Slashdot Log In
Blizzard Sues Creator of WoW Bot
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Mar 26, 2008 05:41 PM
from the kind-of-defeating-the-point-of-an-mmo dept.
from the kind-of-defeating-the-point-of-an-mmo dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
News: Who Owns Software? 531 comments
SeeSp0tRun writes to remind us of Blizzard's lawsuit against MDY Industries over the Glider cheat. It seems that Blizzard is pushing it even further. They're trying out the legal theory that a software creator retains complete control over how a program is used, meaning that anyone who uses it in a different way could be found guilty of copyright infringement, at $750 a pop. The EFF and Public Knowledge are among the organizations trying to assure that the court doesn't set a really bad precedent here.
[+]
Your Rights Online: Blizzard Wins Major Lawsuit Against Bot Developers 838 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Informative)
Agreed. From the sounds of it, this bot tool may impair the game, and they may have some moral or legal cause to try and stop it, but copyright and trademark infringment it is not.I think they need to find some other charge.
Parent
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just another example of a company aiming its litigation at the wrong target.
Parent
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just another example of a company aiming its litigation at the wrong target.
Or... the right target. They could cut off every individual botting user... and they've tried that. But, these users are impossible to find because of this one individual millionaire who managed to make his program (currently) undetectable.
So... they could sue every individual user. But, we run into the "finding them" problem again.
So... they could sue the one person making it all possible, and profiting handsomely for it. This is the logical target - go for the one person responsible rather than lots of individuals - but also, apparently, the most difficult. Going for WoW Glider's maker solves the problem; going for his customers doesn't. So, you can't fault them for trying.
Parent
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Insightful)
As such it certainly makes sense for the Blizzard to go after Donnelly, since
a) if they stop him, they stop further sales of the bot
b) it's lot easier to litigate against one person than 100'000
c) you get much less bad press for litigating against one person than 100'000
d) the 100'000 are still bringing in income (as paying customers), just less of it. Blizzard probably doesn't want to scare them off with litigation. Donnelly, on the other hand, just costs them money.
Blizzard's in a lose-lose situation: litigation against Donnelly is legally unclear, but litigation against 100'000 users would cause an uproar.
The choice of target is in fact quite rational from a game-theoretic perspective. And from an emotive perspective, you could always compare it to going after the crack dealer rather than the addict
Parent
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Informative)
- Donnelly made more than $2.8 million in revenue from Glider
- Blizzard spends $970K fighting bots each year
- Blizzard claims Glider costs them $18 million in lost revenue per year
Some of the legal filings have been uploaded here, they make for an interesting read: http://gameactivist.blogspot.com/2008/03/update-blizzard-vs-mdy.html [blogspot.com]Parent
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the extra resources used are such a problem for them, why don't they just do the sensible thing and have a tiered pricing structure? If bots really use a lot more time than real players do, then it should be pretty easy for them to pick a number of hours per month which is sufficient for 99% of their actual players, and then charge anyone who uses more time a higher fee. It's a bit like all the ISPs crying foul over P2P users using "too much" data on their "unlimited" plans. If their pricing structure is untenable, then they should fix the pricing structure.
Also, if the bot doesn't do anything a player couldn't do anyway (if they were sufficiently skilled) then what does it matter? If it does do things the client doesn't allow, then it's reasonable to pursue him over that, but it seems like it'd be more straightforward to fix their server to not allow it.
The game already has to deal with a large range of players, from casual gamers who maybe get in a few hours a week to the obsessive teens who spend their every waking moment in the game levelling their character. A bot that does the tedious work gives casual players a chance to experience the game as a high level character that they probably wouldn't get otherwise. If Blizzard doesn't want people doing this, maybe they should make the game less tedious.
On the other hand, if Blizzard is successful at pursuing anyone using bots to make the game less of a chore, hopefully it'll result in a few less WoW addicts. Possibly they don't want people to experience the "end game", as then they might realise how boring and pointless the whole thing is and stop paying the monthly subscription fee.
On the whole, it does seem that they don't have a very strong case against the program's author, only against its users as they're the ones violating the ToS and so on. Possibly they could get him for reverse engineering the game code, which I presume he would've needed to do in order to write the program; but proving that could be difficult.
Parent
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Interesting)
Possibly they don't want people to experience the "end game", as then they might realise how boring and pointless the whole thing is and stop paying the monthly subscription fee.
So - Blizzard doesn't get their day in court because you think their game is "boring and pointless."
But, contrary to your assertion, they want everyone to experience the end-game. Two patches ago, they greatly reduced the amount of experience points you need to get to level at every level between 20 and 60. (Getting to 20 only takes a week or so of casual play anyway.) In addition, the same quests between levels 30 and 60 reward more XP.
Up to level 60, it takes less XP to level and you get it faster. Why? Because at around 55, you can experience the new content in the "Burning Crusade" expansion. They've also made instanced dungeons less tedious to run - needing only 25 people instead of 40 - so that more people can experience these areas. They also made PvP loot more powerful, so people who don't want to be raiding for hours every night can pick up and play, and still get comparable loot.
Their goal is to have even casual players at level 70, so that they can move their next expansion that'll let you go from 70 to 80. They make more money and sell more expansions if more people can reach the "end game" - so they've been making it easier to get there.
Parent
Re:Not the question at hand (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
neither copyright nor trademark (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy has disclaimers on his site about using MMOglider that pretty much state "Blizzard doesn't like this", so no, Blizzard can't really do a lot about it.
Unless the guy doesn't have the resources to pay for the lawyer, I would suspect that the odds are in the mmoglider guy's favor.
Parent
Re:neither copyright nor trademark (Score:5, Informative)
Sheez! Young'uns.
Parent
Re:neither copyright nor trademark (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:neither copyright nor trademark (Score:5, Informative)
We weren't hurting anyone. We weren't stealing from Blizzard. In fact, we _reduced_ blizzard's costs because they had a lower load on their servers. They are just assholes. I chatted with one of the VPs at blizzard, and the way he spoke at me and my friends verified he was a complete and total asshole.
I was a big buyer of Blizzard products up to that point. I haven't bought a single thing from them since.
Parent
Re:neither copyright nor trademark (Score:5, Informative)
In all fairness, that lawsuit came about because BNETD's servers didn't discriminate over CD-KEYs, thus nullifying Blizzard's copy protection.
In all non-fairness, blizzard made it impossible for BNETD servers to discriminate over CD-KEYs, by utilizing encryption to prevent it.
I.E. blizzard made it impossible for a third-party server interoperable with the battle net client to _not_ circumvent their protections.
Parent
Re:neither copyright nor trademark (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:neither copyright nor trademark (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember. But look at this from another perspective: They wanted to be able to send any CD-Key they want to Blizzard and get a yes/no response. Does that really make sense from a copy protection point of view? Did anybody really expect Blizzard to go "well, alright, here's your own way of verifying any CD-Key you run across..."? Personally, for practical reasons or even for greedy ones, I don't see how.
Blizzard chose to sue them out of existence, but they did get a C&D. In other words, they had their opportunity to bow out, too. At least that would have spared us the whole DMCA bullshit that followed. That battle could have been saved for something other than copy protection. Blizzard was greedy, but they did not act unpredictably, here. If, for the noblest of noble reasons, I tried to create my own server to authenticate Windows XP/Vista boxes, could I reaaaaaaaaaaallllllly go crying about how big bad mean ol Microsoft was bullying me with their lawyers?
Parent
Re:neither copyright nor trademark (Score:5, Informative)
The bnetd authors fell over themselves trying to compromise with Blizzard, up to and including publically saying that they would incorporate key checking if they could.
Blizzard refused, and proceeded with the most trumped-up lawsuit they could.
If the GP thinks *THIS* is bad, what about claiming copyright infringements of Battle.net server code, based soley on "well, it has a similar bug", instead of just looking at the bnetd code (that's the beauty of open source - you can see the code.)
Parent
Re:neither copyright nor trademark (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that anyone who stands up for something worth standing up for (like the right to run a multiplayer game on your own terms) gets called stupid here when they get stamped on?
What were the BNetD team supposed to do? Roll over and throw away hundreds of man-hours of painstaking work when the bullies came along to try and sweep the flaws in their copy-protection scheme under the carpet? No, they stood up for the right to reverse engineer, for your right to enjoy your games how you choose, for the right to get on with their tinkering without interference from corporate bullies. A bunch of bad laws and incompetent judges later and they've lost the case though in defiance of all reason and common sense.
And what do you have to say for it? that they're stupid for fighting the battle. It's not just 'fun to villify' Blizzard for this - they deserve far worse than villification - they've abused the courts to wreck other people's hard work because it exposed the obvious flaw in their copy-protection system, but for a game which was already old enough that it was past the best of its cash-cow days anyway - StarCraft and BroodWar were already in the budget section by the time Blizzard kicked up a fuss, and as for D1 and WarII... there was no legitimate moral reason to object to the project, there was no meaningful business reason, the entire action was, in my opinion, pure spite.
When someone comes along to hurt you out of spite, you don't just cower and crawl away so they'll leave you alone, you stand up to them and you won't be stupid for doing it. That they lost when they stood up is to the eternal shame and humiliation of the whole system of 'justice' which has let down the BNetD team, and every person who thought that it could, just once, find correctly.
Parent
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, as received by the player, it does not contain any of the WoW code. If there is any derivative work here it isn't created until the player uses this WoW Glider program, in combination with the player's own copy of the game, to create a combined in-memory executable. Ergo, if Blizzard wants to sue someone over creating an unauthorized derivative work they should be suing the players that use this mod -- not that I think they would succeed, given a competent judge, since the combined work is not being distributed. Likewise, any ToS violation should be the player's responsibility, since it was the player, not the maker of this program, who agreed to abide by the terms of service.
Parent
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think that's so abnormal..
Parent
Re:Copyright? Maybe not, but maybe trademark? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Copyright infringement? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Copyright infringement? (Score:5, Informative)
They are claiming that the tool makes a copy of the game and stores it to ram to avoid their anti-cheating checks. Interesting to see if it is illegal to make a temporary copy (for your own personal use) of a program you legally purchased.
Parent
Re:Copyright infringement? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a right to copy the program into RAM in order to run it, if that copy is going to be used for a purpose that complies with the EULA.
However, here the programmer is using the program in a way that doesn't comply with the EULA. Therefore, he is not only violating the EULA, but also their copyright, because he is making a copy for an unauthorized purpose.
Parent
Re:Copyright infringement? (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. The biggest bot problem is in battlegrounds, and those that are actually there, at their keyboards, fighting - the real, non-bot players - don't have the time to respond to a message. hell, they probably won't even *see* the message; lots of folks I know direct all chat text to its own dialog box, then hide that box
To explain - while what you're saying could potentially work in PvE play (player versus environment), where a player can just press a few buttons now and then and the fight goes on, the real problem is in PvP play (player versus player) in what are called "battlegrounds" - a large group of horde players versus a large group of alliance players. So what the bots do is have a character run around in stupid ways, dying, casting spells at random, whatever - but if their team (alliance/horde) wins, they get a tremendous amount of benefit from that. So the active, real players end up carrying the extra load of those that are afk or bots.
The 2.4 patch (which went live yesterday) seems to have improved this some though - I actually saw bots getting booted in battlegrounds.
Right now in battlegrounds, there is an option for reporting someone as afk. There should also be an option for reporting someone as potentially a bot, so that GMs could check those particular characters with more diligence for suspicious activity, if they are flagged often enough.
Parent
Re:Copyright infringement? (Score:5, Informative)
Copies performed as an "essential step" of using the program are exempted as not infringing on copyright. So copying the program from disk into memory in order to run it is not infringement, however creating a second copy of the game in-memory to get around the anti-cheating code may not be.
Personally, I've also argued that this clause means that you are not legally required to accept EULAs, or at least that you aren't violating copyright by refusing to accept them since you don't need a copyright license to make the necessary copies to install and run the program.
Here's a link to the relevant section of the law: TITLE 17 - CHAPTER 1 - 117 [cornell.edu]
Parent
Re:Copyright infringement? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Sweet (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Bots are overrated (Score:5, Insightful)
I am kind of surprised that Blizzard is doing this, but I think it's just a publicity thing, and they don't really care if they make any cash off of it. They are just trying to placate the masses on the forums that worry about every single little thing they can.
The reality is, bots make money for Blizzard. Once an account is banned, the player has to purchase a new box of the game to start playing again. And with the expansion, that's 2 boxes. So, Blizzard makes money off of the players that register new accounts/CDs every time they get banned.
Besides, most gold farmers are played by humans, not bots.
Re:Bots are overrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, with a level 20 restriction, you're cut off from the actual money-making part of the game.
Parent
Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm, so don't grind (Score:5, Insightful)
If people would just play the game to have fun, it wouldn't be a problem. It is a game, you don't "need" anything in it. Just do whatever it is you like to do. If you like to grind (surprisingly some people do) then grind. If you don't, don't. However don't get mad and say that you should get reward X that the grinders get.
More or less, Blizzard has a bunch of different kinds of rewards for different things. You can't get any reward doing any thing. However whatever it is you like doing, there are rewards for it.
The problem is when people aren't playing it to have fun, but playing it because they want to have all the best of everything. Well, that's pretty hard, since you have to do a whole bunch of different things. So they'll get bots to grind and such. That is just stupid. If all you care about is having the best, what's the point? The point should be to do whatever is fun. It is all just a game, none of it matters, other than to have fun.
Parent
Re:Ummm, so don't grind (Score:5, Interesting)
WoW does mandate it.
The 25 man content in TBC was balanced around having 25 people turn up wearing the best available equipment, using every flask/potion/food buff/weapon buff available to them and also happening to play well.
While learning how to do those encounters it is inevitable that death will occur.
This means that for a group of people to progress through the game and see more of the content within the game, they have to generate substantial income across the group and use it on repairs and consumables.
The introduction of ZA and the new tokens have to an extent reduced the dependency on consumables, as you can now out-gear the content instead of having to use consumable items to boost you. However acquiring the new equipment still requires repetitive activities such as going through the same few instances day after day to 'earn' tokens.
So there is considerable pressure on people to grind in order to ensure that when they turn up on a 25 man raid they are able to contribute fully. If half the raid don't grind, and thus don't turn up fully equipped with potions, flasks, oils, food and the like, the raid will not progress through new content.
This isn't people playing to get the best of everything. It's people playing to have fun: The raiding and teamwork and social elements of the game are significant factors in its success and longevity.
Sadly the game design mandates grinding to participate in these aspects of the game. I know a lot of people that want to take part in raids, and enjoy the social side of the game, and explore new content, but lack the time or inclination to spend tedious hours grinding for the resources to do so.
This is why there is a market for people selling in-game gold for real-life money, and one reason automated bots such as Glider are attractive.
Parent
Maybe i should start a WoW account.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh wait.. that's why i don't play in the first place. Why the hell would you play an rpg that can be played more effectively by a bot than a human?
</flamebait>
Re:Maybe i should start a WoW account.. (Score:5, Interesting)
It turns out that computers are better than humans at just about any game. Does this mean that we can no longer entertain ourselves?
Parent
You can, but why would you? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course we can, but wouldn't it be more efficient to have a computer entertain itself, on our behalf? Your recreation could be taken care of, for you by proxy, freeing you to pursue other more fulfilling endeavors, such as laboring.
This is just a step toward the ideals mankind has dreamt of for ages. Someday, computers will be able to drink beer for us, have sex for us, and enjoy books,music, and movies for us. Perhaps they could even sleep for us. This would make us free to perform menial tasks.
Parent
Sue sue (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/20/blizzard-sued-by-wow-glider-creator/ [joystiq.com]
Except in 2006, he was suing them.
Does WoW have player-killing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Griefers always dominate - it's John Gabriel's Greater Internet Dickwad Theory proven every day. Griefers are far worse than any amount of bots.
Eve Online is the first potential counter-example, and they've been very careful about the rules.
Parent
You need only look at history (Score:5, Insightful)
So it should be ho surprise at all that is what happens in unrestricted games. Perhaps if some great leaders played the game they could inspire the masses to band together and overthrow the griefers. A George Washington of the gaming world. However, that isn't real likely since the masses can simply take their money to another game. There's no reason to put up with crap and try to make it better, there's other companies who'll be happy to do that.
My response to all the people who claim what a "problem" the design of WoW is and how much better their pet game is is the same one another poster made in this thread: 10 million users. They are doing something right.
As a long time gamer, I have to say WoW is the first MMORPG that has held my attention for more than about 6 months. Everquest was just awful, I quit that one after a month. DAoC was fun for awhile, I played for a few months, quit for a year, came back for a few months, quit again. Eve Online was... Well... Really boring. Tried it in beta, never signed up. Starwars Galaxies had a lot of promise, but it seemed as though Sony had a team dedicated to tracking down and eliminating anything fun. Lasted about 4 months.
WoW, however, I've been playing since a month after it came out, and I still play to this day. Is it perfect? No, of course not. However it seems to be able to keep things fun. I continue to be amused by it, and find that it is enough amusement to justify $15/month.
It seems to me that the people who primarily have a problem with WoW are the asshole griefers, who are mad that they can't become infinitely more powerful than everyone else, that they can't totally dominate. Well, I'm ok with that. If that segment has to be excluded, that's fine, because a whole lot of the rest of us find it fun.
And that is really what matters. Games are not about some magical standard of purity, they are not about perfect realism, they are not about testing you as a person. They are entertainment, pure and simple. So if they are good amusement for the money to you, then your money is well spent on them. If they are not, then your money is better spent elsewhere.
So a good game is quite simply one that people find fun. If people find it fun, they'll buy it and play it, and that is success.
Parent
Re:You need only look at history (Score:5, Insightful)
With unrestricted games, it's the "griefers" who suffer no consequence for their actions. The original MUDs used to have a little bit of built-in protection for this that dynamically rated players at good and evil, and this was used to keep players out of certain areas. However, most of the areas had no restrictions, which frustrated those who didn't like PvP. A long-term casual player wants to be Good, spends a lot of time, then gets offed by a griefer or a band of griefers, and is thus reset at a great loss to that player. A griefer doesn't care about the game, but about causing misery to other people, so getting killed and reset every now and then doesn't matter. They're sociopaths. Having "leaders" won't matter without some type of justice system and enforcement.
If there were a game that allowed PvP but also allowed players to jail and execute the in-game characters, that might be better, assuming you could actually ban the real person. But, disallowing PvP is just so much simpler.
People don't like real life. That's why there are games. And if the games start emulating the harshness of real life, people will stop playing those games.
Parent
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Darkfall wants to make your items lootable, they're welcome to try it. Whether people actually enjoy this level of realism is a reality they're going to face on their balance sheet.
Me, I'm looking forward to Warhammer Online, but I don't hold any illusions that it will radically change the mechanics or culture of the MMO genre. I will throw my money at what's fun.
Parent