FPS bots are a bit different in that they go above and beyond what a player could do themselves. MMORPG bots (and Diablo bots included) only do what a player themselves could do with a huge amount of free time (and perhaps a greater amount of patience).
We made spread sheets to automate batches of calculation tasks so we can get to the important stuff. Similarly, someone made a bot to bypass the boring parts of a game to get to the important stuff (raiding, PvP, enjoying nice mounts, whatever).
Yes, most MMORPGs have bots. And yes, most MMORPGs are badly designed.
If you feel the game is badly designed then........................don't play it.
No no, instead you reason like this:
"It's badly designed so that makes it ok to violate copyrights and cheat."
In the real world it doesn't work like that, and Michael Donnelly just found that out in court, and I'm 100% on Blizzards side on this.
Already done. Or already not-done. Or... Something. But yes, I don't play most MMORPGs because they're slow and repetitive. All of the "good" features don't come until 300+ hours into it.
I personally find it retarded that a person can be sued for writing software that is, at worst, as malicious as giving the average joe a bunch of traffic cones to set out in the street (taking up space "legit" players would be using). But, given the way the game is, it's relatively trivial to copy and paste more lanes so other people can do their thing.
This man creates tools. Suing him would be akin to suing Smith and Wesson for making tools that kill people.
What you think really doesn't matter. He violated the rules and now he's paying for it.
Originally posted by Waterlily Your analogy makes no sense, this was about a direct copyright violation that was easy to identify by the judge. What in gods name does that have to do with an arms distributer.
Sorry, but I don't see any copyright violation. Players of games are allowed to copy the game to memory to launch the game. Once it's in the memory, it can be altered at whim just as much as you can alter a piece of artwork after you purchase it.
If Glider copies the game to memory, it's no different than if the player launched a second copy of the game on the same machine. I would dare say that falls into fair use rights, as again, it is a required step to utilize the program in the first place. That would be like viewing a piece of art the museum, "copying" the art inside my head, and then imagining how that "copy" of the art might look different with a couple of changes. The art is never duplicated in any meaningful sense, nor is it distributed, nor is the original creator denied anything. I fail to see how the publisher is damaged in any way protected by a copyright sense.
The damages are that of a poorer experience of players and lower revenue from players that manage to "beat" the game sooner with the help of this tool. These are related to the service, not to the software.
Btw, you do own the game after you've bought it. But as I said eariler, it's pretty useless unless you connect to the servers. So I don't see where your going with this really? In reality, you are leasing the game because your playing on blizzards servers. You can poke around in the game as much as you want on your local machine, but when you connect to blizzard's servers you are in their world. Pretty simple.
Not you don't. At least not anymore.
A judge determined that we as consumers did not buy the game, but instead leased the software.
I don't know any other way to say this so that you understand.
In reality I made a purchase to own the game. I agreed to lease time on a server when I clicked I agree. At no point prior to agreeing to the EULA did I sign an agreement to lease software. I feel that I've been overly clear in my direction.
Maybe this is easier to understand.
I DON'T LIKE LAWS BEING CHANGED TO SUIT A CORPORATION.
Untill this ruling there was no copyright violation because we owned the software. The judge changed the context of our purchase and is now saying that what we did when we gave money to a cashier was lease software not buy it. Were you told that when you baught the game? Why is it ok for your rights as a consumer to be undermined so that a single guy can be punished?
It wouldn't be ok for a judge to determine that all dodge cars that were baught to own are really only leases so that dodge can put a stop to aftermarket parts being sold. Why is this any dif. or ok?
What you think really doesn't matter. He violated the rules and now he's paying for it.
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach.
And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
Sorry, but I don't see any copyright violation. Players of games are allowed to copy the game to memory to launch the game. Once it's in the memory, it can be altered at whim just as much as you can alter a piece of artwork after you purchase it.
EULA says otherwise. And so do copyright laws.
If you take a game Blizzard designed, and you make a program that automates it so it runs the way you want it, bypassing Blizzards server rules and bypassing all the work Blizzard put in the game to let people experience the world like it was supposed to , you bet you'd be violating Blizzards copyright.
You really don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where this would not be just 'happily welcomed' and tolerated by Blizzard.
They shouldn't let the guy walk all over them.
They even WARNED him to take the program down before they sued him, so there you go, he even got a warning before they sued.
What you think really doesn't matter. He violated the rules and now he's paying for it.
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach.
And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
Well then, he is sqanerding his talent and should know better that he should have been working on the robot. Live and Learn.
If I had a business and someone was doing something that I thought was detrimental to the business I would sue him until I couldn't sue "no more".
Well, first I'd ask him to stop. Then I'd sue if he didn't. That seems more fair.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Your analogy makes no sense, this was about a direct copyright violation that was easy to identify by the judge.
What in gods name does that have to do with an arms distributer.
Sorry, but I don't see any copyright violation. Players of games are allowed to copy the game to memory to launch the game. Once it's in the memory, it can be altered at whim just as much as you can alter a piece of artwork after you purchase it.
If Glider copies the game to memory, it's no different than if the player launched a second copy of the game on the same machine. I would dare say that falls into fair use rights, as again, it is a required step to utilize the program in the first place. That would be like viewing a piece of art the museum, "copying" the art inside my head, and then imagining how that "copy" of the art might look different with a couple of changes. The art is never duplicated in any meaningful sense, nor is it distributed, nor is the original creator denied anything. I fail to see how the publisher is damaged in any way protected by a copyright sense.
The damages are that of a poorer experience of players and lower revenue from players that manage to "beat" the game sooner with the help of this tool. These are related to the service, not to the software.
The guy that created glider made millions off the program. He literally got rich off of blizzards work. The program is advertised as a WoW bot, it's sole purpose is to allow players to bot in WoW. In essence he was violating copyright laws because he was making money off of someone elses IP.
If glider had been written to do something else, but happend to allow you to bot with WoW, and if it hadn't been advertised as a WoW bot then Blizzard never would have had a case.
You can't make money off someone elses work without thier permission. I agree one hundred percent that the guy is wrong, but what was ruled was wrong as well.
What you think really doesn't matter. He violated the rules and now he's paying for it.
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach.
And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
Well then, he is sqanerding his talent and should know better that he should have been working on the robot. Live and Learn.
If I had a business and someone was doing something that I thought was detrimental to the business I would sue him until I couldn't sue "no more".
Well, first I'd ask him to stop. Then I'd sue if he didn't. That seems more fair.
But he wasn't doing anything detrimental to the business. He was making money off of it and that's what blizzard wanted to stop.
All you people that keep lauding Blizzard need to get your heads out of your rears.
BLIZZARD DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE BOTTING YOU COULD DO. THEY SUED 2 COMPANIES FOR MAKING MONEY OFF OF WOW. Not becaues the program allowed you to bot. Thier actions are not motivated for your benefit, it's motivated by greed. They don't want anyone other then Blizzard making money off WoW. I don't disagree with that, I honestly say go for it, but not at our expence.
Again.
