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: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: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.
I'd love to see... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (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.
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:Say what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Until you break the license. Then it's copyright infringement time.
* Some restrictions apply, all rights reserved.
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.
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...
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.
Re:Wow... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:I thought loading into RAM was "fair use" (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Tell me the summary is wrong... (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 "essential step in the utilization of the computer program". Am I missing something here?
Re:I was once working for a company (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:1, Interesting)
OK, let me break this down for everyone (I am a law student).
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.
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. This is a bunk decision on that alone. Slippery slope here, just name programs you don't like and be able to sue the pants off of the programmers / companies of those programs.
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...
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:Wow... (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 ways to pass Blizzard's security check?
Re:Wow... (Score:2, Interesting)
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:1, Interesting)
Couldn't the judge be interpreting "and that it is used in no other manner" to mean that Glider is using the RAM copy of the game in a manner other than "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine"?
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:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (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.
Ouch. (Score:5, Interesting)
There goes the legality of most current Virus Scanners in the US then.
Re:The judge is wrong. (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Good News for Blizzard, bad news for copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
No, because section 117(a) of the copyright code gives you the right to copy a piece of software into RAM as part of the process of executing/utilizing that software.
That said, what you *can't* do is copy the software into RAM for some other purpose (for example, patching it in order to introduce a cheat).
It's still a ridiculous ruling, at least in my mind, but it's certainly in line with existing law.
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you'd read the opinion from the Judge, he took that exact paragraph into consideration. His determination was that the end user is not an "owner of a copy" but a "licensee of a copy" and therefore it does not apply.
There's a lot of language from the Judge in there that makes me think he wants it appealed though. He mentions a couple of times that he can't overturn a 9th Circuit ruling...
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Interesting)
The reality is that you're buying software. Can you think of any proof that you don't buy software, other than the EULA in the box?
Ask a Walmart sales associate - they'll tell you the sale is final and no returns are allowed. That doesn't sound like licensing speak. No discussion of the limitations, how it'll be audited, etc, etc... Unfortunately for the corporate lawyers, that Walmart person is the final authority. They're where the majority of the software sells and if it quacks like a sale, it is a sale.
The problem, like usual, is a judge with stunningly little intellect. Copyright is meant to stop creation of new copies, to stop competition with the creator. Temporary copies in ram are not copyright violations. Software, in normal use, gets loaded into the computer, copyright law itself gives a full exemption from copying restrictions for the purpose of duplicating software in ram, for the purposes of running it.
While loading a strange portion of the game outside of normal execution order may be strange, it is no more illegal than reading the end of the book first.
Re:Sorry, read it again! (Score:3, Interesting)