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.
Re:Still waiting for... (Score:5, Informative)
Still waiting for a Nethack bot that can ascend.
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.
Re:Still waiting for... (Score:4, Interesting)
TAEB is getting there. It already plays better than I do about 10% of the time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
TAEB developer here. Unfortunately, none of us have been working on TAEB in the last year or so; Real Life keeps getting in the way.
The real problems with building a NetHack bot are dealing with all the special cases; even parsing the screen is nontrivial. You can come up with a few simple rules that handle a lot of situations in the game, but there are always going to be hundreds of exceptions that need handling of their own. In my TAEB AI, TAEB::AI::Planar, I try to handle this to some extent by noticing
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>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.
I'm not so sure, there's a depth of emotion in WoW that they lack... they are purely intellectual leisure... WoW gets you emotionally involved.
Example - when I did the Pamela Redpath questline... that's when I started to genuinely HATE Arthas... quite an extreme emotion to be feeling for a fictional character. I wanted to cry ov
Re: (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: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Better bots than glider can heal on raids more efficiently than a human (player, not character race) healer, interrupt in PVP more effectively than a human, travel while the human is AFK, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
... travel while the human is AFK, etc.
I really miss the AutoTravel mod. I used to check on the Auction House during lunch by logging in via VNC and using AutoTravel to run between the bank, mailbox, and AH. That and riding down the road while I went to get some more soda was nice.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One might argue thought that if your license is not transferrable, then the 'bot' must also purchase a license to play?
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not going to hold my breath... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 f
Re:I am not going to hold my breath... (Score:4, Informative)
It might have been reasonable if they'd argued that, but they didn't. Their case is entirely about your local copy of the client. They have argued (successfully) that if you do not follow their license terms then the act of copying it to RAM [publicknowledge.org] is a copyright violation.
Perhaps we could stick to discussing what they have argued, not what they haven't?
Re:I am not going to hold my breath... (Score:5, Informative)
It might have been reasonable if they'd argued that, but they didn't. Their case is entirely about your local copy of the client. They have argued (successfully) that if you do not follow their license terms then the act of copying it to RAM [publicknowledge.org] is a copyright violation.
Perhaps we could stick to discussing what they have argued, not what they haven't?
You are correct that they argued about a local copy of the client, however you fail to acknowledge that Count I is "Tortious Interference With Contract"
It is not the ONLY thing that they argued. As for their copyright argument, they asserted that Glider produces an unauthorized copy of the program into memory in order to disable and/or defeat Warden. Such a copy they argue is not authorized.
It's difficult for MDY to argue that making their altered copy of the program is necessary for play... especially when such play is directly a violation of the contract to play said game.
Re:I am not going to hold my breath... (Score:5, Informative)
Fair enough on the tortuous interference, but that's small beer compared to the ownership and copyright issues.
MDY shouldn't have to make any argument regarding whether the RAM copy is "authorized" or not, since Title 117 disallows copyright claims against the owner [copyright.gov].
Note carefully that Blizzard's argument isn't against Title 117, it's that their EULA means that the purchaser doesn't "own" the copy that they bought, and so the enjoys no Title 117 protection. That's the significant precedent here.
Re:I am not going to hold my breath... (Score:4, Interesting)
Fair enough on the tortuous interference, but that's small beer compared to the ownership and copyright issues.
MDY shouldn't have to make any argument regarding whether the RAM copy is "authorized" or not, since Title 117 disallows copyright claims against the owner [copyright.gov].
Note carefully that Blizzard's argument isn't against Title 117, it's that their EULA means that the purchaser doesn't "own" the copy that they bought, and so the enjoys no Title 117 protection. That's the significant precedent here.
MDY didn't make the argument at all, Blizzard made the argument that it was unauthorized... specifically for the points that you raised.
MDY is then required to answer as to how Blizzard is wrong, otherwise they stipulate to the claim.
This raises the question: can a person in possession of a piece of software, make a copy necessary for its use, when such use is in violation of the EULA?
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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
To take a little spin, perhaps you own your copy WoW, pay for a license to log onto Blizzards servers?
I'll take the high road and say, this requires speculation about how the law should be. I'm not anywhere in the position to do that. I just know a bit how the law works.
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.
Blaming someone else for your own decisions (Score:2)
The most bizarre thing about this lawsuit is that Blizzard is suing MDY for lost revenue, because Blizzard chose to ban players. Blizzard didn't have to ban those players. They could have taken away their money and levels and allow them to continue playing. Blizzard made a choice. It's completely ridiculous that they blame that choice on someone else.
It might have made sense if MDY was sued by its customers who got themselves banned for using an MDY product. That I would understand. Blizzard suing MDY is co
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The most bizarre thing about this lawsuit is that Blizzard is suing MDY for lost revenue, because Blizzard chose to ban players. Blizzard didn't have to ban those players. They could have taken away their money and levels and allow them to continue playing. Blizzard made a choice. It's completely ridiculous that they blame that choice on someone else.
It might have made sense if MDY was sued by its customers who got themselves banned for using an MDY product. That I would understand. Blizzard suing MDY is completely retarded.
Blizzard didn't sue them for lost revenue (as I was able to see.) Blizzard obtained a judgement against MDY copyright infringement, and inducement to violate a contract.
Re: (Score:2)
That would have been bizarre if they'd done it, but they didn't [virtuallyblind.com].
Re:Blaming someone else for your own decisions (Score:4, Informative)
That would have been bizarre if they'd done it, but they didn't [virtuallyblind.com].
Since you made me read the whole Counterclaim, claim 49.
MDY’s sale of WoWGlider has caused Blizzard great harm in the direct loss of
revenue from terminated users, the loss of subscription revenue from WoWGlider users availing
themselves of the cheat, and from the severe damage to the goodwill of the non-cheating
population of WoW users.
Re:Blaming someone else for your own decisions (Score:4, Informative)
Count 49 is an assertion of facts, not a claim for relief.
They successfully claimed: Tortious Interference With Contract; Contributory Copyright Infringement; Vicarious Copyright Infringement.
They failed in their claims of: Violation of the Digital Millennium; Trademark Infringement; Unfair Competition (where they claimed to have been damaged but couldn't prove any damages); Unjust Enrichment (where they did attempt to claim lost revenues, but only because - they said, but could not prove - people capped and left, not because Blizzard chose to ban them, as the GP asserted).
So, OK, little from column A, little from column B. The core issue remains that of ownership and Title 117; just about everything else is a distraction.
If I had to call it, I've have given them claim 4, the DMCA violation, since that's the more pertinent legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between "owning the game" and "owning the service". There are terms of service for WoW and other online games; this comes with the territory when you're playing a game that involves interacting with other players. You can't simply do anything you want, as you actions have effects on others. I don't want players to be botting their way to the level cap or harvesting resources, it has a negative effect on my experience in the game by removing a social aspect, inflating the economy, and ch
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: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: (Score:2)
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.
Exactly. I'm perfectly fine with them banning bots. What's stupid is that they sue another company over the revenue lost because Blizzard chose to ban bots. They didn't have to do that. Their decision.
Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. I'm perfectly fine with them banning bots. What's stupid is that they sue another company over the revenue lost because Blizzard chose to ban bots. They didn't have to do that. Their decision.
No, they sued over copyright infringement and inducement to violate terms of a contract.
Nowhere did they claim any damages for lost revenue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. I'm perfectly fine with them banning bots. What's stupid is that they sue another company over the revenue lost because Blizzard chose to ban bots. They didn't have to do that. Their decision.
No, they sued over copyright infringement and inducement to violate terms of a contract.
Nowhere did they claim any damages for lost revenue.
I'm going to take the high road, and point out Claim 49 of the counter claim. They did.
It's also part of their pray for relief F.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the legal authority of Blizzard to refuse someone to use a bot. Blizzard cannot really deny a bot playing Starcraft. You own the software, you may do with it as you please.
However, World of Warcraft is not like buying a house, it's like renting a house. You even pay a monthly licensing fee.
I was reading through MDY's appeal, and it just reads like kind of a hack job trying to misrepresent the situation... these are not owners these are renters. Their use of the Bl
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
^^^^THIS IS 100% UNTRUE^^^^
Glider was made for people to play with their own emulated servers at home not on the blizzard servers!!!!!
If someone chooses to use glider on the blizzard servers blizzard has every right to remove their account. Glider is not arguing with that.
Glider is saying people who own the software can run glider with it!!!!
This is the exact same as making a bot that plays starcraft single player.
Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty (Score:5, Interesting)
^^^^THIS IS 100% UNTRUE^^^^
Glider was made for people to play with their own emulated servers at home not on the blizzard servers!!!!!
If someone chooses to use glider on the blizzard servers blizzard has every right to remove their account. Glider is not arguing with that.
Glider is saying people who own the software can run glider with it!!!!
This is the exact same as making a bot that plays starcraft single player.
This is why we have real lawyers fight this stuff in court. Your argument admits all the key parts necessary to prove liability on the part of MDY in inducing people to violate their contract with Blizzard.
The primary purpose of Glider is a violation of Blizzard's license agreement to use WoW.
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: (Score:2)
The copyright violation is from how they bypass the anti-hack security via creating another copy of the game client.
Which admittedly is a separate issue.
Re: (Score:2)
i don't think there is a problem with a ruling stating you don't own the game, but it better be worded very very carefully. you own the right to play it, and there needs to be strict as hell limits on just what blizzard can do to restrict HOW you play it.
Renters actually have very few rights, and they have those rights simply because one's residence is so necessary.
As a better example perhaps, take a gym membership.
Fundamentally, you do not "own the right to play it" not at all. And any limits on how Blizzard can restrict you in playing on their servers needs to be strongly considered before restricting them.
They own the greater part of the game experience that you're playing.
Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but Blizzard is more of a developer than a programmer. 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.
Re: (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 d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A false narrative again from a lack of understanding of the law.
You cannot induce others to violate their contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that is rather unclear.
I'm almost certain that you mean:
- Inducing others to violate their contracts is illegal
as opposed to:
- Inducing others to violate their contract is not a valid legal position (and hence cannot be deemed illegal).
Clarity is important.
Re: (Score:2)
- Inducing others to violate their contract is not a valid legal position (and hence cannot be deemed illegal).
I'm sorry, but please provide an explanation of how one could read this out of my response.
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: (Score:2)
Also, a quick analogy. If you wanted a game which lets you win easily, just visit this link.
http://xkcd.com/391/ [xkcd.com]
If you wanted a fun game however, you might want to rethink your strategy of making everything software easier and quicker, especially when pertaining to entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big difference between Fallout 3 and WoW. One's a single player game, the other's a multiplayer game.
There is, as far as I know, no multiplayer game which allows cheats to be implemented by anyone other than the game host. And for a good reason: to make sure that the environment is fair. Travel distance is taken account into what is deemed as fair.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on your definition of cheating. Blizzard gets to define it, and the majority of subscribers accept that definition.
Also, there is an autorun button last I played, so that is not a valid comparison regardless.
Re:Blizzard is not completely guilty (Score:4, Informative)
1) Farming resources: resources spawns at nodes in a first come, first serve basis.
2) AH sniping: I don't think they've fixed this issue yet (they didn't the last time I played.) Bots do it better naturally.
3) PvP: Bots have better reflexes. Speedhacks also allows much faster travel, an obvious advantage in battles where travelling is an issue.
I think that answers your 3 questions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Good question. If I stop paying for my account, what do I get to keep?
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell from the EULA, nothing (of value), since nothing can be traded outside their services.
Is this supposed to be an issue?
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell from the EULA, nothing (of value), since nothing can be traded outside their services.
Is this supposed to be an issue?
Point is that without your license to play upon their service, you don't have anything. Same as a renter.
Re: (Score:2)
All the experiences and memories you had of playing the game.
Even physical goods are temporary.
Re: (Score:2)
Chess is a bad game?
Re: (Score:2)
Also note: some of the ongoing challenges is to make a bot which plays like a human. There has been major strides in the FPS instances, where they actually have to tune the bot to make it more human-like (aka not perfect, simulating emotions, using "your mom" insults...)
The brief is interesting reading... (Score:3, Interesting)
The case opening brief makes for interesting reading.
There's one curious omission though (as near as I can tell, I only skimmed it). Ongoing payments.
Although the brief does mention that the game is available for retail purchase, or download, it makes no mention that an online account that requires an ongoing service charge is required in order to play. I suspect that Blizzard could argue that while the Glider author may not be circumventing the game client itself, it's making an illegal copy of the data stream for which the gamers pays an ongoing fee.
That said, I believe Blizzard is in the wrong on this one by going the legal route. I believe they have every right to modify their Warden software to scan for and ban accounts which use glider and other bot programs. They're just worried about losing revenue by banning customers, rather than by going directly to the source.
