article
Too little, too late (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm afraid they're all just corporate as
welcome to 2002 (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty certain all of the lead designers moved on a while ago.
Guild Wars is an ex-Blizzard thing, as is Hellgate: London.
Re:Too little, too late (Score:3, Informative)
Precedent (Score:2)
Can't spell precedent without PR (Score:4, Insightful)
True, a settlement does not create a binding judicial precedent in the way that a judgment does. But if a firm offers a settlement to one party, then other parties are likely to demand the same settlement, and it would be a PR nightmare for the firm not to extend the offer to them.
Re:Precedent (Score:1)
There really isn't a president being set here (Score:2, Informative)
You can't goto a judge and say well in Blizzard vs. Knopp they settled so it's an open and shut case your honor.
Re:There really isn't a president being set here (Score:2)
There's still a precedent here, even if it isn't a legal one. It shows users that it is possible for them to successfully fight the game companies on this kind of issue, though it may be
Power of the fourth estate (Score:4, Insightful)
A Freudian slip about President Bush's legitimacy? ;-) But seriously, assuming you meant "precedent", you're right in a strict sense, but here's why it doesn't matter as much as some may think:
But you can go to a journalist, who may be able to spin up the discrimination. Settling in the same way may be easier for a firm than denying a settlement and facing a PR nightmare.
Re:Power of the fourth estate (Score:1)
Re:Power of the fourth estate (Score:1)
The difference is that as long as your case has merit a judge must hear you while a journalist can tell you "sorry, not interested"
The other difference is that forum shopping is a lot easier because while judges are limited to a territorial jurisdictio
Wrong - A settlement doesn't set a precedent (Score:5, Informative)
You can't use this case to even defend against Blizzard themselves suing you unfortunately, let alone anyone else... If Blizzard had gone to court and lost then it would have set a new precedent for unofficial gaming guides, but you can't use an out-of-court settlement because for one thing the court often isn't even aware of the terms of that settlement.
Court != court (Score:3, Interesting)
And only a journalist can set a precedent in the court of public opinion.
Think outside the box.
Re:Actually legal precedents are theoretical (Score:2)
And just because a court decides in a certain way doesn't mean the precedent is legally binding.
It ju
no precedent (Score:1, Redundant)
This actually keeps other companies from having to allow this.
But is it any good? (Score:1)
Re:But is it any good? (Score:2)
Re:But is it any good? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't play MMOs to hit max level uber-fast. I play them to enjoy them. I liked the fact that
Re:But is it any good? (Score:2)
It may come as a surprise to you, but for some people *it is fun* to see 20 or 40 people working together, play their classes well, and kil
What a Rip! (Score:2)
If I was the Evil Overlord, Blizzard would be roasting over an open fire right about n
Re:What a Rip! (Score:2)
Re:What a Rip! (Score:2)
Guess I'm the minority (Score:3, Insightful)
What I see is this guy capitalizing off Blizzard's work. I dislike that, but it is the way of the capitalist world in which we live.
It also sickens me that the guide is geared towards making money in WoW, supports (ads on the website) buying gold for real money and in general demeans the essence of the game. All of this leads to imbalances that once done cannot be undone. In short, this is all leading towards ruining the game.
I personally wish Blizzard would strongly enforce their Terms of Service agreement that states that all virtual property in World of Warcraft belongs to Blizzard and therefore cannot be sold.
Re:Guess I'm the minority (Score:1)
Re:Guess I'm the minority (Score:1)
Re:Guess I'm the minority (Score:2)
It's very contradictory.
Re:Guess I'm the minority (Score:1)
I don't see what's contradictory about that.
Re:Guess I'm the minority (Score:1)
What you state doesn't sound that contradictory to me. Selling the entire shebang isn't transferring virtual assets (as in, it's staying with the original account), whereas selling gold is counted as transferrance, as it is going from your account to someo
Re:Guess I'm the minority (Score:4, Insightful)
"we may say that copying that is complementary to the copyrighted work ... is fair use, but copying that is a substitute for the copyrighted work ... is not fair use. ... A photograph of a Beanie Baby is not a substitute for a Beanie Baby."
It's clearly impossible for any book to replace the WoW gameplay experience. Hence, Blizzard had ample reason to know that their takedown notices were completely invalid and subjected them to the penalties under section 512(f) of the DMCA for sending false notices.
Re:Guess I'm the minority (Score:2)
What does this even mean?
Re:Guess I'm the minority (Score:1)
When something like a strategy guide
Re:Guess I'm the minority (Score:3, Interesting)
>agreement that states that all virtual property in
>World of Warcraft belongs to Blizzard and therefore cannot be sold.
Which is completely irellevant since you don't sell any
eh watever. (Score:1)
Re:eh watever. (Score:2)