Just read the END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT that was included with the software when you purchased it. You never own software unless it states that you do. There are 4 pages to this document which is at the back of the game manual that I am looking at right now. I will list the headings to a few of the sections, but I won't put down everything that is written. You all need to read it for yourself.
1. Grant of a Limited Use License.
2. Service and Terms of Use.
3. Ownership.
4. Responsibilities of End User.
5. Consent to Monitor. This is the monitoring of your computer's RAM
6. Termination.
7. Export Controls.
8. Patches and Updates
9. Duration of the "On-line" Component of the Game.
10. Limited Warranty.
11. Limitation of Liability, Indemnity.
12. Equitable Remedies.
13. Changes to the Agreement.
14. Dispute Resolution and Governing Law.
a. Informal Negotiations.
b. Binding Arbitration.
c. Restrictions.
d. Exceptions to Informal Negotiations and Arbitration.
e. Location.
f. Governing Law.
g. Severability.
Most of it is pretty straight forward and is not in all the legal talk usually found in legal documents.
Beyond what I put down here let's just try and keep things civil.
I think most of us know that Blizzard has done nothing wrong here. This is just a natural retaliation towards someone stealing and ruining their product.
But I think some have a problem with how the judge ruled the case. I don't really see what that problem is. What kind of signal would have been sent if the glider guy won the case? I bet we would see a lot more bot programs in the near future. And you would hardly ever see any real people in the game at all. Just bots everywhere. That would certainly destory the game completely.
I think most of us know that Blizzard has done nothing wrong here. This is just a natural retaliation towards someone stealing and ruining their product. But I think some have a problem with how the judge ruled the case. I don't really see what that problem is. What kind of signal would have been sent if the glider guy won the case? I bet we would see a lot more bot programs in the near future. And you would hardly ever see any real people in the game at all. Just bots everywhere. That would certainly destory the game completely.
No. Most of you think Blizzard has done nothing wrong. That's for the court to decide- it has been decided, and you know what? It can go to a higher court for an appeal till it gets to the supreme court, where it will be decided for good (until a slightly different case possibly makes them re-evaluate/overturn that decision.)
No one STOLE Blizzards product. The judge ruled there was no DMCA violation, which means the programs- as written is a legal product that does not infringe on their copyright (DMCA= Digital Millennium Copyright Act).
I think some of you have a problem with informing yourselves in the slightest as to the actual facts in the case. I have made it easy- read any of my posts for links. It's not just me spouting my own groundless opinion. I'm not claiming I'm right or that the judge is 'definitely wrong', just that my position can be supported by facts, and many others (lawyers, and other law knowledgeable consumer rights groups) are unhappy as well. It is a debatable opinion.
What kind of signal would have been sent? That I suppose is the real issue, and the law can't always handle that one. Why don't we get rid of 'Double Jeopardy'- just in case someone gets off scott-free for a crime, and brags about it? What kind of signal does that send? We'll just retry 'em till they're guilty.
A lot of other bot programs are written more simply- they use all the excess information Blizzard themself supplies to the client to control the bot. Let me rephrase that- they use information Blizzard supplies to the client for botting, that arguably could only be used for botting. So... They could stop providing that data?
And please... please, please, please don't get me started on the intensely, cerebral, invigorating and rewarding 'whack-a-mole' style gameplay that undisputably couldn't be improved in any way which could be more engaging that a mindless automaton couldn't be programmed to do it.
And I won't touch the time-honored investment vs reward aspects of their awesome game design. I mean- everyone should have to grind a few dozen hours just so they can ride a mount. I mean everyone loves being teased for 39 levels just to get a 50% speed increase so they can do more mindless tasks a bot could do, a little bit faster. Blizzard doesn't even see fit to limit their mounted NPCs to 40+.
But yeah- sue someone because change is bad. Simple.
Oh, and for Destroying game balance completely- just wait for the nest expansion.
It's actually very, very simple, and most people have completely missed the point by posting all sorts of nonsense about what's copied by RAM, etc., which is a red herring.
Let's say for example, a car dealership is selling cars for X dollars, and this model is hard to get, and they have to order it. So you sign a contract with a car dealer to buy the next car that comes in for X dollars.
Someone else shows up, and they want the car too. So they tell the car dealer, give me the next car, break your contract with that guy, and here's some money to do it. This person would be interfering with the contract between you and the car dealer, and you could sue him for tortious interference.
When you buy an MMORPG and play it, you enter into a license agreement with the Publisher that says you won't use bots.
When someone says, here's a bot program, break your contract (EULA) with the gaming company, and use my bot program, they are interfering with your contract, just like the example above. It's tortious interference.
All the baloney about, but I can load programs into my RaM, and they can't stop me, bla bla bla, is just missing the point.
It's actually very, very simple, and most people have completely missed the point by posting all sorts of nonsense about what's copied by RAM, etc., which is a red herring. It's tortious inferference.
Let's say for example, a car dealership is selling cars for X dollars, and this model is hard to get, and they have to order it. So you sign a contract with a car dealer to buy the next car that comes in for X dollars. Someone else shows up, and they want the car too. So they tell the car dealer, give me the next car, break your contract with that guy, and here's some money to do it. This person would be interfering with the contract between you and the car dealer, and you could sue him for tortious interference. When you buy an MMORPG and play it, you enter into a license agreement with the Publisher that says you won't use bots. When someone says, here's a bot program, break your contract (EULA) with the gaming company, and use my bot program, they are interfering with your contract, just like the example above. It's tortious interference. All the baloney about, but I can load programs into my RaM, and they can't stop me, bla bla bla, is just missing the point.
You are correct, that is what happened—it never was a copy write infringement at anytime. So I see after an appeal that the only thing that is true is---the Glider Company committed tortuous interference.
However, I can see this still being hard---Wouldn’t Blizzard have to prove that this program undermined their ability to live up to their contract that they sign with the players. Did Glider in anyway shape or form cost money Blizzared money?(Besides when the ban people for using the program)
However, the Glider company should use the same strategy when protecting the use of Glider. Blizzard has bad more money with this product, being available to the players. And that this Program was also designed to Help those that are handicapped, the ability to be able to play the game.
And if an individual was using this product while sitting at their computer, and being involved when glider was being used—was the player actually playing the game or was he not?
All in all I think this is the dumbest lawsuit every in the gamming industry---it’s a game, and if by someone gliding affects an individual playing a game---then there is more to this issue.
Meaning the players that cry and wine, about a glider
You are correct, that is what happened—it never was a copy write infringement at anytime. So I see after an appeal that the only thing that is true is---the Glider Company committed tortuous interference.
However, I can see this still being hard---Wouldn’t Blizzard have to prove that this program undermined their ability to live up to their contract that they sign with the players. Did Glider in anyway shape or form cost money Blizzared money?(Besides when the ban people for using the program)
However, the Glider company should use the same strategy when protecting the use of Glider. Blizzard has bad more money with this product, being available to the players. And that this Program was also designed to Help those that are handicapped, the ability to be able to play the game.
And if an individual was using this product while sitting at their computer, and being involved when glider was being used—was the player actually playing the game or was he not?
All in all I think this is the dumbest lawsuit every in the gamming industry---it’s a game, and if by someone gliding affects an individual playing a game---then there is more to this issue.
Meaning the players that cry and wine, about a glider
Of course it costs Blizzard money, why do you think they are sueing Glider in the first place?
For kicks and giggles?
And about the 'whining' part. If you ever played Lineage 2 you would know how 1 bot program can completely destroy the experience of OTHERS who don't use it, in the game.
You are correct, that is what happened—it never was a copy write infringement at anytime. So I see after an appeal that the only thing that is true is---the Glider Company committed tortuous interference.
However, I can see this still being hard---Wouldn’t Blizzard have to prove that this program undermined their ability to live up to their contract that they sign with the players. Did Glider in anyway shape or form cost money Blizzared money?(Besides when the ban people for using the program)
However, the Glider company should use the same strategy when protecting the use of Glider. Blizzard has bad more money with this product, being available to the players. And that this Program was also designed to Help those that are handicapped, the ability to be able to play the game.
And if an individual was using this product while sitting at their computer, and being involved when glider was being used—was the player actually playing the game or was he not?
