Blizzard responds to Public Knowledge about WoW Glider
by Mike Schramm 
Jun 30th 2008 at 4:00PM
As we've been posting on WoW Insider, Blizzard is entangled in a lawsuit with the makers of WoW Glider, a bot program that is against WoW's terms of service. And there's been a wrinkle in the case -- an advocacy group called Public Knowledge has filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit arguing for Glider, and saying that if Blizzard wins this case, it could set a precedent for copyright law that would make any copying of a computer program (including the simple act of copying it for an install to the hard drive) be illegal at the IP owner's will. That's unacceptable, says Public Knowledge, so even though they agree that Glider may be against the ToS, they don't think Blizzard should win the case.And now Blizzard has responded to Public Knowledge, and their argument isn't all that new. They claim that when you "buy" your WoW software, you don't actually own it -- you're just "licensing" it to use it on your computer. This is an argument that's long been used by copyright owners to claim that end users don't have the right to hack or otherwise modify their software, and it opens up a whole other can of worms, not least of which is that Blizzard is claiming if Glider wins this case, then all software "sales" ever really will give end users the ability to hack or modify it at will (something that a company like Microsoft, with their Windows OS, wouldn't want to happen).
As we've said before, there are a few ways this case could pan out, and it's likely that it won't end with either of the doomsday scenarios that Blizzard and Public Knowledge are describing -- the court could still rule narrowly in favor of Blizzard, stopping Glider but staying away from the other messes brought up here. Oral arguments in the case started this week -- we'll keep an eye on what happens next.
[via Massively]
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Virtual selves, Blizzard, News items
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Gligar Jun 30th 2008 4:19PM
And the flaws of the precedent law system /wave all of us.
PimpyMicPimp Jul 1st 2008 4:58AM
This.
Valkoon Jun 30th 2008 4:17PM
Sounds cool. I'll have to try it out.
Candina@WH Jun 30th 2008 5:19PM
Be prepared to be banned by Blizzard and loathed by your fellow game players.
Runstadrey Jul 3rd 2008 1:10AM
Given the speed of the court system, WoW will be a treasured memory like Zork by the time this is settled.
Tim Jun 30th 2008 4:32PM
What's wrong with having an agreement with users that states the use of the software is merely a license, and does not convey ownership? I don't see why any software maker shouldn't be able to insist on that.
I mean, is the upfront fee when you first get the software what is confusing people about all of this? WoW is unplayable after the first month without that monthly fee, after all.
Radical anti-copyright people need to understand that ownership and contractual relationships are legitimate. Hacking software may be a rebellious thing to do, and give people a sense of control, but it's not always right.
crsh Jun 30th 2008 4:42PM
The trouble is the angle Blizzard lawyers chose to use in the case against the makers of Glider; they claim that Blizzard owns it's code (makes sense) down to the bytes running through a computer's RAM (bad) because that where Glider works to allow unintended gameplay perks (ie. hackin' and bottin'), rather than only files residing on a hard drive (Glider doesn't modify the original files in the WoW folder).
It's an interesting issue; I'm against software like Glider, but Blizzard lawyers sure took a very sketchy angle that I'm not 100% in agreement with.
Candina@WH Jun 30th 2008 5:17PM
Actually, I agree with the concept that - if you hack our software, we can cut you off.
But the angle Blizz is arguing is just plain wrong. They are saying that they own the right to how the software resides in your memory.
This makes things that monitor performance (which measure how much RAM your program is using) could be a violation of COPYRIGHT. What about instruction caching at the chip level? Windows Swap file? How about running WOW on a RAM drive to improve performance? These too would be violations of COPYRIGHT.
Not violations of the terms of service, but violations of the digital copyright laws which have a $10k-25k (or more) a pop fines.
Blizz's position is simply wrong. They should win that anyone who uses glider violates the terms of service and can be banned. But to say they own HOW your machine writes those bits to memory is hogwash.
Jesse Jun 30th 2008 10:15PM
well, let's say you buy a video game that doesn't require a subscription. After beating it three or four times, you sell it used to the local used games dealer. You just committed a Felonious Act according to Blizzard. because you didn't own the game, so you don't have the right to sell it.
or let's say blizzard signs a deal with dell, now wow will only run on dell brand computer's. If you modify it to work on your homebuilt, or your HP, blizz takes you to court, just for playing a game you've already paid for...
I'm not saying this is likely to happen (or at least likely to be done by blizz) but there are lots of crooked people out there trying to chip away at your ownership rights. For example, the RIAA is trying to apply licensing concepts to music cd's, which would make it illegal to sell used cd's without giving record company's a taste...
the ultimate point is that software should be treated like property. If I buy a used car and junk it for parts, that's fine. But if I pay for a piece of software, I can't use it how I see fit?
BS!!!
Brolly Jul 3rd 2008 4:32PM
When you buy a Toyota, are you not able to modify it within the boundaries of the law? You don't have to ask permission from Toyota.
This is exactly what this is about, Blizzards EULA is not law, it is their EULA.
Nick S Jun 30th 2008 5:11PM
Public Knowledge is absolutely correct. It's a terrifying legal precedent.