This has nothing to do with the players. Glider was a sold product that made a man MILLIONS, and it made money off Blizzard. Blizzard doesn't like that.
They sued the gold site because it made money for someone other then Blizzard, not because it effected the players. When are you people going to get it.
Edit: I saw a really jaded comment earlier that Blizz doesn't care about the money, they only want to stop the botting. You're a fool if you think that. This entire thing is about one man making a lot of money off of a Blizzard product, that, and only that. It has nothing to do with botting. It's about business. You're also a fool if you think that Blizzard wont seek monetary compensation if the ruling stands. Hell yes they will, that's why they went after the bot program that mad MILLIONS. Sure as hell they will be seeking the magority of that money.
Originally posted by Waterlily Originally posted by Mylon
Sorry, but I don't see any copyright violation. Players of games are allowed to copy the game to memory to launch the game. Once it's in the memory, it can be altered at whim just as much as you can alter a piece of artwork after you purchase it.
EULA says otherwise. And so do copyright laws. If you take a game Blizzard designed, and you make a program that automates it so it runs the way you want it, bypassing Blizzards server rules and bypassing all the work Blizzard put in the game to let people experience the world like it was supposed to , you bet you'd be violating Blizzards copyright. You really don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where this would not be just 'happily welcomed' and tolerated by Blizzard. They shouldn't let the guy walk all over them. They even WARNED him to take the program down before they sued him, so there you go, he even got a warning before they sued.
Oh, I won't doubt that it's against the EULA. But the EULA is written by Blizzard, so of course it would not allow botting. I still disagree about the portion of copyright laws.
This is just like printer companies and ink cartridges. People make generic ink cartridges for cheap, so the printer companies put a program that is signed and must be duplicated in the generic cartridge for it to work in the printer, only so that the generic cartridges would have to violate copyright law to continue their practice. Entirely out of the purpose of copyright law and merely a corporation using the law to protect their particular flawed marketing strategy.
In this case, Blizzard is not protecting their assets or their IP, they're merely protecting a flawed game, and the grounds for it don't even appear to be the same. It is out of scope of copyright law and, even if it does apply, is merely a technicality that only a rules-for-the-sake-of-rules judge would enforce.
What you think really doesn't matter. He violated the rules and now he's paying for it.
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach.
And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
And that is probably the dumbest statement i've ever heard. The rules in this case where made to protect Blizzard. Wouldn't you want to protect your own business? What happens in the game is a direct impact on Blizzard as a company because cheating in a persistant world like wow's leaves a trail of unhappy players.
With your logic, we could praise some mass-murderer because he "might" be the greatest creative mind on earth. Who knows?
This guy knew what he was doing. He knew it was wrong, but went ahead anyway.
Originally posted by Sovrath Originally posted by Mylon
What you think really doesn't matter. He violated the rules and now he's paying for it.
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach. And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
Well then, he is sqanerding his talent and should know better that he should have been working on the robot. Live and Learn. If I had a business and someone was doing something that I thought was detrimental to the business I would sue him until I couldn't sue "no more". Well, first I'd ask him to stop. Then I'd sue if he didn't. That seems more fair.
Except that one does not go from making simple unmanned space probes to putting a man on the moon. There are steps along the way, and this program is an example of this. If we jail and litigate our automation engineers before they can create something more beneficial to society as a whole, then perhaps we'll have to pick tomatoes by hand forever.
Originally posted by Zoulz Originally posted by Mylon
What you think really doesn't matter. He violated the rules and now he's paying for it.
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach. And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
And that is probably the dumbest statement i've ever heard. The rules in this case where made to protect Blizzard. Wouldn't you want to protect your own business? What happens in the game is a direct impact on Blizzard as a company because cheating in a persistant world like wow's leaves a trail of unhappy players. With your logic, we could praise some mass-murderer because he "might" be the greatest creative mind on earth. Who knows? This guy knew what he was doing. He knew it was wrong, but went ahead anyway.
There are laws to protect businesses. To be fair, Blizzard does not seem to be hurt much by this particular program. In fact, the users that continue to play the game because they can, with the aid of the bot, now experience high level content that they might have unsubscribed before reaching. Likewise, the people running these bots for gathering gold still generate subscriptions for Blizzard as well as facilitate users with options for obtaining currency (again, compared to the "legit" way that may bore them into unsubscribing). It's difficult to determine whether this adds value to the game or causes damage.
However, it is also important to protect consumer rights as well, including a user's right to tinker (as well as share the details online of his tinkering).
Everyone (including the judge, and perhaps even Blizzard's lawyers) seem to be forgetting that WoW players make a copy of more than just what is on the WoW CDs, after they sign up for an account.
Remember, we are forever downloading new patches. Every one of these patches is copyrighted material belonging to Blizzard, was not something we bought when we bought our boxed copy, and was provided to us only under the terms of the EULA.
So it doesn't matter whether we "own" or "lease" the contents of the disks we bought in the store, because they are not the only copyrighted material that we need to play WoW.
____________________________________________ im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
What you think really doesn't matter. He violated the rules and now he's paying for it.
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach.
And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
And that is probably the dumbest statement i've ever heard. The rules in this case where made to protect Blizzard. Wouldn't you want to protect your own business? What happens in the game is a direct impact on Blizzard as a company because cheating in a persistant world like wow's leaves a trail of unhappy players.
With your logic, we could praise some mass-murderer because he "might" be the greatest creative mind on earth. Who knows?
This guy knew what he was doing. He knew it was wrong, but went ahead anyway.
No, the highlighted portion is a dumb statement.
WoW's subs continue to climb. Glider wasn't holding it back, and this lawsuit had shit to do with you, me, or anyone else that plays the game.
IT'S BECAUSE GLIDER MADE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR SOMEONE!
That's what copyright laws are for. TO PROTECT THE ASSESTS OF A COMPANY AND PREVENT OTHERS FROM BENEFITING FINANTIALLY OFF THOSE ASSETS. It has nothing to do with the product itself, or the people. If I create a piece of art and you use it to sell something without getting my permission, and that piece of art has a clear copyright then I can sue you for the money you made because you made it off me. Not off the art, off me. The guy that made glider made money off Blizzard, hence blizzard sued him. Just like they sued a single gold selling site.
IT'S ABOUT MONEY.
Blizzard didn't file a blanket suit to go after all bot creators, they went after the one that was making the money. They didn't sue all the gold selling sites, they went for the one that was making a lot of money. Funny thing how Blizzard hasn't sued any other gold selling sites. Erm, I wonder if the laws in the countries were those sites operate are dif. or if our laws aren't recongnized thier.
It's about the money people, not the bots. If I made millions off an addon blizzard would sue me to.
Everyone (including the judge, and perhaps even Blizzard's lawyers) seem to be forgetting that WoW players make a copy of more than just what is on the WoW CDs, after they sign up for an account. Remember, we are forever downloading new patches. Every one of these patches is copyrighted material belonging to Blizzard, was not something we bought when we bought our boxed copy, and was provided to us only under the terms of the EULA. So it doesn't matter whether we "own" or "lease" the contents of the disks we bought in the store, because they are not the only copyrighted material that we need to play WoW.
