That is not what I was saying, I am not saying people don't know about BOTS, I am strictly talking about Glider.  That is all I am saying, I would bet most people have no idea what specific BOT is in use.  I that is the case then I think individula users should be held accountable.

Unless the player IS a bot!

So, the question that comes to my mind, is can you create antifarm bots - bots that automatically lead farmbots to their deaths.

Imagine explaining *that* to the WoW GM's - "Well, yeah, it is a bot, but it's an anti-bot bot - I thought I'd experiment with ways to kill off bots automatically so their profit margins were slimmer" - {G}

Jonnan

Yarbles?....he hasn't got any yarbles.....

[sounding almost like a quote from A Clockwork Orange]...

And I adressed this quite some time ago. IMO blizzard should have known better than to even file that claim, it was obviously not going anywhere. What puzzles me is why you consider the technical reasoning behind this part of the ruling correct, and the technical reasoning behind the rest of the ruling invalid.



Thus my point about absolute proof versus legal proof. Legally proving my name is not a challenge.

And btw, if 400,000 people call you a name, that would easily qualify as an alias. Not quite a legal identity, but close.

Re: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/you-bought-it-you-dont-own-it

At least you were able to find a few lawyers that agree with your viewpoint. Too bad all she does is bemoan the decision, rather than attacking the legal reasoning behind it. I do agree with her that the whole issue needs to be kicked up to the Supreme Court eventually.

Simple it is a much bigger reach and scarier reach to claim copyright infringment based on an ELUA than it is to claim DMCA breach by circumventing a protection scheme.  Seeing as that is pretty much what the DMCA is for.  That doesn't mean I agree with either.

Yep and I think absolute proof would go a long way in stopping companies/individuals from coming up with crazy lawsuits like this!

As for a few lawyers to support my view give me a break, it was more than a few, the EFF and Public knowledge (they actually wrote a brief for the court) have more than a few lawyers and others knowledgable in this area.  Maybe someday when I have unlimited time and actually care I will interview the bar association on this topic will that sufice for you!  Gimme a break.  Not to mention I will give them a little more credence than just your opinion which is all I have seen you show.  Apparently you see what you want to see, in fact other than the people directly invovled in the case you haven't seem to come up with anyone.  Also apparently the links in here blog to other cases and section 117 weren't enough for you to get the idea of why they are against this?  Well I see even discussing this with you may be an exercise in futility. 

You're either a complete idiot, or a hopeless ivory-tower idealist. Requiring some sort of absolute proof of anything would stop ALL lawsuits. Since the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff and you set that burden unmeetably high, the defense could literally show up, say "the defense rests" and win. Every Single Case.



Well, of course the only people I need to quote to support my opinion are the ones involved in the case - they're the only ones that matter. Eventually, nine more peoples' opinion might matter. At least Public Knowledge cared enough to file a brief - the EFF people didn't, they'd rather stand around hand-wringing after the fact. In short, the judge examined PK's position and decided it was incorrect. I accept the judge's ruling for now, until and unless he is overturned on appeal.

As for Corynne McSherry, she is a public rights activist. If she didn't oppose the judge's ruling, she wouldn't be doing her job. Unfortunately, IMO she objected to the wrong part of the ruling. Specifically, Section 117 doesn't apply, and she knows it. Any defense under Section 117 presupposes actual ownership, not a liscense.

The Timothy Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. case is also non-substantive in that Mr Vernor did not ever agree to an EULA. The people he bought those copies from probably committed violations, but he did not.

UMG vs Augusto is another case where no EULA was entered into, thus not copyright infringement can be claimed due to violation of any such agreement. Simply slapping a "Not For Resale" sticker on something doesn not qualify as a liscensing agreement.

I can see why public rights activists are against this decision. I can see where this sets a powerful precedent. But having some public rights lawyers disagree with the desicion doesn't make it invalid or incorrect. Only one thing can do that.

Sorry I disagree again!  There have been plenty of legal desicions in the past that were just blatently wrong but agreed with by a large amount of people including the government and judges.  So my point is just because something is ruled legal and ok doesn't mean it actually is. 

Wrong the minute you buy a CD or accept a promo CD you have agreed to their terms.  You never have to click a button or sign a contract and that is what UMG also stated in that case.

I have to disagree again, it has been shown time and time again once you buy the software you are beholden to the license.  In fact you can't even give the damn thing back once you read the EULA.