All in all I think this is the dumbest lawsuit every in the gamming industry---it’s a game, and if by someone gliding affects an individual playing a game---then there is more to this issue.
Meaning the players that cry and wine, about a glider
Of course it costs Blizzard money, why do you think they are sueing Glider in the first place?
For kicks and giggles?
And about the 'whining' part. If you ever played Lineage 2 you would know how 1 bot program can completely destroy the experience of OTHERS who don't use it, in the game.
The law suit only shows that the maker of Glider gain profit over the use of Blizzard's game, but it will be hard for Blizzard to prove that Glider actually cost them money when it comes down to it.
How do you prove if someone is costing you money? Losing customers? (yeh, but if Blizzard is gaining subs, then this isn't easy to prove.)
So yeah, suing Glider isn't really because it costs Blizzard any money (at least they can't prove it), but it is making a profit with Blizzard's game without their consent.
From players' point of view, it is a good action. But from a consumers' view, it is a bad ruling...
This has been a very interest and extremely entertaining subject for me. I have read through the entire thread and looked at all the arguments, I still have to say that I am not against the ruling that took place (that is not to say, however, that I am for it either).
There have been a few things, however, that have been misinterpreted or misunderstood. The first and most major of these is the idea that you agree to the EULA on PURCHASE as to opposed to on utilization of the software. I don't have the original box handy; I do, however, have my Burning Crusade expansion and I notice on the top of the box it says," The contents of this box are subject to the terms of an End User License Agreement available at http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html, and all use of the product is subject to the World of Warcraft Terms of Use which you must accept before you can register an account. . . . "
So yes, not only are you informed ahead of time about the Terms of Use that you must accept in order to register an account to access the game, the very product itself is subject to a EULA as it is stated on the box. You, as the consumer, have the responsibility of reviewing this document and deciding whether or not you would like your purchased product to be subject to such an agreement. Ignorance of such a document or its terms provides absolutely no excuse under the law and by simply UTILIZING the contents of the box, you are assumed to be in agreement with said agreement.
Another thing people have argued is that if they do make the mistake of purchasing the product (but not agreeing to the terms outlined by Blizzard) then they have no way of returning it due to the strict return policies that many distributors enforce. To these people I say READ THE FRIGGIN AGREEMENT OR READ THE ENTIRE THREAD BEFORE POSTING. In the agreement it clearly states this
"2. Service and Terms of Use. As mentioned above, you must accept the Terms of Use in order to access the Service to play the Game. The Terms of Use agreement governs all aspects of game play. You may view the Terms of Use by visiting the following website: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.shtml. If you do not agree with the Terms of Use, then (a) you may not register for an Account to play the Game, and (b) you may call (800)757-7707 within thirty (30) days after the original purchase to arrange to return the Game and to request a full refund of the purchase price. Once you accept the License Agreement and the Terms of Use, you will no longer be eligible for a refund. "
There is a number you can call so you don't even have to deal with the company that distributed it to you. Pappy13 was nice enough to post this much earlier in the topic, but apparently no one bothered to read it.
Now the minors accepting agreements thing is a VERY tricky subject. Again, if you read the agreement, you'll have seen how Blizzard tries to handle this. Essentially, a minor CANNOT hold an account, ever. Instead, a GUARDIAN has to hold the account and they can assign ONE minor that is UNDER THEIR LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP access to the account as well. Essentially they are making the parents legally reponsible, but making it so they can allow their child to play as well. Essentially, under this contract the minor is never agreeing to anything.
The tricky thing comes with the pressing of "ACCEPT" when that huge wall of text comes up. The child, obviously, cannot accept any agreement that would be legally binding, but they are usually the ones to press it anyways. This is handled by the fact that simply UTILIZING the software subjects you to the EULA and Terms of Use. The big block of text with the "ACCEPT" button is merely a way of getting the message across more clearly. By simply USING the software, you are assumed to be in agreement with said contracts. So if a child uses the software and plays the game, then their guardian who registered the account is assumed to be in compliance with the agreements. <-- That last bit has been shaky for some time and hasn't had any real legal backing or precendent until now (even now it doesn't really have any backing). But that's the way Blizzard and other companies TRY to set up their agreements.
The box is even trickier. I suppose the idea is that it is okay for a minor to PURCHASE the product but because it is clearly subject to the EULA, they are not legally allowed to utilize any of the contents. I would also imagine any damages caused by a minor either ignoring or simply being ignorant of what they are allowed to use would fall to the parents since they are responsible for their children's actions.
This, however, is all theory and conjecture for the most part. The fact of the matter is courts often rule differently in these matters, and like many people have said, this has a high potential for appeal.
My main concern with this ruling is that I'm not concerned. Everything is in the agreements. How you can use the product, what Warden is allowed to scan, consequences for misusing it, it's all there. My true main issue is the people who say their "rights" are being trampled upon. The fact of the matter is YOU have ALL the rights. You have the right to not purchase, use, or interact with the product, its contents or software. By waiving this specific right, you also waive several others. If you don't like the terms outlined by them, >>>DON'T BUY IT OR USE IT<<<. Guys this is a videogame. This isn't technology for heart surgery or the enlightenment of human kind, IT'S FRIGGIN WORLD OF WARCRAFT. You do not NEED to buy this in ANY WAY. By CHOOSING to do so, you knowingly (or it seems in most cases, unknowingly) completely AGREE TO THEIR TERMS.
Simply put, If WoW threatened to take away my rights in its agreements, guess what, I wouldn't agree to them by NOT BUYING IT. Now MICROSOFT Windows, that's a whole other discussion. You pretty much NEED Windows. Yeah you could get some other crappy operating system, but let's face it, Windows is king. I find it funny you find Blizzard's antics more disturbing than Microsoft's.
You guys are really close to this, but missing it just by a bit...
1. Publishers DO have to go to an owner of an OS such as Microsoft to make any program that runs on their system. They develop most if not all tools or other parties who had to go threw them to get it developed. So yes, in a way (depending on the situation) every piece of software pays royalty to Microsoft. As a coder I know this.
2. Licensing agreements are all different, in this industry we have leases, we have ownership rights, we have limit usage a ton of variations all depending on what it is. For me, when I developed for my clients, they "own" what I code when I am done and paid in full. It is in every contract I have ever agreed upon. However if you look for example at my coding software, let's say Navicat. In their license agreement I bought a personal license for development reasons. In this, I cannot rightfully load this into a client machine and let them have use of it as I do. It is against my agreement. So taking that into consideration, when you "bought" the blizzard game, you didn't buy really anything, you actually only bought the DVD to make the ease of installation more simple and the "right" to play the software on their servers if you "agreed" on the usage of that software which you did when you bought in the first place
3. What this guy did was in direct violation of their property. He made a program that made a profit off their system which in turn forced blizzards hand to ban people who used said product then loosing those individuals membership costing the company money paying employees to deal with the issue, paying lawyers to close this guy down and again loosing money from all those people banned because they had a program available to cheat the system so to speak. If they had no access to such, they still would have most likely been paying customers. Of course you can argue that last one, but it can be put in as a lost of sales due to what this guy has done.
What this all comes down to is simple and people have said it here as plain as plain can be, if you rip off my stuff I am going to sue your butt off! Trust me, as a coder I have and I would in a heart beat, that is my code friends not yours, you don't like it, don't agree to use it the way I offer it. If this was a government program or something, fine the "people" own it and you have something to stand on, but blizzard is just like me and every other development house out there. If you mess with our stuff the way it was not intended and you agreed or even NOT agreed, you bet I will be all over you with a lawsuit faster then you can say supercalafragilisticespealadoshes! Because some here seem to say "well who actually reads..." and my response is, I have proof what you are using is mine and you shouldn't have it. So guess what? You just have stolen my stuff.
Edit: Finally I should for the sake of this discussion give a relevant example of blizzards issue, you agreed to their license in the use of their product the way they seemed fit. If I made a contract (which I have in this case as well) that stated a client is allowed to use my program in a certain manner (in this case only on one server within this company) then that is it. If it seen anywhere used in any other means by another party I can pull the license and sue them for breach of contract and get retribution. While blizzards agreement with it's customers is not a full fledge contract per-say, you as a consumer were informed prior to your purchase, prior to your logging into the system and agreed upon it. Just as much as signing a document for a credit card. Sorry but the only person loosing anything here is the guy who broke the agreement. Many among the development world are very glad we are finally seeing software infringements actually being handled as a property. We made it, we paid others to get tools to make it or developed our own and just like the guy that grows the food we buy. He works just as hard as we do to make a living and I definitely don't want to see some punk kid get a way with stealing my life’s work by any means.