It's the implications further down the road that a ruling like this could lead to.
Like I've said. I could care less if I own or lease the product. It's more to do with our rights as a consumer. Also, just because something has a copyright doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to own it. That's a big deal because this sets a president that software, online or off, can remain the sole property of the creator. It opens the doors for software companies to deside after a purchase is made whether we as the consumer own or don't own the product we purchased. That's not fair, nor is it right to us. We as a consumer have a right to know what it is we are buying. If we are only leasing then it should be clear at the time of purchase, not after.
And again, Blizzard didn't do this for us, they did this for them. That more then anything pisses me off, because Blizzard will spin this for publicity so they can say, "hey look, we care about our playerbase and got rid of the botters." This isn't true. They were only trying to prevent someone else from making money off them.
Bottom line. If glider was free, there wouldn't have been a lawsuit; that says a lot to me. Some of you simply care more about what others are doing in a game then whether or not your rights are being protected and preserved; so much so that you're willing to give up rights just so that someone can't bot. That's effing retarded.
Ok, as I said earlier. I really don't care what the judge ruled. Maybe it was wrong, and in that case I can see your point about it being bad for consumers. I have no info from the trial or anything except what you guys have said here.
Even so, i'm glad they won and stopped Glider. I don't believe blizzard did it solely because he was making money of wow though. Of course they did it because of money. But I do think they are making genuine efforts in trying to stop botters and gold sellers. Happy players keep playing and maintaining a good reputation will attract new players.
I have a hard time believing what I’m reading from some members of the WoW community. Can some of you being to grasp that your rights as a consumer has been compromised? Is it worth giving up rights to enforce anti-botting? Reality is if you really believe that botting can be compared to crimes like rap?!?.. Its time to back off a revaluate what gaming has done to your belief system.
I’ve read some informed sources, and a lot of people disagree with the ruling. Bill Party (senior copyright counsel for Google Inc) believes that there was a misinterpretation for previous rulings on RAM copying, and the only way there could be a violation under the copyright act is if you didn’t buy a copy of WoW at the store, you were merely handed a license at the counter.
A staff copyright (attorney) columnist at EFF interprets the ruling as very unfavourable to consumers because you can be found guilty of copyright infringement for violating the EULA even if the violation has been excluded from the copyright act. The Copyright Act grants protections to consumers, but only if you own the software, not if you license it.
Do you vegetables get it now?
The EFF columnist goes on to say cheating/exploiting in a game could potentially put you in violation of copyright infringement, forced you into payment for statutory damages, and all because you’re using the software outside of the terms of your contract. It doesn’t stop there.. the click through EULA can change anytime they want to modify it.
Could Blizzard be accused of misleading 10's of millions of people. Is there any kind of false advertisement here? I mean, I was lead to believe I was purchasing the software, and buy purchasing it I therefore own the contents of the disk, and was hence bound by copyright laws in regard to that software. At the least I was never informed, not at any point by Blizzard that I was agreeing to a lease of that software.
In what EULA have I agreed to this. I haven't clicked one in a few months, I still pay a monthly fee, but I haven't agreed to any EULA stating that the purchase of WoW constituted a lease and that I didn't own the contents of my purchase to my knowledge. I have to admit, I don't read the thing.
Nor do any of the boxes I have say that I was purchasing a lisence to use the software.
Was I not mislead? No other game that I'm familliar with does this; so it's only reasonable to assume that Blizzard didn't do this at the time I baught the game. Isn't a company obligated to inform me of such a thing at the time of purchase?
Can there be compensation on Blizzards part to the people that purchased the game without knowledge of the extent of thier purchase? Would this be considered negligence on Blizzards part?
I'm not talking refund here. I'm talking compensation. I pay my fee to play each month, and I don't mind. I enjoy the game sometimes and would like to play when I like; so I wouldn't want to return them. Compensation on the other hand.
I'm wondering. Could Blizzard be accused of misleading 10's of millions of people. Is there any kind of false advertisement here? I mean, I was lead to believe I was purchasing the software, and buy purchasing it I therefore own the contents of the disk, and was hence bound by copyright laws in regard to that software. At the least I was never informed, not at any point by Blizzard that I was agreeing to a lease of that software. In what EULA have I agreed to this. I haven't clicked one in a few months, I still pay a monthly fee, but I haven't agreed to any EULA stating that the purchase of WoW constituted a lease and that I didn't own the contents of my purchase to my knowledge. I have to admit, I don't read the thing. Nor do any of the boxes I have say that I was purchasing a lisence to use the software. Was I not mislead? No other game that I'm familliar with does this; so it's only reasonable to assume that Blizzard didn't do this at the time I baught the game. Isn't a company obligated to inform me of such a thing at the time of purchase? Can there be compensation on Blizzards part to the people that purchased the game without knowledge of the extent of thier purchase? Would this be considered negligence on Blizzards part? I'm not talking refund here. I'm talking compensation. I pay my fee to play each month, and I don't mind. I enjoy the game sometimes and would like to play when I like; so I wouldn't want to return them. Compensation on the other hand.
You're trying to argue things that have very little merit no.
Not one attorney is going to take your case because you feel Blizzard ows you 50$. Not a single one will take that case. You'll be lucky to even find a court willing to open a civil case for this.
You do own the game, and if you want to throw your disk around and use it as a coaster, you can.
When you log in to the Blizzard servers however, you play by their rules and before you log in you signed the EULA.
That has nothing to do with property, it's a service, and every MMO box should say you need an internet connection to play it.
Go on their server, play by their rules, if people don't want to accept the rules, then they don't get to play.
You're going to have a really really hard time explaining anyone how you were in someway harmed financially and need a compensation.
You even have 30 days after purchase to return the software for a full refund.
You really think Blizzard would even care? Go ahead and sue them, you will pay a lot of money to open your trial. Blizzard will pay you 50$ and tell you to get lost and you'll have lost a great deal of money.
Wow! Just look at all the clueless botters. They must be really upset now that they can't continue "enjoying" their game through cheating. Well goes to show, as my father used to say "Cheaters never win" and this trial is proof of it.
As for the people here arguing over how this court decision will "trample" on consumers rights, here's what I have say:
OMG!!!!!!!!!
Seriously guys, you're starting to sound ridiculous... I'm one of the biggest conspiracy nuts here (hence the "Question" avatar) and even I think you guys are WAY OFF and headed to the cookoo house. Do you guys even bother reading the diatribe that you write before hitting the "reply" button? because if you did, I'm sure you guys would be more inclined to revising your statements to make them sound.... less crazy.