A ruling can be wrong, there is no question of that. My point is that EVEN IF the ruling is wrong, the only way to change it is by a higher court. Even changing the laws wouldn't help a case that has already been ruled on.



Please read the decision in question, or commentary about it, or something. UMG claimed that, and LOST. As in, that interpretation is NOT VALID. That's why McSherry referenced it in the first place.



Again patently false. The main reason Autodesk LOST that case is they didn't challenge the manner in which Vernor gained possession of the copies. They claimed non-transferable liscencing rights (a condition of the EULA, and legally enforcable), then tried to enforce those rights against someone who had never agreed to the EULA. IIRC part of the ruling questioned why Autodesk wasn't filing against the people who sold Vernor the used copies, as those were the people who had (presumably) broken the EULA.

And you CAN return software if you feel the EULA is too restrictive. One of the requirements of the EULA is the ability to seek a refund. To quote the first paragraph of the WoW EULA (as I had that one readily available):

"YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY READ THE FOLLOWING WORLD OF WARCRAFT TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT (THE "TERMS OF USE" OR "AGREEMENT"). IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU MUST CLICK "REJECT." IF YOU REJECT THIS AGREEMENT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER FIRST PURCHASING THE WORLD OF WARCRAFT SOFTWARE, YOU MAY CALL (800)757-7707 TO REQUEST A FULL REFUND OF THE PURCHASE PRICE. ONCE YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE AND THE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT (EULA), YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR A REFUND."

Bad choice.....Stardock IS an 'Approved Microsoft Partner'...so Gal Civ will be fine....

[quote]Is WoW an operating system?
[quote]
No - Neither is Microsoft Outlook, Internet Explorer, Word, Photoshop, or any of the other dozens of applications programs with third party extensions written for them.

That's purely aside from the fact that there is no real *legal* distinction between an OS and an application program.

Oh - wow - you mean this program is being sold to people who put it on their computers and gain nothing by doing so? Oh, no, that's right - they use it to gain an (unfair) advantage in WoW.

That is what we're talking about, he sold a program that created features these people wanted, they installed it on their computer - *their* personal property (Not on Blizzards Server), made use of those features in the game (in a way I believe we both consider unethical), and they paid him for this program.

Well, for them, they obviously got something they wanted out of this. If they had to hack into the server to do this, that's illegal. But enforcing an EULA that restricts my installing a program *on* *my* *computer*, that works in *my* Ram, utilizes instructions that run through *my* CPU, and is stored on *my* hard drive, is granting a little more power to Blizzard than I think is safe.


Ah - your argument is that companies would never be so foolish as to use a legal advantage that you believe they have a right to use in an unethical way that might, or might not, blow up in their face afterwards.

You remind me of the Ayn Rand Institute at the Microsoft Trial - They had this hilarious "Friend of the court" brief where they argued that Microsoft could not be exercising monopoly power, because it is impossible for a monopoly to exist without government fiat.

Microsoft cannot exercise Monopoly power because monopolies can't exist, therefore Microsoft can't be a Monopoly - QED

Not believing that a company would abuse this interpretation of contract law to achieve market dominance is like arguing that since assaulting someone would result in their hitting back, no one would ever assault someone. Obviously it's foolish to have laws against assault. No sense having any safeguards against someone doing something that no one with any sense would do.

You have such a wonderful faith in humanity that I feel so very certain you can forgive my cynicism. Also, sarcasm.


Blaming Blizzard for Microsoft? No. Drawing a parallel between
A) handing off to a large software company a right to prevent you from running software on your personal property when they consider it to be a threat to their profit margins,
and a large, drawn out case where a large software company attempted to use their market dominance to prevent you from running software on your personal property because they considered it to be a threat to their profit margins.

Yeah - that I will do.

Bluntly - I think you're a bit naive not to consider the possibility that, having handed software companies a very large hammer, it's just feasible what you think a nail looks like might not be what they think a nail looks like.

Jonnan

The essential difference is that MS was attacking a competitor, not a parasite. If MS had had an EULA provision banning ALL web browsers (including their own!) from use with the Windows operating system, the cases would be comparable.

You are mistakenly assuming this case encourages monopolistic practices. I have no doubts whatsoever that someone will attempt to use it that way, but I also have no doubt that such usage will be stricken down.