N.
Re: (Score:3)
Having an AI to play the game for you is not any more unfair then being jobless and playing 20 hours a day.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
conforms to their satisfaction.
"Conforms to their satisfaction?" That's the weirdest sentence I've read all week. Surely, one's satisfaction is the result of a stimulus, rather than an instigator?
Re:The brief is interesting reading... (Score:4, Funny)
Free the AI!!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh thank god you're not insane.
Sometimes it's hard to spot sarcasm/satire/parody when you're trying to be serious.
Re: (Score:2)
Once the dust will settle we will look back to the days when the AI was not allowed to play games.
Re: (Score:2)
Once the dust will settle we will look back to the days when the AI was not allowed to play games.
Right, but the AI has to be rational enough to make moral choices, and be held responsible for its own actions.
AI is not anywhere near that right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, that's a touchy issue right there. How gets to define what is moral? How does one determine the maturity of an AI?
Re: (Score:2)
If the cat has this right, why not the AI?
Re: (Score:2)
On hindsight, I don't think that's a requirement, AFAIK WoW minimum age is not the legal adult age (rational enough to make moral choices, and be held responsible for ones own actions).
Re: (Score:2)
Of cause, there'll still be issues. Will direct connectivity (as opposed to an indirect mechanical input) be allowed? Would AI and humans be segregated regardless? (this doesn't mean inequality, more of disparate communities with interactions) Would AI inhibiting the same body be granted separate identities?
Also random note: Freefall (comic) does touch into many of these AI issues. Nice read, that.
Re: (Score:2)
They can (and do) ban glider by updating their warden software to detect glider in memory, or by doing statistical analysis on player actions (time between keypresses, duration keys are held for, which areas players are in, what they're doing, etc). All of this can be faked, but it's a matter of how much trouble someone will go to. If Blizzard really wanted to throw a wrench into these types of programs, there's all sorts of random elements they could include that would play havoc with them. But again, i
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to Wikipedia, Glider makes a copy of the WoW client (as opposed to just running on top of the client), so the software itself does infringe on the license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot) [wikipedia.org]
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: (Score:3, Informative)
It is the people that run glider that are violating that copyright, not the people that authored glider.
If anything, the authors would be in violation of the DMCA and not copyright, right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right, because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is not about copyright.
Violating the DMCA (with its anti-circumvention rules) is not the same as violating copyright. Seriously... you are grasping here.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, from the wikipedia link it is entirely unclear whether the copied memory is edited in any manner (I would think it is, if the sole purpose is to circumvent a anti-cheating device). If there is any editing of the memory, Blizzard has a perfectly valid case.
Re: (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
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: (Score:2)
I say, if you paid for it, do what you want. (moral exception applies).
Re: (Score:2)
If you like a game it does not imply you like every aspect of it. With a bot you skip the parts you don't enjoy (anymore).
I say, if you paid for it, do what you want. (moral exception applies).
Do this with your apartment. Just paint the walls, and put in your own walls.
See how far that gets you.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be equivalent to changing things in the game world so that it affects future gamers. That's not happening here.
No. Renters are not allowed to do those things because they are simply in possession of the property, but not the owners of the property.
Thus, renters are banned outright from doing just about anything but transient changes to the property.
Owners also have the right to forbid renters from changing the external appearance of the property as well... so, go chew on that one.
High Price of Success (Score:2)
I'm glad Blizzard was able to shut down MDY and go a long way towards interrupting Glider and it's ilk. But I'm afraid Blizzard's lawyers are being too smart for everyone's good. The legal tactic has been successful in achieving this goal. And I'm not sure that there's a more effective way to go about it. However, the legal ramifications are startling.
Re:High Price of Success (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps I'm missing something (Score:2, Offtopic)
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't the summary a bit misleading? It's not ownership of the copy of the game you've bought that's being contested; it's the right to play it on Blizzard's own servers. Now, admittedly, the game isn't much use if you can't connect to those servers, but it's not as if you didn't know that when you bought the game.
However, Blizzard is not talking about going into anybody's home and taking away their physical copy of the game, or requiring them to delete it from their h
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzard isn't contesting anybody's ownership of the game
Blizzard's Counterclaim 82. "Users of WoW are licensees, and are permitted to copy WoW only in conformance with the EULA."