Consider one possibility stemming from such a precedent: Microsoft, threatened by programs such as Firefox, makes it illegal for Firefox to hook into Windows as the default browser.
Windows is already on the "license, not ownership" plan.
Blizz deserves to protect themselves, but this is not the way to do it. Do we need to offer software companies, already capable of yanking their customers around more or less to their content, yet another legal bludgeon?
Ngnsewa Jul 1st 2008 4:23AM
I think you are confusing hacking an IP (Bliz) with forcing a browser monopoly(MS). These are two totally different cases.
We all know botting sucks. It is sad that any company has to go to these lengths (legal) to stop what is obviously wrong and bad.
Nick S Jul 1st 2008 4:56AM
I must disagree with your assertion that the two cases, one real and one rhetorical, are different. I understand why the previous accusations of monopolistic practices against Microsoft might cloud your understanding of my point, but Microsoft's alleged dreams of monopoly were not what I intended to highlight.
Whether or not the use of Glider was ethical or allowed by Blizzard's terms of service *doesn't matter* - a victory for Blizzard in this case would set a precedent that would allow software manufacturers to decide for us (even more than they already can) what we're allowed to do on our computers while their programs are running. For me, and for other software consumers and professionals, this potential precedent is a Bad Thing.
Whitburni Jun 30th 2008 7:05PM
I'm not a lawyer but...
In a hypothetical situation where the maker of WoWGlider
did not actually play the game, and therefore did not accept the TOS, would the TOS apply to the maker of WoWGlider?
Ngnsewa Jul 1st 2008 4:24AM
No, but you can not run a WoW bot without running WoW.
Thats pretty obvious O_o
Joseph Jun 30th 2008 7:48PM
Kind of a bad example. WoW Glider is specifically made for WoW, and in fact, doesn't do anything other than run with WoW. If it were something similar to the G5 keyboard macro's, than that would be a very valid argument, as you can claim it was unintended that your product be used to bot. However, Glider even sports the WoW logo when you boot it up (checked it out, I'm humble enough to admit it, but it wouldn't run on my 64 bit system) so there is no denying what it's intended use is.
Eisengel Jun 30th 2008 10:57PM
I agree that a software publisher should have some rights to their Intellectual Property, and a game like WoW is distinct in that what you buy really isn't important at all... it is the graphical layer that is hung on top of all the data running back and forth between Blizzard's servers and your machine.
There is a fundamental problem with 'copyrighting' software though... you can't. Software is computer code, which is basically just ones and zeroes stored in a certain sequence. The whole thing that gives them meaning is how they are interpreted. A book is a book... it is an object, a thing. You can't take it apart or change it without changing what it is. You can however easily change what a computer program does without changing the program itself by changing the way it is interpreted. For instance if you held a book up to a mirror, you aren't changing the book... only the way you are interpreting (reading) the content.
This problem is a bad one. Let's say Blizzard is able to say no copies or alterations of their code can be on my computer, okay, fine. The problem is that you can take basically ANY random string of ones and zeroes and create a function to translate them into ANY other string of ones and zeroes... so Blizzard could try to prove that my copy of Windows XP is actually an 'encrypted' version of WoW, the scary part is, the argument is entirely valid! If you can translate any bunch of ones and zeroes into any other bunch, then EVERYTHING is, in essence, a copy of ANYTHING. This is why you can NOT legislate content stored in bits, only the manner in which it is used.
If Blizzard's interpretation of copyright as applied to software is held up, it will be illegal to install or run WoW, because your computer, by its very operation, makes hundreds and thousands of copies of the information on those discs every second, and alters that information millions of times a second in order to play the game, plus if any other information (like an operating system) is on your computer, it can be proven to be at least a partial copy of WoW content.
Software is inherently UNownable under the provisions of copyright because its INTENDED use in a computer violates nearly every copyright provision of 'fair-use' by the client.
The only thing that can be protected is the behavior and use of the program, which is also problematic... does Blizzard get to sue me if Windows crashes and causes WoW to do something unintended?
We need a different way to legislate software that encapsulates the expectations of the content creator and the end user.
This has been provided for partially with the 'End User License Agreement' (EULA), that thing that pops up after each patch that everyone has to scroll to the bottom of and click 'accept'. I don't see why Blizzard can't modify its EULA to disallow this program instead of trying to destroy the ability of anyone to make use of their product.
KeltRanger Jul 1st 2008 5:28AM
looking at your book analogy we could say that every book written in say the English language is just a copy of every other as basically if each is broken down they are just a series of 26 letters and 10 numbers and a load of commas etc all the same but in different orders, looking at say more modern books each would most likely of been written on a computer using a word processor so no matter what language they were written in they would all be broken down into zero's and one's so all basically copies of each other, look now at music a bit different but all made up of a group of notes and tones and chords so all basically the same, and if recorded onto cd etc they become a series of 1's and 0's...
So I am off to the copy write office to se if I can grab the copy write to the numbers 1 and 0.....make a man rich;)
Eisengel Jul 1st 2008 6:55PM
Yep, you can't copyright bits, it would be like saying you want to copyright ink, so that everything written with ink belongs to you.