In his summary ruling on Blizzard's case against World of Warcraft cheat-maker Michael Donnelly (released yesterday), District Court Judge David Campbell has stated that the act of using a bot in violation of a game's license or terms of use qualifies as a copyright violation. Huh?
Just to get it out of the way, I'm as much against cheats as the next guy. As a WoW player in particular, I'm glad to see Blizzard shut down the cheaters and cheat-makers. But this ruling doesn't make much sense to me; it seems like a case of the judge just trying to find a way to cover something which doesn't really cross any real existing laws. Worse, it sets some (arguably) nasty precedent, effectively making EULAs law (any violation is a violation of copyright), rather than simple contracts where the most you can lose is your right to use the software.
Strangely, the judge actually dismissed Blizzard's claims that the cheats violated the DMCA. Given the amount of use the DMCA gets in such cases, you'd think that the ruling would have been the other way around, at least. In any case, it seems the case is now going to trial to decide the DMCA portion for certain.
What do you guys think? Should this ruling stand? Personally, I think that it shouldn't--stripping cheaters of their access to the game and perhaps making a civil claim against the cheat-makers for damaging the game for everyone else is justified, but making any EULA violations illegal, as Judge Campbell (inadvertently or otherwise) has done is going too far.
I like how everyone's making Blizzard out to be some kind of heavy handed tyrant in this issue. In my experience, Blizzard goes out of their way to NOT restrict folks from using their service except when explicit evidence is found that they're breaking the EULA or TOS. In the cases where folks have been banned from the service due misunderstandings or false positives (see the incorrect bannings of folks running WoW under Cadega), they are more than willing to reverse the decision after being shown it was a mistake. In fact, in the Cadega incident (which happened as part of a mass banning of WoWGlider/Glider users, ironically enough), Blizzard worked with the Cadega developers to correct the issue with Warden that generated the false positive in the first place.
As for the lawsuit in question, everyone assumes that Blizzard is going after MDY because of some perceived injustice/violation. Blizzard was doing fine with banning the users of the software, as was their right under the agreed upon TOS/EULA. And it's made after every patch (just had to acknowledge agreement to them again last night due to the latest patch landing) so it's not like it's a sneakwrap issue. Blizzard COUNTERsued MDY after the idiot sued Blizzard for banning users of his program. On top of that, it's not like Blizzard is going after some guy that wrote a workaround and then was freely distributing it. MDY is selling Glider licenses for use by players. So, he's making money off of the violations as well as inducing others in breaching a contract.
It's not a mod, it's an external program which plays the game for people, thus allowing them a significant advantage since they can leave it playing 24/7.
Please avoid any Blizzard-bashing, guys. They've got every right to stop this kind of stuff in their game, and as a player I'm glad for that. Let's keep the discussion to the judge's descision, which is the real issue here.
BigDogBigFeet ....more correctly think of it as a game of Poker....and all is honky-dory until you find one of your fellow players has a few extra aces up his sleeve.
Yeah, right....you're going to be all touchy-feely and mushy-happy over that one.
It'd be fine if WoW was played solo and offline...do what you like with it....it's as clever as cheating at solitaire.
As soon as it impacts on others' enjoyment through co-operative role-playing games like WoW...and you come armed with extra aces.....prepare to die....
Part of the problem is that the judge's descision doesn't really apply to the maker, but to the people using it.
Of course. My point is that the only "copy" in the user's posession is a legitimate and authorized one, and that nothing that can honestly be called a copy as per Copyright Act s.106 (which the judge cited) is created in the use of the software, so the judge's ruling has no merit.
Using a program you haven't paid for (piracy) is copyright infringement, since that generally requires you to have an illegetimate copy of the media. Using a paid-for copy in a way contrary to the EULA however can be no more than a breach of contract.
Here's a thought.
The 'bot' plays the game for you, however it was you who 'agreed' to the EULA...not the bot. Ergo the bot has no right to be playing the game as it did not indicate tacit agreement to the EULA....
AND he's selling it, too....
This bloke is screwed.
If he is not then the US Legal system is more screwed than most people imagine.
There IS no positive legal/defensible spin that can be placed on what his proggy does.
It's actually not a Game Cheat...such as being Invincible in Quake and beating your computer bots. It's a method to defraud/deny others of THEIR game enjoyment that they paid for...with a reasonable expectation of equitable treatment.
I'm on Blizzard's side....100%...
Yep. The judge on the other hand...
And there, in a nutshell is why I have exactly ZERO interest in playing WoW or any other online role-playing game.
Z. E. R. O.
None.
So what?
It's a multi-effing-million-dollar industry/game/company whose product is being misused to their financial detriment.
What's the big deal with Skinners works being ripped? It's just a hobby/diversion some say of no actual function/purpose.
Who gives a toss that some old dead fart's painting got stolen or forged?....it's just oil on canvas...does nothing other than make a wall less blank.
Closer analogy....who cares if someone in the theater audience lights up a smoke...answers his phone and decides to continue that argument with his wife....loudly? It's just a film.
Ennui and/or indifference/ignorance doesn't make the issue null and void...
When making references to 'clarifying the legal situation' the use of the phrase 'roughly translates' won't be appropriate.
You'd by definition need to be somewhat less 'rough' ....
aufisch...in this case it should....as the use of the 'helper' affects others. This is third-party injury...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