I'm wondering. Could Blizzard be accused of misleading 10's of millions of people. Is there any kind of false advertisement here? I mean, I was lead to believe I was purchasing the software, and buy purchasing it I therefore own the contents of the disk, and was hence bound by copyright laws in regard to that software. At the least I was never informed, not at any point by Blizzard that I was agreeing to a lease of that software. In what EULA have I agreed to this. I haven't clicked one in a few months, I still pay a monthly fee, but I haven't agreed to any EULA stating that the purchase of WoW constituted a lease and that I didn't own the contents of my purchase to my knowledge. I have to admit, I don't read the thing. Nor do any of the boxes I have say that I was purchasing a lisence to use the software. Was I not mislead? No other game that I'm familliar with does this; so it's only reasonable to assume that Blizzard didn't do this at the time I baught the game. Isn't a company obligated to inform me of such a thing at the time of purchase? Can there be compensation on Blizzards part to the people that purchased the game without knowledge of the extent of thier purchase? Would this be considered negligence on Blizzards part? I'm not talking refund here. I'm talking compensation. I pay my fee to play each month, and I don't mind. I enjoy the game sometimes and would like to play when I like; so I wouldn't want to return them. Compensation on the other hand.
Where does it say on the box that you will be the owner of the game software? What led you to believe that you could play WoW just by buying the box? In fact you can't, and if you thought you could, you're an idiot. You need WoW's servers. You need a subscription. You need to download additional copyrighted material from them before you can play. Yes, that's right. Additional copyrighted material that YOU DIDN"T BUY when you bought your $50 cardboard box and plastic coaster. It says it right on the box.
Here's an analogy for you -- Just because you go to a tennis club and buy a racquet from their pro shop, doesn't mean you own the courts or get to play on them. Nope, you have to pay extra for them...and you have to play by their rules. If your idea of fun is taking a crap on the base line between sets, you're going to get arrested, even though you bought a racquet from them.
At the end of the day, this is about a company that made money by inducing people to break contractual, legally binding promises they made with other people. Who cares what legal theory is used to stop cheating? It's Blizzard's house, and if you want to play in it, play by their rules. You wanna use bots? Play L2. Blizzard is just trying to keep the trash off their servers every way they can. If you think they get their jollies by paying lawyers $500 an hour just to get them a pretty piece of paper that says you don't own your copy of WoW, you're nuts.
____________________________________________ im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
Originally posted by rikilii Originally posted by Urdig I'm wondering. Could Blizzard be accused of misleading 10's of millions of people. Is there any kind of false advertisement here? I mean, I was lead to believe I was purchasing the software, and buy purchasing it I therefore own the contents of the disk, and was hence bound by copyright laws in regard to that software. At the least I was never informed, not at any point by Blizzard that I was agreeing to a lease of that software. In what EULA have I agreed to this. I haven't clicked one in a few months, I still pay a monthly fee, but I haven't agreed to any EULA stating that the purchase of WoW constituted a lease and that I didn't own the contents of my purchase to my knowledge. I have to admit, I don't read the thing. Nor do any of the boxes I have say that I was purchasing a lisence to use the software. Was I not mislead? No other game that I'm familliar with does this; so it's only reasonable to assume that Blizzard didn't do this at the time I baught the game. Isn't a company obligated to inform me of such a thing at the time of purchase? Can there be compensation on Blizzards part to the people that purchased the game without knowledge of the extent of thier purchase? Would this be considered negligence on Blizzards part? I'm not talking refund here. I'm talking compensation. I pay my fee to play each month, and I don't mind. I enjoy the game sometimes and would like to play when I like; so I wouldn't want to return them. Compensation on the other hand.
Where does it say on the box that you will be the owner of the game software? What led you to believe that you could play WoW just by buying the box? In fact you can't, and if you thought you could, you're an idiot. You need WoW's servers. You need a subscription. You need to download additional copyrighted material from them before you can play. Yes, that's right. Additional copyrighted material that YOU DIDN"T BUY when you bought your $50 cardboard box and plastic coaster. It says it right on the box. Here's an analogy for you -- Just because you go to a tennis club and buy a racquet from their pro shop, doesn't mean you own the courts or get to play on them. Nope, you have to pay extra for them...and you have to play by their rules. If your idea of fun is taking a crap on the base line between sets, you're going to get arrested, even though you bought a racquet from them. At the end of the day, this is about a company that made money by inducing people to break contractual, legally binding promises they made with other people. Who cares what legal theory is used to stop cheating? It's Blizzard's house, and if you want to play in it, play by their rules. You wanna use bots? Play L2. Blizzard is just trying to keep the trash off their servers every way they can. If you think they get their jollies by paying lawyers $500 an hour just to get them a pretty piece of paper that says you don't own your copy of WoW, you're nuts. Wow! Amen! I don't think I could've said it better myself, and yes, this analogy fits a heck of a lot better than the stupid analogies the Botter apologists have been throwing around about rapists and criminals that "are being punished when they should be encouraged so they can make better automaton robots" BS. I /tip my hat to you sir.
Let's try this from another angle. A judge suddenly decides you don't own your car. All the contracts for purchase of your car have been updated to be contracts for lease. And, to make sure you accept it, the gas companies (your functionality servers) make you accept the new agreement before putting in more gas. I know the gas companies and car companies have 'nothing' to do with one another- but I'm making a point here- just pretend they do. Anyway- some guy that detailed, airbrushed, changed the stereo- whatever- on cars is now on trial. Heck maybe he even installed a radar detector for people- he's a bad guy if you like- the point is now he's going to get in trouble for messing with your car cause you don't own it. You drive it, but it's not his to 'fix' according to the car manufacturer. The funny thing is- this fix wasn't on the car persay- but it put a little mechanical driver in your car to run to the store for you- gas it up, whatever. Do your delivery job even. The car manufacturer is livid because that little driver violates the contract of the car because you signed an agreement not to... something (you can use add-ons for other stuff), and he looks out the car window!... Look, honestly I have to go look at the 8 page connection they made to find him guilty, but the point is... YOU DON'T OWN YOUR CAR ANYMORE! You paid for it. You have a receipt- but in order to burn this guy they screwed the rules for everyone! I know this may not 'clear things up' to crystal clear, and the car analogy is far from perfect, but with technology- things are not always like real situations. Blizzards software is sold. You own it- have for years. Yeah- it's useless without a server, but thats why you pay $15 a month for that service in addition. I hope that helps. g'night.
Here's a better analogy.
You go to a car dealer and buy a car. It's yours now, you OWN it. You're so happy about your new status as an automobile owner that you and the salesman split a bottle of bourbon to celebrate. After you finish and kiss him goodbye, you get in the driver seat of your new HOTROD, turn the key. The car goes vroom, vroom. How satisfying! That aftermarket tailpipe is really LOUD!
You pull out on the highway, and go as fast as the car will go. Wow, this new car that you OWN is AWESOMESAUCE!!! You can't believe how fast this car is. This nitrous system works JUST like the salesman said it would.
Suddenly, you see little red and blue lights flashing behind you. You keep driving. In fact you SPEED UP, since, you know, it's YOUR car, and who's the guy with the pretty lights on top of his car to tell you how fast you can drive it?
Finally, you get tired of running, and frankly, things are starting to get a bit blurry, so you pull over to see what this psycho wants. He walks up to your window, and says: "Is that alcohol I smell? Step out of the car, and show me your license and registration."
You slur: "Hello othifer. Yah know, I'm not as think as you drunk I am. You wanna thee my wha? And my whahhh? Hey bucko! I OWN thith car. I can dryfffffth it whenefffther, howeffffther, and whereffftthhver I want, and I don't need no thtinking lithenth or whatthamahoositsth. Who the HELL do you thfffink you are? I oughtta sthmack you in that perdy little mouthfff of yourth.!!!"
About an hour later, in the holding cell, you run into your old friend the car salesman. Turns out he got arrested for giving liquor to a minor (YOU) and allowing you to drive off the lot while intoxicated, without a license or registration, in an illegally souped-up car.
But no matter, you are reunited with your beloved, and everyone lived happily ever after.
____________________________________________ im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
Let's try this from another angle. A judge suddenly decides you don't own your car. All the contracts for purchase of your car have been updated to be contracts for lease. And, to make sure you accept it, the gas companies (your functionality servers) make you accept the new agreement before putting in more gas. I know the gas companies and car companies have 'nothing' to do with one another- but I'm making a point here- just pretend they do. Anyway- some guy that detailed, airbrushed, changed the stereo- whatever- on cars is now on trial. Heck maybe he even installed a radar detector for people- he's a bad guy if you like- the point is now he's going to get in trouble for messing with your car cause you don't own it. You drive it, but it's not his to 'fix' according to the car manufacturer. The funny thing is- this fix wasn't on the car persay- but it put a little mechanical driver in your car to run to the store for you- gas it up, whatever. Do your delivery job even. The car manufacturer is livid because that little driver violates the contract of the car because you signed an agreement not to... something (you can use add-ons for other stuff), and he looks out the car window!... Look, honestly I have to go look at the 8 page connection they made to find him guilty, but the point is... YOU DON'T OWN YOUR CAR ANYMORE! You paid for it. You have a receipt- but in order to burn this guy they screwed the rules for everyone! I know this may not 'clear things up' to crystal clear, and the car analogy is far from perfect, but with technology- things are not always like real situations. Blizzards software is sold. You own it- have for years. Yeah- it's useless without a server, but thats why you pay $15 a month for that service in addition. I hope that helps. g'night.
Here's a better analogy.
You go to a car dealer and buy a car. It's yours now, you OWN it. You're so happy about your new status as an automobile owner that you and the salesman split a bottle of bourbon to celebrate. After you finish and kiss him goodbye, you get in the driver seat of your new HOTROD, turn the key. The car goes vroom, vroom. How satisfying! That aftermarket tailpipe is really LOUD!
You pull out on the highway, and go as fast as the car will go. Wow, this new car that you OWN is AWESOMESAUCE!!! You can't believe how fast this car is. This nitrous system works JUST like the salesman said it would.
Suddenly, you see little red and blue lights flashing behind you. You keep driving. In fact you SPEED UP, since, you know, it's YOUR car, and who's the guy with the pretty lights on top of his car to tell you how fast you can drive it?
Finally, you get tired of running, and frankly, things are starting to get a bit blurry, so you pull over to see what this psycho wants. He walks up to your window, and says: "Is that alcohol I smell? Step out of the car, and show me your license and registration."
You slur: "Hello othifer. Yah know, I'm not as think as you drunk I am. You wanna thee my wha? And my whahhh? Hey bucko! I OWN thith car. I can dryfffffth it whenefffther, howeffffther, and whereffftthhver I want, and I don't need no thtinking lithenth or whatthamahoositsth. Who the HELL do you thfffink you are? I oughtta sthmack you in that perdy little mouthfff of yourth.!!!"
About an hour later, in the holding cell, you run into your old friend the car salesman. Turns out he got arrested for giving liquor to a minor (YOU) and allowing you to drive off the lot while intoxicated, without a license or registration, in an illegally souped-up car.
But no matter, you are reunited with your beloved, and everyone lived happily ever after.
Have you ever heard of the term 'logical fallacy' because there is absolutely no association that could be made between driving drunk and copyright infringement. For one the case we are talking about doesn't even involve a criminal act.. this was not a case of criminal infringement, it was settled in civil courts.
This is a win/lose situation if you're a WoW player, maybe gamer in general, but I guess you'd have to be on the intellectual level of a copyright lawyer in order to see the lose side of it... which most gamer obviously fail at.
Comments
If you feel the game is badly designed then........................don't play it.
No no, instead you reason like this:
"It's badly designed so that makes it ok to violate copyrights and cheat."
In the real world it doesn't work like that, and Michael Donnelly just found that out in court, and I'm 100% on Blizzards side on this.
Already done. Or already not-done. Or... Something. But yes, I don't play most MMORPGs because they're slow and repetitive. All of the "good" features don't come until 300+ hours into it.
I personally find it retarded that a person can be sued for writing software that is, at worst, as malicious as giving the average joe a bunch of traffic cones to set out in the street (taking up space "legit" players would be using). But, given the way the game is, it's relatively trivial to copy and paste more lanes so other people can do their thing.
This man creates tools. Suing him would be akin to suing Smith and Wesson for making tools that kill people.
What you think really doesn't matter. He violated the rules and now he's paying for it.
Sorry, but I don't see any copyright violation. Players of games are allowed to copy the game to memory to launch the game. Once it's in the memory, it can be altered at whim just as much as you can alter a piece of artwork after you purchase it.
If Glider copies the game to memory, it's no different than if the player launched a second copy of the game on the same machine. I would dare say that falls into fair use rights, as again, it is a required step to utilize the program in the first place. That would be like viewing a piece of art the museum, "copying" the art inside my head, and then imagining how that "copy" of the art might look different with a couple of changes. The art is never duplicated in any meaningful sense, nor is it distributed, nor is the original creator denied anything. I fail to see how the publisher is damaged in any way protected by a copyright sense.
The damages are that of a poorer experience of players and lower revenue from players that manage to "beat" the game sooner with the help of this tool. These are related to the service, not to the software.
Not you don't. At least not anymore.
A judge determined that we as consumers did not buy the game, but instead leased the software.
I don't know any other way to say this so that you understand.
In reality I made a purchase to own the game. I agreed to lease time on a server when I clicked I agree. At no point prior to agreeing to the EULA did I sign an agreement to lease software. I feel that I've been overly clear in my direction.
Maybe this is easier to understand.
I DON'T LIKE LAWS BEING CHANGED TO SUIT A CORPORATION.
Untill this ruling there was no copyright violation because we owned the software. The judge changed the context of our purchase and is now saying that what we did when we gave money to a cashier was lease software not buy it. Were you told that when you baught the game? Why is it ok for your rights as a consumer to be undermined so that a single guy can be punished?
It wouldn't be ok for a judge to determine that all dodge cars that were baught to own are really only leases so that dodge can put a stop to aftermarket parts being sold. Why is this any dif. or ok?
Wish Darkfall would release.
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach.
And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
EULA says otherwise. And so do copyright laws.
If you take a game Blizzard designed, and you make a program that automates it so it runs the way you want it, bypassing Blizzards server rules and bypassing all the work Blizzard put in the game to let people experience the world like it was supposed to , you bet you'd be violating Blizzards copyright.
You really don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where this would not be just 'happily welcomed' and tolerated by Blizzard.
They shouldn't let the guy walk all over them.
They even WARNED him to take the program down before they sued him, so there you go, he even got a warning before they sued.
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach.
And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
Well then, he is sqanerding his talent and should know better that he should have been working on the robot. Live and Learn.
If I had a business and someone was doing something that I thought was detrimental to the business I would sue him until I couldn't sue "no more".
Well, first I'd ask him to stop. Then I'd sue if he didn't. That seems more fair.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Sorry, but I don't see any copyright violation. Players of games are allowed to copy the game to memory to launch the game. Once it's in the memory, it can be altered at whim just as much as you can alter a piece of artwork after you purchase it.
If Glider copies the game to memory, it's no different than if the player launched a second copy of the game on the same machine. I would dare say that falls into fair use rights, as again, it is a required step to utilize the program in the first place. That would be like viewing a piece of art the museum, "copying" the art inside my head, and then imagining how that "copy" of the art might look different with a couple of changes. The art is never duplicated in any meaningful sense, nor is it distributed, nor is the original creator denied anything. I fail to see how the publisher is damaged in any way protected by a copyright sense.
The damages are that of a poorer experience of players and lower revenue from players that manage to "beat" the game sooner with the help of this tool. These are related to the service, not to the software.
The guy that created glider made millions off the program. He literally got rich off of blizzards work. The program is advertised as a WoW bot, it's sole purpose is to allow players to bot in WoW. In essence he was violating copyright laws because he was making money off of someone elses IP.
If glider had been written to do something else, but happend to allow you to bot with WoW, and if it hadn't been advertised as a WoW bot then Blizzard never would have had a case.
You can't make money off someone elses work without thier permission. I agree one hundred percent that the guy is wrong, but what was ruled was wrong as well.
Wish Darkfall would release.
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach.
And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
Well then, he is sqanerding his talent and should know better that he should have been working on the robot. Live and Learn.
If I had a business and someone was doing something that I thought was detrimental to the business I would sue him until I couldn't sue "no more".
Well, first I'd ask him to stop. Then I'd sue if he didn't. That seems more fair.
But he wasn't doing anything detrimental to the business. He was making money off of it and that's what blizzard wanted to stop.
All you people that keep lauding Blizzard need to get your heads out of your rears.
BLIZZARD DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE BOTTING YOU COULD DO. THEY SUED 2 COMPANIES FOR MAKING MONEY OFF OF WOW. Not becaues the program allowed you to bot. Thier actions are not motivated for your benefit, it's motivated by greed. They don't want anyone other then Blizzard making money off WoW. I don't disagree with that, I honestly say go for it, but not at our expence.
Again.
This has nothing to do with the players. Glider was a sold product that made a man MILLIONS, and it made money off Blizzard. Blizzard doesn't like that.
They sued the gold site because it made money for someone other then Blizzard, not because it effected the players. When are you people going to get it.
Edit: I saw a really jaded comment earlier that Blizz doesn't care about the money, they only want to stop the botting. You're a fool if you think that. This entire thing is about one man making a lot of money off of a Blizzard product, that, and only that. It has nothing to do with botting. It's about business. You're also a fool if you think that Blizzard wont seek monetary compensation if the ruling stands. Hell yes they will, that's why they went after the bot program that mad MILLIONS. Sure as hell they will be seeking the magority of that money.
Wish Darkfall would release.
If you take a game Blizzard designed, and you make a program that automates it so it runs the way you want it, bypassing Blizzards server rules and bypassing all the work Blizzard put in the game to let people experience the world like it was supposed to , you bet you'd be violating Blizzards copyright.
You really don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where this would not be just 'happily welcomed' and tolerated by Blizzard.
They shouldn't let the guy walk all over them.
They even WARNED him to take the program down before they sued him, so there you go, he even got a warning before they sued.
Oh, I won't doubt that it's against the EULA. But the EULA is written by Blizzard, so of course it would not allow botting. I still disagree about the portion of copyright laws.
This is just like printer companies and ink cartridges. People make generic ink cartridges for cheap, so the printer companies put a program that is signed and must be duplicated in the generic cartridge for it to work in the printer, only so that the generic cartridges would have to violate copyright law to continue their practice. Entirely out of the purpose of copyright law and merely a corporation using the law to protect their particular flawed marketing strategy.
In this case, Blizzard is not protecting their assets or their IP, they're merely protecting a flawed game, and the grounds for it don't even appear to be the same. It is out of scope of copyright law and, even if it does apply, is merely a technicality that only a rules-for-the-sake-of-rules judge would enforce.
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach.
And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
And that is probably the dumbest statement i've ever heard. The rules in this case where made to protect Blizzard. Wouldn't you want to protect your own business? What happens in the game is a direct impact on Blizzard as a company because cheating in a persistant world like wow's leaves a trail of unhappy players.
With your logic, we could praise some mass-murderer because he "might" be the greatest creative mind on earth. Who knows?
This guy knew what he was doing. He knew it was wrong, but went ahead anyway.
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach.
And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
Well then, he is sqanerding his talent and should know better that he should have been working on the robot. Live and Learn.
If I had a business and someone was doing something that I thought was detrimental to the business I would sue him until I couldn't sue "no more".
Well, first I'd ask him to stop. Then I'd sue if he didn't. That seems more fair.
Except that one does not go from making simple unmanned space probes to putting a man on the moon. There are steps along the way, and this program is an example of this. If we jail and litigate our automation engineers before they can create something more beneficial to society as a whole, then perhaps we'll have to pick tomatoes by hand forever.
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach.
And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
And that is probably the dumbest statement i've ever heard. The rules in this case where made to protect Blizzard. Wouldn't you want to protect your own business? What happens in the game is a direct impact on Blizzard as a company because cheating in a persistant world like wow's leaves a trail of unhappy players.
With your logic, we could praise some mass-murderer because he "might" be the greatest creative mind on earth. Who knows?
This guy knew what he was doing. He knew it was wrong, but went ahead anyway.
There are laws to protect businesses. To be fair, Blizzard does not seem to be hurt much by this particular program. In fact, the users that continue to play the game because they can, with the aid of the bot, now experience high level content that they might have unsubscribed before reaching. Likewise, the people running these bots for gathering gold still generate subscriptions for Blizzard as well as facilitate users with options for obtaining currency (again, compared to the "legit" way that may bore them into unsubscribing). It's difficult to determine whether this adds value to the game or causes damage.
However, it is also important to protect consumer rights as well, including a user's right to tinker (as well as share the details online of his tinkering).
Everyone (including the judge, and perhaps even Blizzard's lawyers) seem to be forgetting that WoW players make a copy of more than just what is on the WoW CDs, after they sign up for an account.
Remember, we are forever downloading new patches. Every one of these patches is copyrighted material belonging to Blizzard, was not something we bought when we bought our boxed copy, and was provided to us only under the terms of the EULA.
So it doesn't matter whether we "own" or "lease" the contents of the disks we bought in the store, because they are not the only copyrighted material that we need to play WoW.
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
This has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Rules are not made simply to be rules, but because in some way they are meant to be for the benefit of all. That is, someone thought, (think, in the past tense), that such a rule would bring about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. People are constantly thinking of new rules and changes to existing rules or thinking of new interpretations of existing rules all to achieve that "best for all" approach.
And generally I consider the rights of the consumer more important than letting Blizzard punish one man for demonstrating excellent software-assisted automation expertise. This kind of man could very well be writing a robot that picks tomatoes for us so we never have to worry about salmonella poisoning.
And that is probably the dumbest statement i've ever heard. The rules in this case where made to protect Blizzard. Wouldn't you want to protect your own business? What happens in the game is a direct impact on Blizzard as a company because cheating in a persistant world like wow's leaves a trail of unhappy players.
With your logic, we could praise some mass-murderer because he "might" be the greatest creative mind on earth. Who knows?
This guy knew what he was doing. He knew it was wrong, but went ahead anyway.
No, the highlighted portion is a dumb statement.
WoW's subs continue to climb. Glider wasn't holding it back, and this lawsuit had shit to do with you, me, or anyone else that plays the game.
IT'S BECAUSE GLIDER MADE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR SOMEONE!
That's what copyright laws are for. TO PROTECT THE ASSESTS OF A COMPANY AND PREVENT OTHERS FROM BENEFITING FINANTIALLY OFF THOSE ASSETS. It has nothing to do with the product itself, or the people. If I create a piece of art and you use it to sell something without getting my permission, and that piece of art has a clear copyright then I can sue you for the money you made because you made it off me. Not off the art, off me. The guy that made glider made money off Blizzard, hence blizzard sued him. Just like they sued a single gold selling site.
IT'S ABOUT MONEY.
Blizzard didn't file a blanket suit to go after all bot creators, they went after the one that was making the money. They didn't sue all the gold selling sites, they went for the one that was making a lot of money. Funny thing how Blizzard hasn't sued any other gold selling sites. Erm, I wonder if the laws in the countries were those sites operate are dif. or if our laws aren't recongnized thier.
It's about the money people, not the bots. If I made millions off an addon blizzard would sue me to.
Wish Darkfall would release.
It's the implications further down the road that a ruling like this could lead to.
Like I've said. I could care less if I own or lease the product. It's more to do with our rights as a consumer. Also, just because something has a copyright doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to own it. That's a big deal because this sets a president that software, online or off, can remain the sole property of the creator. It opens the doors for software companies to deside after a purchase is made whether we as the consumer own or don't own the product we purchased. That's not fair, nor is it right to us. We as a consumer have a right to know what it is we are buying. If we are only leasing then it should be clear at the time of purchase, not after.
And again, Blizzard didn't do this for us, they did this for them. That more then anything pisses me off, because Blizzard will spin this for publicity so they can say, "hey look, we care about our playerbase and got rid of the botters." This isn't true. They were only trying to prevent someone else from making money off them.
Bottom line. If glider was free, there wouldn't have been a lawsuit; that says a lot to me. Some of you simply care more about what others are doing in a game then whether or not your rights are being protected and preserved; so much so that you're willing to give up rights just so that someone can't bot. That's effing retarded.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Ok, as I said earlier. I really don't care what the judge ruled. Maybe it was wrong, and in that case I can see your point about it being bad for consumers. I have no info from the trial or anything except what you guys have said here.
Even so, i'm glad they won and stopped Glider. I don't believe blizzard did it solely because he was making money of wow though. Of course they did it because of money. But I do think they are making genuine efforts in trying to stop botters and gold sellers. Happy players keep playing and maintaining a good reputation will attract new players.
I have a hard time believing what I’m reading from some members of the WoW community. Can some of you being to grasp that your rights as a consumer has been compromised? Is it worth giving up rights to enforce anti-botting? Reality is if you really believe that botting can be compared to crimes like rap?!?.. Its time to back off a revaluate what gaming has done to your belief system.
I’ve read some informed sources, and a lot of people disagree with the ruling. Bill Party (senior copyright counsel for Google Inc) believes that there was a misinterpretation for previous rulings on RAM copying, and the only way there could be a violation under the copyright act is if you didn’t buy a copy of WoW at the store, you were merely handed a license at the counter.
A staff copyright (attorney) columnist at EFF interprets the ruling as very unfavourable to consumers because you can be found guilty of copyright infringement for violating the EULA even if the violation has been excluded from the copyright act. The Copyright Act grants protections to consumers, but only if you own the software, not if you license it.
Do you vegetables get it now?
The EFF columnist goes on to say cheating/exploiting in a game could potentially put you in violation of copyright infringement, forced you into payment for statutory damages, and all because you’re using the software outside of the terms of your contract. It doesn’t stop there.. the click through EULA can change anytime they want to modify it.
.
I'm wondering.
Could Blizzard be accused of misleading 10's of millions of people. Is there any kind of false advertisement here? I mean, I was lead to believe I was purchasing the software, and buy purchasing it I therefore own the contents of the disk, and was hence bound by copyright laws in regard to that software. At the least I was never informed, not at any point by Blizzard that I was agreeing to a lease of that software.
In what EULA have I agreed to this. I haven't clicked one in a few months, I still pay a monthly fee, but I haven't agreed to any EULA stating that the purchase of WoW constituted a lease and that I didn't own the contents of my purchase to my knowledge. I have to admit, I don't read the thing.
Nor do any of the boxes I have say that I was purchasing a lisence to use the software.
Was I not mislead? No other game that I'm familliar with does this; so it's only reasonable to assume that Blizzard didn't do this at the time I baught the game. Isn't a company obligated to inform me of such a thing at the time of purchase?
Can there be compensation on Blizzards part to the people that purchased the game without knowledge of the extent of thier purchase? Would this be considered negligence on Blizzards part?
I'm not talking refund here. I'm talking compensation. I pay my fee to play each month, and I don't mind. I enjoy the game sometimes and would like to play when I like; so I wouldn't want to return them. Compensation on the other hand.
Wish Darkfall would release.
You're trying to argue things that have very little merit no.
Not one attorney is going to take your case because you feel Blizzard ows you 50$. Not a single one will take that case. You'll be lucky to even find a court willing to open a civil case for this.
You do own the game, and if you want to throw your disk around and use it as a coaster, you can.
When you log in to the Blizzard servers however, you play by their rules and before you log in you signed the EULA.
That has nothing to do with property, it's a service, and every MMO box should say you need an internet connection to play it.
Go on their server, play by their rules, if people don't want to accept the rules, then they don't get to play.
You're going to have a really really hard time explaining anyone how you were in someway harmed financially and need a compensation.
You even have 30 days after purchase to return the software for a full refund.
You really think Blizzard would even care? Go ahead and sue them, you will pay a lot of money to open your trial. Blizzard will pay you 50$ and tell you to get lost and you'll have lost a great deal of money.