Nuff said I think.
"The monster created isn't by the company that makes the game, it's by the fans that make it something it never was"
we can not forget we are dealing with the 9th circus err I mean circuit court. They are the most overturned of the US circuit courts in appeals. This is still a ways from being the end all of the argument. Let it all play out before debating if it is or is not the right call.
While your example is true on something to worry about, any country with the full fledge freedoms has a cost and now in the USA the people are learning the cost of that freedom, as freedom itself is costing them to loose just that. Rules and laws are there to protect the over all well being of the people at large. When common sense is used there really is no problem, when those that would abuse such freedom for personal gain are the same that are nitching away at the very freedoms you are trying to protect your on a loosing battle. Blizzard is protecting their IP, as much as you like to argue this sets a precedence for other things, this guy used their IP to make personal gain. IE broke their agreement with him as an individual who had to buy the game, rent an account to play WoW and in the end sniff all the memory to see what does what so his little "cheat" program could do all the work.
Your argument is nill, because in almost every single instance of court battles, you can say "this sets a precedence for chaos!" You have freedoms and you don't want those freedoms taken away, yet it was the same freedoms that allow companies like blizzard to exist. What I think the real point here is, you could care less about some big corporation that is taking your money to play "their" game. I mean the guy with that gun to your head saying "Play WOW or die now" is right there with you right?
The only freedoms you and your conspiracy brethren are loosing is the freedom to cheat others.
"The monster created isn't by the company that makes the game, it's by the fans that make it something it never was"
For those who don't know how glider works, glider sets up a series of "ghost mouse" key clicks on your screen. Think of it as an overlay for computer monitor. A plastic sheet if you will, that covers your screen. Ok then lets say you took a marker and put dots on that sheet where you wanted your mouse to click. and you took a sheet of paper and you wrote down how often and at what times you wanted these dots or clicks to occur on the plastic sheet. Ok so hopefully you have that visualized. Then you load up a program, in this case we are talking about wow. You window mode wow and you make it the same size as the plastic sheet. and you have all these dots on the sheet that tell your mouse to click in certain spots. You wrote a script housed on your client side. Your personal pc, that says ok click my mouse at all these points at these specific times. Press these keys at these times. and so on. You turn on your script and they start clicking away. This overlay does not send anything to blizzard servers, this script does nothing to the in-game what-so-ever. All the info you want this script to do is on your pc. It has nothing to do with blizzard at all. OH but what it can do is rename it filename when an Intruder (wow warden) starts scanning your personal files on your personal computer. It can rename itself to whatever it wants. So unwanted intruders to your network cannot determine what type of file it is.
OK so now you know how glider works, and you thinks it's OK for a judge to tell me I can't write a script, house it on MY computer and do whatever in the hell I want with it. It isn't malicious, it does nothing to blizzards servers or software, nothing to code, it is just a ghost mouse script I use to press some keys and mouse clicks. Yeah that sounds fair to me. What it really sounds like is one of my freedoms as a human being with free thought just got stripped away from me. That is what it sounds like.
Actually the judge can tell you precisely that... because of one simple fact that everyone ignores.
WoW is not a game that you own. WoW and any MMO for that matter, is a Subscription Data Service. You can run whatever you want on your computer. But as soon as you connect it to any subscription data service you are subject to the terms you agreed to with them. WoW is more closely akin to the stock market, a bank, a cable company or a telco provider in this regard.
Glider is specifically designed and used to interact with the WoW data service in a manner that is disallowed by the services operator and owners. While there may not be alot of case law involving "Virtual worlds or property", there is certainly a ton regarding private data services such as wow. Case law is quite firm in that you can only interact with such services in a mathod that the operators approve. In this regard Glider is exactly the same as the old phone phreaking that used to be used to get free long distance from the phone companies.
Alright, one more take on this... The box for 'World of Borecraft' has two boxes, one for men, and one for women. Subject to the terms of the EULA they decide to print plainly on the box, you can only play the version appropriate for your gender, and they start filing suits to keep the cross-geneder roleplay to a minimum. There are significant gameplay differences, but most people think it is a plus based on marked dynamics/statistics. Everyone of course, loves this. Stupid fakers. Next expansion out they come out with 4 boxes. Now each sex is broken up into whites and non-whites. The gameplay dynamic results come close enough, so no one complains much. It's printed plainly on the box, so if you don't like it- don't play. So, what happened here in this fiction was that a license did two things it clearly shouldn't in this country. 1. It encouraged sexual discrimination and possibly violated rights to privacy. 2. It totally blew away the idea of 'separate is not equal' and in it's small enviornment blew away lots of rights that were hard earned both before and after. end fiction Corporations are a legal 'entity' much like a person. This (in many teachings) stems back to a misinterpretation that has never been successfully challenged since it was made ages ago. Doesn't mean it's 'right'- it's just how it is now. In actuality, Blizzard is itself guilty (in my opinion) of tortious interference with copyright law. By printing what they did, they basicly usurp your rights as a consumer to first sale. Just because they print it- it has to be so, right? I mean the government is for nothing- corporations determine my rights! This has become accepted because no one has the resources (or has the resources and cares enough) to challenge it. In a lease agreement, you have an ONGOING contract. What is your initial purchase, if the 'lease' price is $15/month? Have any of you actually leased anything? "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck". I posted several links showing how judges have overruled exactly these 'Because we print it, it is so' shenanigans. Srondon, my point is clearly stated and specifically mention that Blizzards antics will strengthen and embolden Microsoft's position, becoming a potential development nightmare and consumer horror show. If they're smart, they'll leverage slowly- but ultimately your 'purchase' rights are gone now. So you guys who are saying... 'but the corporations- they said clearly...'- the point is- they can't. If It Looks Like a Duck . . . Seattle Judge Finds Software Was Sold, Not Licensed Liberation Day for Promo CDs: Victory in UMG v. Augusto These to findings (in the last 3 months clearly say- you can't just print what you want to get around the law. Read them.
Interesting... but completely irrelevant.
As far as the law is concerned WoW, or any subscription based MMORPG for that matter, is not software. It is a service that you subscribe to. The same as you subscribe to your phone service, your cable television service, etc etc. Service agreements for these types of arangements are typically held as fairly binding. And there is a ton of case law involving them, going back decades.
The only thing that you actually purchase is the media that contains the client software. Quite honestly Someone like glider probably can do whatever they want to the client on thier own PC... but once they then connect to the data service they are in violation of their agreements and the operator can take action.
Alright, one more take on this... The box for 'World of Borecraft' has two boxes, snip So, what happened here in this fiction was that a license did two things it clearly shouldn't in this country. 1. It encouraged sexual discrimination and possibly violated rights to privacy. 2. It totally blew away the idea of 'separate is not equal' and in it's small enviornment blew away lots of rights that were hard earned both before and after. end fiction Message was truncated to reserve space
The only issue with this hypothetical situation is that limiting product purchases by gender or race (besides being against your amendment rights) does NOTHING to protect their product or intellectual property. Preventing botting, scanning for suspicious programs, restricting private servers, etc. are all done to protect their IP. You made a jump that is unreasonable and unfounded.
There seems to be a lapse of communication, or rather an assortment of assumptions being made. I'm not arguing whether or not Blizzard SHOULD/DOES/WON'T/CAN'T/DOESN'T have the right to do something, I was simply responding to certain arguments made in this thread. People were arguing that Blizzard did not inform them of their EULA requirements and said that Blizzard changed their intentions and agreements after purchase. I pointed out that the box clearly defined Blizzard's intentions for the purchase and the registering of an account. I personally don't believe their "agreement" on the physical product and media itself holds any water, but regardless their intentions were, in fact, defined from the start.
Corporations are a legal 'entity' much like a person. This (in many teachings) stems back to a misinterpretation that has never been successfully challenged since it was made ages ago. Doesn't mean it's 'right'- it's just how it is now.
Let's not argue what is "right" and what is "wrong." Almost everything in the universe could easily be argued both ways if viewed from enough angles. What's important is what IS, not what SHOULD BE, and as you mentioned, they are an entity and should be entitled some rights to protect their IP (though again, I'm not arguing what those rights should be).
In actuality, Blizzard is itself guilty (in my opinion) of tortious interference with copyright law. By printing what they did, they basicly usurp your rights as a consumer to first sale. Just because they print it- it has to be so, right? I mean the government is for nothing- corporations determine my rights! This has become accepted because no one has the resources (or has the resources and cares enough) to challenge it.
Okay now this is silly. Blizzard cannot interfere with a contract that isn't made. Blizzard's intentions when putting the agreement information on the box is that you essentially waive your first sale right.Whether that is enforcable or not is not what I am arguing. All I am clarifying is that Blizzard's intentions are well-defined FROM THE VERY START. There is no deception.Whether Blizzard should have the power to assume those rights is a DIFFERENT DISCUSSION. That's not what I'm arguing.
In a lease agreement, you have an ONGOING contract. What is your initial purchase, if the 'lease' price is $15/month? Have any of you actually leased anything?
Well this is what I was pointing at earlier. Blizzard is essentially saying that the physical box and disk is a lease too. Again, I don't agree with this. The idea of the box and its contents being leased is silly considering that (as you mentioned) it is not an ongoing agreement and a one-time payment to own something indefinetely does not sound like a lease. On the other hand, the account access and subscription portion has many lease-like qualities to it. There is a monthly fee that you pay that renews your ability to use the software, likewise failure to pay this monthly fee removes your ability to actually play the game. The trick to this is the fact that the software remains on your computer even though you no longer pay the monthly fee. There really isn't a legal precedent that has been set that says whether you have ultimate rights to that software or Blizzard (I know you're going to bring up the two cases you mentioned, I cover those when we reach them).
"if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck". I posted several links showing how judges have overruled exactly these 'Because we print it, it is so' shenanigans.
The problem is now it looks like a duck but it honks like a goose. And again, with the monthly fee and required server access, this situation is a little different than the two you mentioned.
Srondon, my point is clearly stated and specifically mention that Blizzards antics will strengthen and embolden Microsoft's position, becoming a potential development nightmare and consumer horror show. If they're smart, they'll leverage slowly- but ultimately your 'purchase' rights are gone now.
I don't think Microsoft is going to gain any "emboldening" from this case. They pretty much feel they can do what they want as is, no emboldening required. And no, my purchase rights are still very much intact. The nice thing about the court system is a slippery slope can easily be stopped before it gets too slick. Sure in this case they rule in favor of Blizzard, but that doesn't mean every other situation will yield the same result. With the nature of companies and software in general, this type of thing goes on a case-by-case basis as opposed to an undeniable precedent.
So you guys who are saying... 'but the corporations- they said clearly...'- the point is- they can't.
Again, not what I'm arguing. I'm only pointing out their intentions, whether or not they can be enforced is up to another judge to decide. As long as I have the right to not purchase that software, I remain neutral.
I read them and they cover cases that are obvious. Like it is said, it looks, sounds, and moves like a duck. They bought the software at a one-time price and are never required to maintain an ongoing contract and are never required to return it. That is clearly not a lease. Both of those cases would really only set a precendent (MAYBE) that Blizzard isn't leasing the physical media itself (as stated on their box). However, the software in this situation would be different. The game itself requires that you maintain an ongoing contract and pay a monthly fee. By not paying the fee, you are unable to play the game. Starting to sound more like a lease to me...
This is the real question: What exactly are you leasing if, in fact, you are leasing anything at all? It could easily be argued that you are only leasing the server access and the game experience by playing the game on THEIR servers. In this case, private servers would be completely okay, as well as modifying data that makes your character appear different in-game etc. In this case, it is the portal connection of information between the server and you that is being leased. A little far-fetched but a much better situation for the consumer.
Or are you leasing the software itself and all the information contained therein. This disallows modification of any kind and makes private servers completely impermissable. It basically says that the consumer doesn't actually own anything at all, a sad turn of events indeed.
The interesting thing about this, however, is that in both of these cases, the maker of the Glider is STILL wrong because he created a program that automates actions specifically tailored for World of Warcraft. Automating things without user input is directly against the terms of use and affected other people negatively who were playing the game. In the first case, Glider was manipulating the information flow between the player and the server in a way it was not allowed to do. In the second scenario, Glider was interacting with the software in a way it was not allowed to do.
In any case, I really don't care as long as I can choose what I am allowed to purchase. I do not need to purchase Blizzard's World of Warcraft; that I can say for a fact. I do, however, by necessity, essentially need to purchase Windows so I can access my computer(Microsoft), food so I don't die of starvation (Wal-Mart), and I even purchase my own citizenship with the taxes I pay (The Government of the United States of America). That last one I didn't even choose.
IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, the rights assumed by a company for their product should be limited by the scope of that product. If it's something that people cannot do without, then further limitations should be placed on it. On the other hand, if it is something like a VIDEOGAME THAT YOU PLAY IN YOUR SPARE TIME, then it doesn't bother me that they assume more rights IF IT HELPS TO PROTECT THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. That way, if I find their measures are too drastic, I protect myself by not purchasing or installing the software.
No matter how complex you guys make the situation to be, the fact of the matter is it's very simple. You choose what rights you want to give. Choose wisely.
You're right. It is simple. Blah Bloop Bleebedy bloo
I've read a few pages of this nonsense so far. I stopped reading about halfway through. I'm not really sure what to make of all the conclusions that people have drawn, since all of them seem to be pulled from the air. What biofellis wrote especially. To start with, the judges here went by established 9th CircuitLlaw, and this decision changes essentially nothing. _All_ of the principles laid down by this decision have been 9th Circuit Law for a long time. Here are the actual basics of how this relates to end users, if you want to have actual knowledge. Draw your own conclusions.
The ruling: "Blizzard owns a valid copyright in the game client software, Blizzard has granted a limited license for WoW players to use the software, use of the software with Glider falls outside the scope of the license established in section 4 of the TOU, use of Glider includes copying to RAM within the meaning of section 106 of the Copyright Act, users of WoW and Glider are not entitled to a section 117 defense, and Glider users therefore infringe Blizzard’s copyright. MDY does not dispute that the other requirements for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement are met, nor has MDY established a misuse defense. The Court accordingly will grant summary judgment in favor of Blizzard with respect to liability on the contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims in Counts II and III."
Blah blah blah. What does this mean? Blizzard, in this case, made an old argument that is supported by many previous 9th Circuit rulings. The argument is as follows: since you must copy a piece of software to RAM to run it, it is automatically copyright infringement to use that software. It is only not copyright infringement if you are acting within the boundaries of your license. Hence, anybody who violates an EULA while using software is committing copyright infringement.
Now we're going to jump into a bit of law. You saw the numbers 117 and 106 mentioned above. Section 117 of the US Copyright Act says this: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or . . ." Basically, you can't be held liable for copying software to a machine when said step is necessary to use said software.
So it might seem to us that Section 117 and Blizzard's argument are contradictory. If you look at the above text from Section 117, though, you will notice the phrase, "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106". Section 106 establishes the rights that are exclusively held by the copyright owner (Blizzard here). As the judges in this case say, they are bound by 9th Circuit Law to follow the precedents set therein. The 9th Circuit interprets the copying of a program to RAM to fall under section 106 ("to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies"), rather than 117, thereby making it illegal except when the right is granted by license. Why? Well, the following case is part of that why. www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/991_F2d_511.htm The case follows the "copying to RAM is infringement" idea, but it happens to be more important for another small bit of language that was contained within it.
"Since MAI licensed its software, the Peak customers do not qualify as "owners" of the software and are not eligible for protection under § 117." What does that mean? It establishes mutual exclusivity between being a licensee and being an owner of software. According to this ruling, if a company is licensing their software to you, you cannot be an owner of a copy. You can only be one or the other. But who decides whether you own or license that copy of the software? Well, in deciding these issues, judges tend to use certain legal litmus tests created by looking at past precedents.
"Generally, if the copyright owner makes it clear that she or he is granting only a license to the copy of software and imposes significant restrictions on the purchaser’s ability to redistribute or transfer that copy, the purchaser is considered a licensee, not anowner, of the software."
