Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Blizzard Wins Major Lawsuit Against Bot Developers

Posted by kdawson on Mon Jul 14, 2008 07:59 PM
from the gliding-off-into-the-sunset dept.
The Courts Role Playing (Games) Games
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."
Firehose:Blizzard wins major lawsuit against bot developers by Captain Kirk (148843)
[+] Blizzard Tries To Forbid Open Sourcing Glider 528 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.

Blizzard Wins Major Lawsuit Against Bot Developers 25 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.

  • Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Monday July 14, @08:02PM (#24189495)
    The problem with this, is the game isn't 100% loaded into RAM (as far as I know) meaning that only part of it is. This could have a much larger impact by calling this small piece of the game the game itself, perhaps leading to smaller sample times of songs, etc.
  • While I can certainly understand blizzard's desire to control the bots, I really wish they hadn't won this case on copyright law. I'm afraid of the consequences if the RIAA get's their hands on this decision and can use it as a precedent.
    • If anyone is interested, you can find a copy of the actual decision via the glider forums ---> link (27 page PDF) [mmoglider.com].
    • I like Blizzard's games, I hate Blizzard's legal decisions. Everytime I hear their name in regards to a legal dispute, they have the most assine way of looking at the matter and win decisions that completely screw over the rest of us regardless of whether the company had a good leg to stand on or not.

    • The decision is about EULAs (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sowth (748135) on Monday July 14, @08:24PM (#24189747) Journal

      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...

      • 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!

        • 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.

        • Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 14, @08:45PM (#24189905)

          Then talk to MDY's counsel.

          To me, this is the smoking gun.

          If A grants a software license to B on the express
          condition that the license will remain in effect only so long as B makes monthly payments
          to A, and B then stops making payments to A, any subsequent copying of the software to
          RAM by B would constitute copyright infringement â" a conclusion with which MDYâ(TM)s
          counsel agreed during oral argument.

          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.

  • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 14, @08:08PM (#24189561)

    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!

  • Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EdIII (1114411) * on Monday July 14, @08:16PM (#24189655)

    selling Glider was interfering with Blizzard's contractual relationship with its customers.

    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.

    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

    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)

    by Dash Hash (955484) on Monday July 14, @08:22PM (#24189721)

    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)

    by zonky (1153039) on Monday July 14, @08:24PM (#24189735)
    who was being sued in not that dis-similar situation by a well known RTS series publisher. One of the things we were being accused of was direct copyright infringement. Apparently, we had a copy of a file named EXACTLY THE SAME as they had on their CD. Setup.exe Never underestimate the stupidity of the courts/lawyers in technical matters.

    • 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.

        • 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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc.