Blizzard vs. Glider Battle Resumes Next Week 384
trawg writes "You paid for it, you have the DVD in your drive and the box on the floor next to your desk, but do you own the game? That's the question the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will rule on next week in the case between Blizzard, publisher of World of Warcraft, and MDY, publisher of the Glider bot. The Glider bot plays World of Warcraft for you, but Blizzard frowns on this, saying it voids the license agreement — you don't own the game, you only have a license to use it, and bots like Glider invalidate the license. The EFF has a good summary of the case as well. The case is due to be resumed on Monday."
Still waiting for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Still waiting for a Nethack bot that can ascend.
I like living in the future. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm really enjoying living in the Future, I have to say. When I was young, I never imagined a trial over the right to have a computer play a game for you... Just wouldn't have made sense to my eight year old videogame-loving brain.
I am not going to hold my breath... (Score:5, Insightful)
Blizzard is not completely guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
You've to realize that this game is a service provided not for a single person, but for everyone who is in one the game. Blizzard has crafted a meticulous balance to ensure that people will continue paying to play for the game and be happy, and this balance greatly requires that people don't get to use shortcuts which bypasses aspects of the game which Blizzard deems as crucial for balance. For that alone I can understand why Blizzard would want to prevent bots.
Re:I am not going to hold my breath... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the difference here between what is before and after is that one doesn't play World of Warcraft on their machine alone. There is a heavy amount of server-side interaction.
I think it is entirely reasonable that World of Warcraft have restrictions on what can be done while you are leasing the allowance to use their servers to play their game.
Now, as for Diablo 3, and playing on your own machine (or even connecting to a server for no other reason than copyright protection) there's simply no argument for being a licensee as opposed to an owner.
Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
I still find it amusing that Blizzard is going after the makers of Glider, when the license violation is on the part of each player using it.
Sure, maybe Glider is infringing on some trademark or copyright, but the company making it did not facilitate the user in violating the license any more than the authors of libpcap facilitated someone running ShowEQ and violating Sony's license. The route Blizzard seems to be going ends up at, "The user violated our license, and so we want them to pay the next 20 years of subscription fees while we also cancel their account. After all, they would have paid us anyways." which is patently, and I hope legally, ridiculous. Nothing at all shows that these users would have continued playing if they did not have access to a program like Glider, in fact I recall back in the peek of EQ people quitting when seq or mq or any of the other programs got defeated. If they just got banned, they bought other accounts.
If Blizzard is really egotistical enough to claim, in a court of law, that the user would play if only they had played by our rules, than let them sue the user. Better yet, let them track down which users are not only still playing, but purchased new accounts to do so. Then lets hope the judge laughs them out of the court room.
really? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're needing a bot to play for you its time to give up the game.
Even though wow is a shadow of its former self.
Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty (Score:1, Insightful)
Well that's the key point. Does Blizzard own/rule the communal experience of the players? Is this position implicit or explicit, and precisely what are the boundaries of their authority and responsibility?
Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the issue here is whether Blizzard should or should not work to prevent bots. The question is the tactic they're using to achieve that end. And, more to the point, the legal ramifications of those tactics being successful.
Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The brief is interesting reading... (Score:2, Insightful)
There isn't a way to ban Glider. the fact is, the program is using the same input a human does. This is why they are taking legal action.
Having an AI to play the game for you is not any more unfair then being jobless and playing 20 hours a day.
I cannot put up my own curtains at a rental home/apartment. The reason is that the owner has the right to ensure that the appearance of the house/apartment building conforms to their satisfaction.
You are only the possessor of the World of Warcraft program... it requires extensive interaction with their servers to operate. You have a license that dictates the terms of your use of this service (just like a rental agreement). If they don't want AIs to play the game, then by god, that's their right.
Re:I am not going to hold my breath... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's so utterly transparent that by "buying" WoW, you're paying a setup fee for you ongoing subscription.
Hate them all you want. Your ideology just doesn't go with MMO's. I guess they're not your thing then, and I'm wondering why you can be bothered to post here.
And btw, there's no (software) pirates (but plenty of the actual one-eyed, peg-legged, parrot-accompanied villains) in WoW. Unless you're counting private servers. Which I guess Blizzard don't really care THAT much about, since their activities aren't actually hurting the real world... of warcraft.
Re:Funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument at first sounds about right, but unfortunately it is specious.
An individual can be responsible for inducing someone else into violating the terms of their contract.
MDY knew that use of their program violated the terms of use of World of Warcraft. There is no use of Glider that does not violate the terms of use for WoW. Therefore selling this induces people to violate their contract.
If people did not enjoy the game under the ToU, then they have a contractually allowable response: cancel their account.
They do not have the right to break that contract, and MDY suggesting to them that they are allowed to do so, is textbook inducement to violate the terms of a contract.
Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty (Score:2, Insightful)
Glider may be a programmer, but that programming is both unauthorized, and counterproductive for the satisfaction of the network as a whole, and counterproductive for generating profit (from subscription payers) as a result.
How so? Blizzard is hurting their own bottom line by choosing to ban players. The players are perfectly willing to pay Blizzard for a game that they're going to have a bot play for them. The players are willing to pay MDY for a bot to play the game for them. Everybody is happy and making a profit here.
It's Blizzard's decision to ban people that's hurting them. Of course they're allowed to ban people if they want to. It's their servers, after all. But it's stupid of them to blame someone else for their own decisions. Glider is just providing a service for there is a demand, apparently.
Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty (Score:3, Insightful)
A false narrative again from a lack of understanding of the law.
You cannot induce others to violate their contracts.
Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly most people are DEFINITELY not happy with the botting situation, the majority of players are screaming at blizz to do something about it.
Re:Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
The courts holding is very specious, its like saying I can't run two copies of Word at the same time. Its a copy running in memory according to the link you sent. This decision is stretching the meaning of copying software and I wonder if they even understand what they are talking about. I can't wait till the current batch of the judiciary is replaced with a younger generation that understands technology.
The courts ruling is not specious.
Gilder created another unauthorized copy of the game, which is not necessary to play the game.
This copy was for the specific purpose of avoiding detection by the anti-cheating software Warden.
The first proves the copyright violation, the second proves the inducement to violate the terms of a contract. ... this coming from a girl with extensive history in emulation and virtualization.
Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
Which may be relevant to the tortious interference with a contract action, but is utterly irrelevant to the copyright violation action.
Re:I am not going to hold my breath... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I think it is entirely reasonable that World of Warcraft have restrictions on what can be done while you are leasing the allowance to use their servers to play their game."
Let's just be clear here, what are you saying, that when you lease allowance to use their servers, they have permission to do whatever they want to your local machine and define what software you can and can't run on it? because that's the issue here.
Blizzard use pretty much exactly the same techniques to check processes on your local machine as Glider uses to interfact with the WoW process. Blizzard are saying that this technique should be illegal- in the case of Glider, making the whole piece of software illegal even if you wanted to use it on say, 3rd party custom WoW servers. They're saying it's okay for them to use the technique though to scan your other software.
It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact the technical argument they're using can have massive implications for the software industry, for example, the same technique is used by anti-malware software. Potentially then if Blizzard's argument is held up in court, if someone is stupid enough to click through a EULA on a piece of malware, then the malware vendor could sue for the removal from sale of any anti-malware software by precisely the same argument Blizzard is using. Worse, the technical argument used by blizzard questionably even makes operating systems themselves outright illegal for also using such tecniques.
It's a bad case in general, Blizzard are attempting to create a dangerous precedent for the software industry that has far reaching negative implications whilst also restricting people's rights to do whatever they want on their computer, and to use whatever software they want, even if that software is in itself not illegal.