Incomplete summary (Score:2, Offtopic)
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?
Yes you do. ...but do you also have the server in your room?
You can add any bot or cheat you want to the game, as long as you don't connect it to the official server.
Iffy on this one (Score:3, Interesting)
Hoping for a so-so verdict here. The court should allow anyone to modify software they've purchased in any way they wish.
However, the court should allow Blizzard to block connections from any modified software they detect (just like Apache disconnects clients which violate the HTTP protocol).
However, their should be recourse for false-positives to get their money back.
The consequence of this: (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll choose Microsoft for an example, although this sort of boilerplate is fairly standard. I quote from the license terms for Microsoft Office:
And many other restrictions.
So Microsoft can (successfully, in the Central District of California) sue you for copyright infringement the moment you load Office into RAM after: fixing their product for them; using it for any purpose that is "against the law" (which law?); borrowing it from anyone; buying a 2nd hand copy.
You think that's ridiculous? The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California doesn't think so. They think that the EULA gives Microsoft exactly that right.
This is not hyperbole or speculation; this is now established case law in that District (pending appeal).
You don't think Microsoft would ever exercise this power? OK, pick a different name then. Adobe [wikipedia.org]. Apple [i4u.com]. SCO [groklaw.net]. Choose your poison.
missing the point (Score:2)
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.
Glider is fun (Score:3, Interesting)
Running Glider was one of the most entertaining things I did while playing. Glider comes with default behavior for every class, but you can develop your own in C#. I ended up writing some code for my druid to be a "Healbot", basically causing my character to run around and heal nearby allies.
It was quite simple - it would search for nearby players and try to stay in the middle of everyone. It would throw heals over time on anyone within range that was slightly injured, and cast big heals on people taking a lot of damage. I used it to farm honor in the PVP battlegrounds. After letting it run for hours, I'd take a look at the chat log and see lots of tells from people thanking me (it) for heals. Never once saw a comment calling it out as a bot. The mod I used to queue battlegrounds took screenshots of the match results, and many times my bot was #1 on healing (often by a large margin).
It was fun tweaking all the settings, by the time I maxed out on honor the code was pretty robust. I ended up modifying it a bit to follow around specific people (awesome for power leveling).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wider implications? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this case have much wider implications (as summary hints at) for the software licensing at large?
I haven't read the article yet, but it seems so.
It depends on the arguments being made. If the only argument is that because World of Warcraft is heavily dependent upon server-side interactions, that there is a leasing of the software to interact with that code.
To have the WoW binaries alone is fairly useless. Most games are not the same way.
Re:Wider implications? (Score:5, Informative)
If the only argument is that because World of Warcraft is heavily dependent upon server-side interactions, that there is a leasing of the software to interact with that code.
Except this is not the argument. The issue is that Blizzard claims that no one EVER owns a program "purchased" from them. They argue that any user of any licensed software product is forever bound by the terms of the license in every way.
Many people (myself included) believe that the purchase of a game or other software product is an actual sale (with all applicable first-sale doctrine rights). That is the issue at hand, do you purchase the program or are you renting the program (any program, even something with no network or server attributes)? This is by the way, even in the FIRST LINE of the summary on EFF's site.
From the EFF's summary:
When you buy World of Warcraft (WoW) in a retail box, do you own the copy of the software you bought? That's the critical legal question facing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a pending appeal in MDY v. Blizzard, and the question that Public Knowledge took on in an excellent amicus brief filed with the court earlier this week.
If you own your software, you have the right to resell it and the right to make copies and adaptations as necessary to use it. If you don't, well, then you face a possible copyright lawsuit for transgressing any limitations the vendor puts in the license agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind EULAs being tested, if it's tested in an environment which gives a non-clear advantage to the EULA enforcer. It would be a very bad day if EULAs are deemed enforceable, just because of this case.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I mean ostensibly I can see how the Glide bot could be considered 'legal' in and of itself, I am of the firm belief that if you buy a game you can use (or abuse if you so desire) it any way you want.
Now in the case of WoW the EULA is not just for the game (which you own, or ought to anyhow) but also for the servers (which are owned by Blizzard). So seems to be that it is entirely fair that Blizzard can dictate what you can and cannot do on their servers, if they decide that they do not want a bot running on