Wow! Just look at all the clueless botters. They must be really upset now that they can't continue "enjoying" their game through cheating. Well goes to show, as my father used to say "Cheaters never win" and this trial is proof of it.
As for the people here arguing over how this court decision will "trample" on consumers rights, here's what I have say:
OMG!!!!!!!!!
Seriously guys, you're starting to sound ridiculous... I'm one of the biggest conspiracy nuts here (hence the "Question" avatar) and even I think you guys are WAY OFF and headed to the cookoo house. Do you guys even bother reading the diatribe that you write before hitting the "reply" button? because if you did, I'm sure you guys would be more inclined to revising your statements to make them sound.... less crazy.
Where does it say on the box that you will be the owner of the game software? What led you to believe that you could play WoW just by buying the box? In fact you can't, and if you thought you could, you're an idiot. You need WoW's servers. You need a subscription. You need to download additional copyrighted material from them before you can play. Yes, that's right. Additional copyrighted material that YOU DIDN"T BUY when you bought your $50 cardboard box and plastic coaster. It says it right on the box.
Here's an analogy for you -- Just because you go to a tennis club and buy a racquet from their pro shop, doesn't mean you own the courts or get to play on them. Nope, you have to pay extra for them...and you have to play by their rules. If your idea of fun is taking a crap on the base line between sets, you're going to get arrested, even though you bought a racquet from them.
At the end of the day, this is about a company that made money by inducing people to break contractual, legally binding promises they made with other people. Who cares what legal theory is used to stop cheating? It's Blizzard's house, and if you want to play in it, play by their rules. You wanna use bots? Play L2. Blizzard is just trying to keep the trash off their servers every way they can. If you think they get their jollies by paying lawyers $500 an hour just to get them a pretty piece of paper that says you don't own your copy of WoW, you're nuts.
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
Where does it say on the box that you will be the owner of the game software? What led you to believe that you could play WoW just by buying the box? In fact you can't, and if you thought you could, you're an idiot. You need WoW's servers. You need a subscription. You need to download additional copyrighted material from them before you can play. Yes, that's right. Additional copyrighted material that YOU DIDN"T BUY when you bought your $50 cardboard box and plastic coaster. It says it right on the box.
Here's an analogy for you -- Just because you go to a tennis club and buy a racquet from their pro shop, doesn't mean you own the courts or get to play on them. Nope, you have to pay extra for them...and you have to play by their rules. If your idea of fun is taking a crap on the base line between sets, you're going to get arrested, even though you bought a racquet from them.
At the end of the day, this is about a company that made money by inducing people to break contractual, legally binding promises they made with other people. Who cares what legal theory is used to stop cheating? It's Blizzard's house, and if you want to play in it, play by their rules. You wanna use bots? Play L2. Blizzard is just trying to keep the trash off their servers every way they can. If you think they get their jollies by paying lawyers $500 an hour just to get them a pretty piece of paper that says you don't own your copy of WoW, you're nuts.
Wow! Amen! I don't think I could've said it better myself, and yes, this analogy fits a heck of a lot better than the stupid analogies the Botter apologists have been throwing around about rapists and criminals that "are being punished when they should be encouraged so they can make better automaton robots" BS. I /tip my hat to you sir.
Here's a better analogy.
You go to a car dealer and buy a car. It's yours now, you OWN it. You're so happy about your new status as an automobile owner that you and the salesman split a bottle of bourbon to celebrate. After you finish and kiss him goodbye, you get in the driver seat of your new HOTROD, turn the key. The car goes vroom, vroom. How satisfying! That aftermarket tailpipe is really LOUD!
You pull out on the highway, and go as fast as the car will go. Wow, this new car that you OWN is AWESOMESAUCE!!! You can't believe how fast this car is. This nitrous system works JUST like the salesman said it would.
Suddenly, you see little red and blue lights flashing behind you. You keep driving. In fact you SPEED UP, since, you know, it's YOUR car, and who's the guy with the pretty lights on top of his car to tell you how fast you can drive it?
Finally, you get tired of running, and frankly, things are starting to get a bit blurry, so you pull over to see what this psycho wants. He walks up to your window, and says: "Is that alcohol I smell? Step out of the car, and show me your license and registration."
You slur: "Hello othifer. Yah know, I'm not as think as you drunk I am. You wanna thee my wha? And my whahhh? Hey bucko! I OWN thith car. I can dryfffffth it whenefffther, howeffffther, and whereffftthhver I want, and I don't need no thtinking lithenth or whatthamahoositsth. Who the HELL do you thfffink you are? I oughtta sthmack you in that perdy little mouthfff of yourth.!!!"
About an hour later, in the holding cell, you run into your old friend the car salesman. Turns out he got arrested for giving liquor to a minor (YOU) and allowing you to drive off the lot while intoxicated, without a license or registration, in an illegally souped-up car.
But no matter, you are reunited with your beloved, and everyone lived happily ever after.
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
Here's a better analogy.
You go to a car dealer and buy a car. It's yours now, you OWN it. You're so happy about your new status as an automobile owner that you and the salesman split a bottle of bourbon to celebrate. After you finish and kiss him goodbye, you get in the driver seat of your new HOTROD, turn the key. The car goes vroom, vroom. How satisfying! That aftermarket tailpipe is really LOUD!
You pull out on the highway, and go as fast as the car will go. Wow, this new car that you OWN is AWESOMESAUCE!!! You can't believe how fast this car is. This nitrous system works JUST like the salesman said it would.
Suddenly, you see little red and blue lights flashing behind you. You keep driving. In fact you SPEED UP, since, you know, it's YOUR car, and who's the guy with the pretty lights on top of his car to tell you how fast you can drive it?
Finally, you get tired of running, and frankly, things are starting to get a bit blurry, so you pull over to see what this psycho wants. He walks up to your window, and says: "Is that alcohol I smell? Step out of the car, and show me your license and registration."
You slur: "Hello othifer. Yah know, I'm not as think as you drunk I am. You wanna thee my wha? And my whahhh? Hey bucko! I OWN thith car. I can dryfffffth it whenefffther, howeffffther, and whereffftthhver I want, and I don't need no thtinking lithenth or whatthamahoositsth. Who the HELL do you thfffink you are? I oughtta sthmack you in that perdy little mouthfff of yourth.!!!"
About an hour later, in the holding cell, you run into your old friend the car salesman. Turns out he got arrested for giving liquor to a minor (YOU) and allowing you to drive off the lot while intoxicated, without a license or registration, in an illegally souped-up car.
But no matter, you are reunited with your beloved, and everyone lived happily ever after.
Have you ever heard of the term 'logical fallacy' because there is absolutely no association that could be made between driving drunk and copyright infringement. For one the case we are talking about doesn't even involve a criminal act.. this was not a case of criminal infringement, it was settled in civil courts.
This is a win/lose situation if you're a WoW player, maybe gamer in general, but I guess you'd have to be on the intellectual level of a copyright lawyer in order to see the lose side of it... which most gamer obviously fail at.