So, basically, if you buy something with the understanding that you're getting a license rather than buying a copy to own it, then you are a licensee, not an owner. Most software companies have no problem establishing this because of two things. The first is that users are typically aware that some kind of a license agreement will be in place before they buy the software, even if they ignore it. The second is that users see the license agreement before they install the software, so they are forced to be aware of its presence.
And that's where it gets back to the applicability of Section 117. If you are a licensee, not an owner of a copy of software, you are only granted those rights afforded you by the license, not the rights afforded to owner of a copy of software. Section 117 only applies to owners.
What does this ultimately mean for end users? It means that you can essentially face statutory penalties for copyright infringement for doing anything that violates the EULA. Guess what, though? That has always been the clear interpretation of 9th Circuit Law. I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is. Nothing has changed. I guess biofellis and the other moron freedom whiners righteous patriots who have zero understanding of the law here their own strong opinions want a district court to go against a clear trend in precedent and rewrite the law to what they would like it to be. That would be justice, I suppose. Anyhow, mdy will appeal. It will go to the 9th Circuit Court. The 9th Circuit Court is actually in the position to reexamine their own precedents. So if a decision is made to change this trend, it will be made there, where it should be made.
Anyhow, I'm really tired. I think I'm gonna go to sleep. I'd need like two or three posts more of this length to clear up all the wrong things biofellis and others have said, and I'm too lazy for now. For now, just take my advice, and at all costs, scour everything they said involving the words "fair use" from your mind.
I think the laws are ridiculous when a player is allowed to play a game he owns, but not allowed to use a software wich copies the game to RAM to run the game.
He specifically states that the use of it by players is infringing on Blizzard's copyright with his verdict, thereby making it illegal.
I think it's not hard to make a case that an emulator running WoW is at least just as much infringing on WoW's copyright, if not more so.
Everyone just keep eating this shit up.... What amazes me is that gamers are to ****ing stupid to realize that with a ruling like this, the courts are and will continue, to eat away at every right you "think" you have, and eventually take them all away.
Good job Blizzard, you just opened a door for the legal system in the good ol us of A (gag) to pretty much tell me what I can have on MY computer. Something I paid in upwards of $4000.00 for but soon might as well be a paper weight, because all the courts are going to let me have on the damn thing is a copy of WoW, and pinball.... oh and Microsoft products..... yay!!!! Im so damn happy right now!
Man I wish people were smarter, I wish I could even give people the benefit of the doubt that we even deserve to exist....
Police state here we come !!! WOOHOO!
honestly!?!?! are you kidding me?
you really said that.
are you paying the thousands and thousands of dollars it costs to house all those servers for one single shard of wow? no i dont think so. you own the software that runs the client that LOGS onto a remote server of wow. you dont own the server. you play on it using software that accesses it. but no thats cool lets continue to load third party software into the ram of the computer that will run the program exploiting the system, client, and server completely so someone can cheat and get ahead most likely to sell gold for money raising up the entire server economy and ruining it for everyone playing so they have to start spending extra money to buy gold to keep up with those that cheat.
come on everyone! lets all buy some bots so we can all ruin the game together! so we don't have to worry about this country turning into a police state! because the correlation between the two is completely attingent with eachother!
thanks for pointing that out! i never would of noticed had you not send anything.
Comments
Just read the END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT that was included with the software when you purchased it. You never own software unless it states that you do. There are 4 pages to this document which is at the back of the game manual that I am looking at right now. I will list the headings to a few of the sections, but I won't put down everything that is written. You all need to read it for yourself.
1. Grant of a Limited Use License.
2. Service and Terms of Use.
3. Ownership.
4. Responsibilities of End User.
5. Consent to Monitor. This is the monitoring of your computer's RAM
6. Termination.
7. Export Controls.
8. Patches and Updates
9. Duration of the "On-line" Component of the Game.
10. Limited Warranty.
11. Limitation of Liability, Indemnity.
12. Equitable Remedies.
13. Changes to the Agreement.
14. Dispute Resolution and Governing Law.
a. Informal Negotiations.
b. Binding Arbitration.
c. Restrictions.
d. Exceptions to Informal Negotiations and Arbitration.
e. Location.
f. Governing Law.
g. Severability.
Most of it is pretty straight forward and is not in all the legal talk usually found in legal documents.
Beyond what I put down here let's just try and keep things civil.
.
I think most of us know that Blizzard has done nothing wrong here. This is just a natural retaliation towards someone stealing and ruining their product.
But I think some have a problem with how the judge ruled the case. I don't really see what that problem is. What kind of signal would have been sent if the glider guy won the case? I bet we would see a lot more bot programs in the near future. And you would hardly ever see any real people in the game at all. Just bots everywhere. That would certainly destory the game completely.
.
No. Most of you think Blizzard has done nothing wrong. That's for the court to decide- it has been decided, and you know what? It can go to a higher court for an appeal till it gets to the supreme court, where it will be decided for good (until a slightly different case possibly makes them re-evaluate/overturn that decision.)
No one STOLE Blizzards product. The judge ruled there was no DMCA violation, which means the programs- as written is a legal product that does not infringe on their copyright (DMCA= Digital Millennium Copyright Act).
I think some of you have a problem with informing yourselves in the slightest as to the actual facts in the case. I have made it easy- read any of my posts for links. It's not just me spouting my own groundless opinion. I'm not claiming I'm right or that the judge is 'definitely wrong', just that my position can be supported by facts, and many others (lawyers, and other law knowledgeable consumer rights groups) are unhappy as well. It is a debatable opinion.
What kind of signal would have been sent? That I suppose is the real issue, and the law can't always handle that one. Why don't we get rid of 'Double Jeopardy'- just in case someone gets off scott-free for a crime, and brags about it? What kind of signal does that send? We'll just retry 'em till they're guilty.
A lot of other bot programs are written more simply- they use all the excess information Blizzard themself supplies to the client to control the bot. Let me rephrase that- they use information Blizzard supplies to the client for botting, that arguably could only be used for botting. So... They could stop providing that data?
And please... please, please, please don't get me started on the intensely, cerebral, invigorating and rewarding 'whack-a-mole' style gameplay that undisputably couldn't be improved in any way which could be more engaging that a mindless automaton couldn't be programmed to do it.
And I won't touch the time-honored investment vs reward aspects of their awesome game design. I mean- everyone should have to grind a few dozen hours just so they can ride a mount. I mean everyone loves being teased for 39 levels just to get a 50% speed increase so they can do more mindless tasks a bot could do, a little bit faster. Blizzard doesn't even see fit to limit their mounted NPCs to 40+.
But yeah- sue someone because change is bad. Simple.
Oh, and for Destroying game balance completely- just wait for the nest expansion.
It's actually very, very simple, and most people have completely missed the point by posting all sorts of nonsense about what's copied by RAM, etc., which is a red herring.
It's tortious inferference.
Let's say for example, a car dealership is selling cars for X dollars, and this model is hard to get, and they have to order it. So you sign a contract with a car dealer to buy the next car that comes in for X dollars.
Someone else shows up, and they want the car too. So they tell the car dealer, give me the next car, break your contract with that guy, and here's some money to do it. This person would be interfering with the contract between you and the car dealer, and you could sue him for tortious interference.
When you buy an MMORPG and play it, you enter into a license agreement with the Publisher that says you won't use bots.
When someone says, here's a bot program, break your contract (EULA) with the gaming company, and use my bot program, they are interfering with your contract, just like the example above. It's tortious interference.
All the baloney about, but I can load programs into my RaM, and they can't stop me, bla bla bla, is just missing the point.
"
Let's try this from another angle.
A judge suddenly decides you don't own your car."
I am still trying to figure out how I botted my car...
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
That example doesn't make a lot of sense.
You are correct, that is what happened—it never was a copy write infringement at anytime. So I see after an appeal that the only thing that is true is---the Glider Company committed tortuous interference.
However, I can see this still being hard---Wouldn’t Blizzard have to prove that this program undermined their ability to live up to their contract that they sign with the players. Did Glider in anyway shape or form cost money Blizzared money?(Besides when the ban people for using the program)
However, the Glider company should use the same strategy when protecting the use of Glider. Blizzard has bad more money with this product, being available to the players. And that this Program was also designed to Help those that are handicapped, the ability to be able to play the game.
And if an individual was using this product while sitting at their computer, and being involved when glider was being used—was the player actually playing the game or was he not?
All in all I think this is the dumbest lawsuit every in the gamming industry---it’s a game, and if by someone gliding affects an individual playing a game---then there is more to this issue.
Meaning the players that cry and wine, about a glider
You are correct, that is what happened—it never was a copy write infringement at anytime. So I see after an appeal that the only thing that is true is---the Glider Company committed tortuous interference.
However, I can see this still being hard---Wouldn’t Blizzard have to prove that this program undermined their ability to live up to their contract that they sign with the players. Did Glider in anyway shape or form cost money Blizzared money?(Besides when the ban people for using the program)
However, the Glider company should use the same strategy when protecting the use of Glider. Blizzard has bad more money with this product, being available to the players. And that this Program was also designed to Help those that are handicapped, the ability to be able to play the game.
And if an individual was using this product while sitting at their computer, and being involved when glider was being used—was the player actually playing the game or was he not?
All in all I think this is the dumbest lawsuit every in the gamming industry---it’s a game, and if by someone gliding affects an individual playing a game---then there is more to this issue.
Meaning the players that cry and wine, about a glider
Of course it costs Blizzard money, why do you think they are sueing Glider in the first place?
For kicks and giggles?
And about the 'whining' part. If you ever played Lineage 2 you would know how 1 bot program can completely destroy the experience of OTHERS who don't use it, in the game.
You are correct, that is what happened—it never was a copy write infringement at anytime. So I see after an appeal that the only thing that is true is---the Glider Company committed tortuous interference.
However, I can see this still being hard---Wouldn’t Blizzard have to prove that this program undermined their ability to live up to their contract that they sign with the players. Did Glider in anyway shape or form cost money Blizzared money?(Besides when the ban people for using the program)
However, the Glider company should use the same strategy when protecting the use of Glider. Blizzard has bad more money with this product, being available to the players. And that this Program was also designed to Help those that are handicapped, the ability to be able to play the game.
And if an individual was using this product while sitting at their computer, and being involved when glider was being used—was the player actually playing the game or was he not?
All in all I think this is the dumbest lawsuit every in the gamming industry---it’s a game, and if by someone gliding affects an individual playing a game---then there is more to this issue.
Meaning the players that cry and wine, about a glider
Of course it costs Blizzard money, why do you think they are sueing Glider in the first place?
For kicks and giggles?
And about the 'whining' part. If you ever played Lineage 2 you would know how 1 bot program can completely destroy the experience of OTHERS who don't use it, in the game.
The law suit only shows that the maker of Glider gain profit over the use of Blizzard's game, but it will be hard for Blizzard to prove that Glider actually cost them money when it comes down to it.
How do you prove if someone is costing you money? Losing customers? (yeh, but if Blizzard is gaining subs, then this isn't easy to prove.)
So yeah, suing Glider isn't really because it costs Blizzard any money (at least they can't prove it), but it is making a profit with Blizzard's game without their consent.
From players' point of view, it is a good action. But from a consumers' view, it is a bad ruling...
Current MMO: FFXIV:ARR
Past MMO: Way too many (P2P and F2P)
This has been a very interest and extremely entertaining subject for me. I have read through the entire thread and looked at all the arguments, I still have to say that I am not against the ruling that took place (that is not to say, however, that I am for it either).
There have been a few things, however, that have been misinterpreted or misunderstood. The first and most major of these is the idea that you agree to the EULA on PURCHASE as to opposed to on utilization of the software. I don't have the original box handy; I do, however, have my Burning Crusade expansion and I notice on the top of the box it says," The contents of this box are subject to the terms of an End User License Agreement available at http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html, and all use of the product is subject to the World of Warcraft Terms of Use which you must accept before you can register an account. . . . "
So yes, not only are you informed ahead of time about the Terms of Use that you must accept in order to register an account to access the game, the very product itself is subject to a EULA as it is stated on the box. You, as the consumer, have the responsibility of reviewing this document and deciding whether or not you would like your purchased product to be subject to such an agreement. Ignorance of such a document or its terms provides absolutely no excuse under the law and by simply UTILIZING the contents of the box, you are assumed to be in agreement with said agreement.
Another thing people have argued is that if they do make the mistake of purchasing the product (but not agreeing to the terms outlined by Blizzard) then they have no way of returning it due to the strict return policies that many distributors enforce. To these people I say READ THE FRIGGIN AGREEMENT OR READ THE ENTIRE THREAD BEFORE POSTING. In the agreement it clearly states this
"2. Service and Terms of Use. As mentioned above, you must accept the Terms of Use in order to access the Service to play the Game. The Terms of Use agreement governs all aspects of game play. You may view the Terms of Use by visiting the following website: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.shtml. If you do not agree with the Terms of Use, then (a) you may not register for an Account to play the Game, and (b) you may call (800)757-7707 within thirty (30) days after the original purchase to arrange to return the Game and to request a full refund of the purchase price. Once you accept the License Agreement and the Terms of Use, you will no longer be eligible for a refund. "
There is a number you can call so you don't even have to deal with the company that distributed it to you. Pappy13 was nice enough to post this much earlier in the topic, but apparently no one bothered to read it.
Now the minors accepting agreements thing is a VERY tricky subject. Again, if you read the agreement, you'll have seen how Blizzard tries to handle this. Essentially, a minor CANNOT hold an account, ever. Instead, a GUARDIAN has to hold the account and they can assign ONE minor that is UNDER THEIR LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP access to the account as well. Essentially they are making the parents legally reponsible, but making it so they can allow their child to play as well. Essentially, under this contract the minor is never agreeing to anything.
The tricky thing comes with the pressing of "ACCEPT" when that huge wall of text comes up. The child, obviously, cannot accept any agreement that would be legally binding, but they are usually the ones to press it anyways. This is handled by the fact that simply UTILIZING the software subjects you to the EULA and Terms of Use. The big block of text with the "ACCEPT" button is merely a way of getting the message across more clearly. By simply USING the software, you are assumed to be in agreement with said contracts. So if a child uses the software and plays the game, then their guardian who registered the account is assumed to be in compliance with the agreements. <-- That last bit has been shaky for some time and hasn't had any real legal backing or precendent until now (even now it doesn't really have any backing). But that's the way Blizzard and other companies TRY to set up their agreements.
The box is even trickier. I suppose the idea is that it is okay for a minor to PURCHASE the product but because it is clearly subject to the EULA, they are not legally allowed to utilize any of the contents. I would also imagine any damages caused by a minor either ignoring or simply being ignorant of what they are allowed to use would fall to the parents since they are responsible for their children's actions.
This, however, is all theory and conjecture for the most part. The fact of the matter is courts often rule differently in these matters, and like many people have said, this has a high potential for appeal.
My main concern with this ruling is that I'm not concerned. Everything is in the agreements. How you can use the product, what Warden is allowed to scan, consequences for misusing it, it's all there. My true main issue is the people who say their "rights" are being trampled upon. The fact of the matter is YOU have ALL the rights. You have the right to not purchase, use, or interact with the product, its contents or software. By waiving this specific right, you also waive several others. If you don't like the terms outlined by them, >>>DON'T BUY IT OR USE IT<<<. Guys this is a videogame. This isn't technology for heart surgery or the enlightenment of human kind, IT'S FRIGGIN WORLD OF WARCRAFT. You do not NEED to buy this in ANY WAY. By CHOOSING to do so, you knowingly (or it seems in most cases, unknowingly) completely AGREE TO THEIR TERMS.
Simply put, If WoW threatened to take away my rights in its agreements, guess what, I wouldn't agree to them by NOT BUYING IT. Now MICROSOFT Windows, that's a whole other discussion. You pretty much NEED Windows. Yeah you could get some other crappy operating system, but let's face it, Windows is king. I find it funny you find Blizzard's antics more disturbing than Microsoft's.
You guys are really close to this, but missing it just by a bit...
1. Publishers DO have to go to an owner of an OS such as Microsoft to make any program that runs on their system. They develop most if not all tools or other parties who had to go threw them to get it developed. So yes, in a way (depending on the situation) every piece of software pays royalty to Microsoft. As a coder I know this.
2. Licensing agreements are all different, in this industry we have leases, we have ownership rights, we have limit usage a ton of variations all depending on what it is. For me, when I developed for my clients, they "own" what I code when I am done and paid in full. It is in every contract I have ever agreed upon. However if you look for example at my coding software, let's say Navicat. In their license agreement I bought a personal license for development reasons. In this, I cannot rightfully load this into a client machine and let them have use of it as I do. It is against my agreement. So taking that into consideration, when you "bought" the blizzard game, you didn't buy really anything, you actually only bought the DVD to make the ease of installation more simple and the "right" to play the software on their servers if you "agreed" on the usage of that software which you did when you bought in the first place
3. What this guy did was in direct violation of their property. He made a program that made a profit off their system which in turn forced blizzards hand to ban people who used said product then loosing those individuals membership costing the company money paying employees to deal with the issue, paying lawyers to close this guy down and again loosing money from all those people banned because they had a program available to cheat the system so to speak. If they had no access to such, they still would have most likely been paying customers. Of course you can argue that last one, but it can be put in as a lost of sales due to what this guy has done.
What this all comes down to is simple and people have said it here as plain as plain can be, if you rip off my stuff I am going to sue your butt off! Trust me, as a coder I have and I would in a heart beat, that is my code friends not yours, you don't like it, don't agree to use it the way I offer it. If this was a government program or something, fine the "people" own it and you have something to stand on, but blizzard is just like me and every other development house out there. If you mess with our stuff the way it was not intended and you agreed or even NOT agreed, you bet I will be all over you with a lawsuit faster then you can say supercalafragilisticespealadoshes! Because some here seem to say "well who actually reads..." and my response is, I have proof what you are using is mine and you shouldn't have it. So guess what? You just have stolen my stuff.
Edit: Finally I should for the sake of this discussion give a relevant example of blizzards issue, you agreed to their license in the use of their product the way they seemed fit. If I made a contract (which I have in this case as well) that stated a client is allowed to use my program in a certain manner (in this case only on one server within this company) then that is it. If it seen anywhere used in any other means by another party I can pull the license and sue them for breach of contract and get retribution. While blizzards agreement with it's customers is not a full fledge contract per-say, you as a consumer were informed prior to your purchase, prior to your logging into the system and agreed upon it. Just as much as signing a document for a credit card. Sorry but the only person loosing anything here is the guy who broke the agreement. Many among the development world are very glad we are finally seeing software infringements actually being handled as a property. We made it, we paid others to get tools to make it or developed our own and just like the guy that grows the food we buy. He works just as hard as we do to make a living and I definitely don't want to see some punk kid get a way with stealing my life’s work by any means.
Nuff said I think.
"The monster created isn't by the company that makes the game, it's by the fans that make it something it never was"
.
While your example is true on something to worry about, any country with the full fledge freedoms has a cost and now in the USA the people are learning the cost of that freedom, as freedom itself is costing them to loose just that. Rules and laws are there to protect the over all well being of the people at large. When common sense is used there really is no problem, when those that would abuse such freedom for personal gain are the same that are nitching away at the very freedoms you are trying to protect your on a loosing battle. Blizzard is protecting their IP, as much as you like to argue this sets a precedence for other things, this guy used their IP to make personal gain. IE broke their agreement with him as an individual who had to buy the game, rent an account to play WoW and in the end sniff all the memory to see what does what so his little "cheat" program could do all the work.
Your argument is nill, because in almost every single instance of court battles, you can say "this sets a precedence for chaos!" You have freedoms and you don't want those freedoms taken away, yet it was the same freedoms that allow companies like blizzard to exist. What I think the real point here is, you could care less about some big corporation that is taking your money to play "their" game. I mean the guy with that gun to your head saying "Play WOW or die now" is right there with you right?
The only freedoms you and your conspiracy brethren are loosing is the freedom to cheat others.
"The monster created isn't by the company that makes the game, it's by the fans that make it something it never was"
.
.
Actually the judge can tell you precisely that... because of one simple fact that everyone ignores.
WoW is not a game that you own. WoW and any MMO for that matter, is a Subscription Data Service. You can run whatever you want on your computer. But as soon as you connect it to any subscription data service you are subject to the terms you agreed to with them. WoW is more closely akin to the stock market, a bank, a cable company or a telco provider in this regard.
Glider is specifically designed and used to interact with the WoW data service in a manner that is disallowed by the services operator and owners. While there may not be alot of case law involving "Virtual worlds or property", there is certainly a ton regarding private data services such as wow. Case law is quite firm in that you can only interact with such services in a mathod that the operators approve. In this regard Glider is exactly the same as the old phone phreaking that used to be used to get free long distance from the phone companies.
Interesting... but completely irrelevant.
As far as the law is concerned WoW, or any subscription based MMORPG for that matter, is not software. It is a service that you subscribe to. The same as you subscribe to your phone service, your cable television service, etc etc. Service agreements for these types of arangements are typically held as fairly binding. And there is a ton of case law involving them, going back decades.
The only thing that you actually purchase is the media that contains the client software. Quite honestly Someone like glider probably can do whatever they want to the client on thier own PC... but once they then connect to the data service they are in violation of their agreements and the operator can take action.
There seems to be a lapse of communication, or rather an assortment of assumptions being made. I'm not arguing whether or not Blizzard SHOULD/DOES/WON'T/CAN'T/DOESN'T have the right to do something, I was simply responding to certain arguments made in this thread. People were arguing that Blizzard did not inform them of their EULA requirements and said that Blizzard changed their intentions and agreements after purchase. I pointed out that the box clearly defined Blizzard's intentions for the purchase and the registering of an account. I personally don't believe their "agreement" on the physical product and media itself holds any water, but regardless their intentions were, in fact, defined from the start.
Let's not argue what is "right" and what is "wrong." Almost everything in the universe could easily be argued both ways if viewed from enough angles. What's important is what IS, not what SHOULD BE, and as you mentioned, they are an entity and should be entitled some rights to protect their IP (though again, I'm not arguing what those rights should be). Okay now this is silly. Blizzard cannot interfere with a contract that isn't made. Blizzard's intentions when putting the agreement information on the box is that you essentially waive your first sale right.Whether that is enforcable or not is not what I am arguing. All I am clarifying is that Blizzard's intentions are well-defined FROM THE VERY START. There is no deception.Whether Blizzard should have the power to assume those rights is a DIFFERENT DISCUSSION. That's not what I'm arguing. Well this is what I was pointing at earlier. Blizzard is essentially saying that the physical box and disk is a lease too. Again, I don't agree with this. The idea of the box and its contents being leased is silly considering that (as you mentioned) it is not an ongoing agreement and a one-time payment to own something indefinetely does not sound like a lease. On the other hand, the account access and subscription portion has many lease-like qualities to it. There is a monthly fee that you pay that renews your ability to use the software, likewise failure to pay this monthly fee removes your ability to actually play the game. The trick to this is the fact that the software remains on your computer even though you no longer pay the monthly fee. There really isn't a legal precedent that has been set that says whether you have ultimate rights to that software or Blizzard (I know you're going to bring up the two cases you mentioned, I cover those when we reach them). The problem is now it looks like a duck but it honks like a goose. And again, with the monthly fee and required server access, this situation is a little different than the two you mentioned. I don't think Microsoft is going to gain any "emboldening" from this case. They pretty much feel they can do what they want as is, no emboldening required. And no, my purchase rights are still very much intact. The nice thing about the court system is a slippery slope can easily be stopped before it gets too slick. Sure in this case they rule in favor of Blizzard, but that doesn't mean every other situation will yield the same result. With the nature of companies and software in general, this type of thing goes on a case-by-case basis as opposed to an undeniable precedent. Again, not what I'm arguing. I'm only pointing out their intentions, whether or not they can be enforced is up to another judge to decide. As long as I have the right to not purchase that software, I remain neutral. I read them and they cover cases that are obvious. Like it is said, it looks, sounds, and moves like a duck. They bought the software at a one-time price and are never required to maintain an ongoing contract and are never required to return it. That is clearly not a lease. Both of those cases would really only set a precendent (MAYBE) that Blizzard isn't leasing the physical media itself (as stated on their box). However, the software in this situation would be different. The game itself requires that you maintain an ongoing contract and pay a monthly fee. By not paying the fee, you are unable to play the game. Starting to sound more like a lease to me...This is the real question:
What exactly are you leasing if, in fact, you are leasing anything at all? It could easily be argued that you are only leasing the server access and the game experience by playing the game on THEIR servers. In this case, private servers would be completely okay, as well as modifying data that makes your character appear different in-game etc. In this case, it is the portal connection of information between the server and you that is being leased. A little far-fetched but a much better situation for the consumer.