The issue is that Blizzard is going far too far just to protect their game, they're risking too much collateral damage for too many people just for the sake of stopping a handful of people cheating in their game rather than simply making their game less prone to cheating by making it worth playing rather than just macroing. Their actions are utterly reckless and selfish, their game just isn't important enough to create such a dangerous precedent for the millions of people who don't even play WoW. It's their problem to deal with, yet they feel the rest of us should have to suffer rather than them properly deal with it because the worst thing is, people will still distribute such hacks regardless of the legality of them, just as they always have.
They're using a legal answer, to a technical/gameplay problem.
Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I am not going to hold my breath... (Score:3, Insightful)
"This is what every person playing WoW has agreed to by contract with Blizzard."
No, they agreed to it via EULA, there's no solid decision that EULAs represent valid contracts. Even then, does it explicitly state those things I mentioned in the EULA? Even if valid, can a user really give up fundamental human right of the right to privacy via a EULA simply by clicking a button when it's non-obvious that WoW would ever perform such intrusive actions? If you feel the answer is yes, do you also agree that a user should have to live with a piece of malware indefinitely if they accidently agree to install it because they weren't paying attention if the EULA of said malware states is the case?
The situation is far from as clear cut as you seem to think.
"MDY started the lawsuit, Blizzard finished it."
As a defensive measure against Blizzard's assertion that they were infringing Blizzard's copyright and intended to sue them over it anyway you mean?
Re:missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, but they aren't going after the users that violate the terms. They are going after another product that enhances or extends their product in a way which they do not approve.
Woo, a car analogy...
Just as you are licensed to drive on the road, you have to follow the rules. If, however, you wanted to drive off roads you do not need a license or comply with any rules (except those of the land owner...) but you bought your vehicle for the expressed purpose of driving on a road, then found out later that you can drive it in your field.
Now, you find out that it isn't quite as fun in your field so you go and modify your vehicle.
From what I gather, Blizzard is saying that since you bought the game to play on their servers, any modification of that game is illegal, even if you intent to play that game on another server not owned by Blizzard.
This would be kind of like GM suing aftermarket part companies for allowing you to put a lift kit on your vehicle and change the way it handles.
To stop botting and farming... make a better game! (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason why bots and gold farming exist is because the game is flawed. If sections of the game are not overly long, boring, and repetitive, there won't be a demand for services to skip that part of the game or play it for you.
Stop designing games that waste the players' time without providing fun. If you want to keep people as subscribers design your game to have replay value instead of long travel times or grinding.
Re:Still waiting for... (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly you've never had a mother dwarf, maddened by grief over the death of her child, kill the elephant that did the deed and then, leaving a trail of crippled dwarfs along the way, proceed to pull the lever that floods your fortress with lava and killing everyone.
After I was done cursing, it was kind of poignant.
Re:I like living in the future. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still waiting for... (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is the reason why people still play Rogue, and will be tapping away at Nethack and Dwarf Fortress long after WoW is gone.
I am not trying to claim that these games will ever be as "successful" (read: profitable) as World of Warcraft, but I would say they far more closely approach video-games-as-art.
If you define "art" as "tedium", then I agree.
But seriously, you are using a pretty limited definition of the word "art" there. They may be "art" in the same way that, say, chess is. But many video games are already "art" in the way that a good movie is... they put you in a character's shoes, they elicit emotions from the player other than frustration, they tell a story and they sometimes even teach you something new.
It's silly to say that Nethack is "art" but (for example) System Shock 2 isn't. Or Starsiege: Tribes isn't. They're all "art" and they're all equally valid, just in different ways.
(And Nethack doesn't appeal to me at all, not in the slightest. While I played WOW for several years. So, be careful not to assume that everybody is exactly like yourself.)
Re:Glider is fun (Score:3, Insightful)
"Kudos" for writing a clever application. "Go screw yourself" for being a lousy, stinking cheater.