Or are you leasing the software itself and all the information contained therein. This disallows modification of any kind and makes private servers completely impermissable. It basically says that the consumer doesn't actually own anything at all, a sad turn of events indeed.
The interesting thing about this, however, is that in both of these cases, the maker of the Glider is STILL wrong because he created a program that automates actions specifically tailored for World of Warcraft. Automating things without user input is directly against the terms of use and affected other people negatively who were playing the game. In the first case, Glider was manipulating the information flow between the player and the server in a way it was not allowed to do. In the second scenario, Glider was interacting with the software in a way it was not allowed to do.
In any case, I really don't care as long as I can choose what I am allowed to purchase. I do not need to purchase Blizzard's World of Warcraft; that I can say for a fact. I do, however, by necessity, essentially need to purchase Windows so I can access my computer(Microsoft), food so I don't die of starvation (Wal-Mart), and I even purchase my own citizenship with the taxes I pay (The Government of the United States of America). That last one I didn't even choose.
IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, the rights assumed by a company for their product should be limited by the scope of that product. If it's something that people cannot do without, then further limitations should be placed on it. On the other hand, if it is something like a VIDEOGAME THAT YOU PLAY IN YOUR SPARE TIME, then it doesn't bother me that they assume more rights IF IT HELPS TO PROTECT THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. That way, if I find their measures are too drastic, I protect myself by not purchasing or installing the software.
No matter how complex you guys make the situation to be, the fact of the matter is it's very simple. You choose what rights you want to give. Choose wisely.
.
I've read a few pages of this nonsense so far. I stopped reading about halfway through. I'm not really sure what to make of all the conclusions that people have drawn, since all of them seem to be pulled from the air. What biofellis wrote especially. To start with, the judges here went by established 9th CircuitLlaw, and this decision changes essentially nothing. _All_ of the principles laid down by this decision have been 9th Circuit Law for a long time. Here are the actual basics of how this relates to end users, if you want to have actual knowledge. Draw your own conclusions.
The ruling: "Blizzard owns a valid copyright in the game client software, Blizzard has granted a limited license for WoW players to use the software, use of the software with Glider falls outside the scope of the license established in section 4 of the TOU, use of Glider includes copying to RAM within the meaning of section 106 of the Copyright Act, users of WoW and Glider are not entitled to a section 117 defense, and Glider users therefore infringe Blizzard’s copyright. MDY does not dispute that the other requirements for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement are met, nor has MDY established a misuse defense. The Court accordingly will grant summary judgment in favor of Blizzard with respect to liability on the contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims in Counts II and III."
Blah blah blah. What does this mean? Blizzard, in this case, made an old argument that is supported by many previous 9th Circuit rulings. The argument is as follows: since you must copy a piece of software to RAM to run it, it is automatically copyright infringement to use that software. It is only not copyright infringement if you are acting within the boundaries of your license. Hence, anybody who violates an EULA while using software is committing copyright infringement.
Now we're going to jump into a bit of law. You saw the numbers 117 and 106 mentioned above. Section 117 of the US Copyright Act says this: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or . . ." Basically, you can't be held liable for copying software to a machine when said step is necessary to use said software.
So it might seem to us that Section 117 and Blizzard's argument are contradictory. If you look at the above text from Section 117, though, you will notice the phrase, "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106". Section 106 establishes the rights that are exclusively held by the copyright owner (Blizzard here). As the judges in this case say, they are bound by 9th Circuit Law to follow the precedents set therein. The 9th Circuit interprets the copying of a program to RAM to fall under section 106 ("to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies"), rather than 117, thereby making it illegal except when the right is granted by license. Why? Well, the following case is part of that why. www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/991_F2d_511.htm The case follows the "copying to RAM is infringement" idea, but it happens to be more important for another small bit of language that was contained within it.
"Since MAI licensed its software, the Peak customers do not qualify as "owners" of the software and are not eligible for protection under § 117." What does that mean? It establishes mutual exclusivity between being a licensee and being an owner of software. According to this ruling, if a company is licensing their software to you, you cannot be an owner of a copy. You can only be one or the other. But who decides whether you own or license that copy of the software? Well, in deciding these issues, judges tend to use certain legal litmus tests created by looking at past precedents.
If you go to page 23 of the following document, you will see this decision: http://www.gehrkelaw.com/files/wall_data_inc.%20v.%20Los%20Angeles%20County%20Sheriff's%20Dep't.pdf
"Generally, if the copyright owner makes it clear that she or he is granting only a license to the copy of software and imposes significant restrictions on the purchaser’s ability to redistribute or transfer that copy, the purchaser is considered a licensee, not anowner, of the software."
So, basically, if you buy something with the understanding that you're getting a license rather than buying a copy to own it, then you are a licensee, not an owner. Most software companies have no problem establishing this because of two things. The first is that users are typically aware that some kind of a license agreement will be in place before they buy the software, even if they ignore it. The second is that users see the license agreement before they install the software, so they are forced to be aware of its presence.
And that's where it gets back to the applicability of Section 117. If you are a licensee, not an owner of a copy of software, you are only granted those rights afforded you by the license, not the rights afforded to owner of a copy of software. Section 117 only applies to owners.
What does this ultimately mean for end users? It means that you can essentially face statutory penalties for copyright infringement for doing anything that violates the EULA. Guess what, though? That has always been the clear interpretation of 9th Circuit Law. I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is. Nothing has changed. I guess biofellis and the other moron freedom whiners righteous patriots who have zero understanding of the law here their own strong opinions want a district court to go against a clear trend in precedent and rewrite the law to what they would like it to be. That would be justice, I suppose. Anyhow, mdy will appeal. It will go to the 9th Circuit Court. The 9th Circuit Court is actually in the position to reexamine their own precedents. So if a decision is made to change this trend, it will be made there, where it should be made.
Anyhow, I'm really tired. I think I'm gonna go to sleep. I'd need like two or three posts more of this length to clear up all the wrong things biofellis and others have said, and I'm too lazy for now. For now, just take my advice, and at all costs, scour everything they said involving the words "fair use" from your mind.
.
In the end the only thing that matters is where you put your money.
Have problem with a game or service, can it and find a new one. Nothing says your forced to keep shelling out $$$ to some faceless corp.
Or be a slave to the machine, step into line and follow the sheep.
He specifically states that the use of it by players is infringing on Blizzard's copyright with his verdict, thereby making it illegal.
I think it's not hard to make a case that an emulator running WoW is at least just as much infringing on WoW's copyright, if not more so.
Everyone just keep eating this shit up.... What amazes me is that gamers are to ****ing stupid to realize that with a ruling like this, the courts are and will continue, to eat away at every right you "think" you have, and eventually take them all away.
Good job Blizzard, you just opened a door for the legal system in the good ol us of A (gag) to pretty much tell me what I can have on MY computer. Something I paid in upwards of $4000.00 for but soon might as well be a paper weight, because all the courts are going to let me have on the damn thing is a copy of WoW, and pinball.... oh and Microsoft products..... yay!!!! Im so damn happy right now!
Man I wish people were smarter, I wish I could even give people the benefit of the doubt that we even deserve to exist....
Police state here we come !!! WOOHOO!
honestly!?!?! are you kidding me?
you really said that.
are you paying the thousands and thousands of dollars it costs to house all those servers for one single shard of wow? no i dont think so. you own the software that runs the client that LOGS onto a remote server of wow. you dont own the server. you play on it using software that accesses it. but no thats cool lets continue to load third party software into the ram of the computer that will run the program exploiting the system, client, and server completely so someone can cheat and get ahead most likely to sell gold for money raising up the entire server economy and ruining it for everyone playing so they have to start spending extra money to buy gold to keep up with those that cheat.
come on everyone! lets all buy some bots so we can all ruin the game together! so we don't have to worry about this country turning into a police state! because the correlation between the two is completely attingent with eachother!
thanks for pointing that out! i never would of noticed had you not send anything.