Blizzard wins lawsuit against bot makers
by Daniel Whitcomb 
Jul 15th 2008 at 9:00AM
You may recall the long running Blizzard vs. MDY battle from various reports here on WoW Insider. In short, Blizzard sued MDY, the makers of the MMOGlider bot (formerly the WOWGlider bot), claiming that the bot violated Blizzard copyright by writing portions of the game to RAM in order to work (since you only have a license to run the game files, and do not actually own them, unauthorized copies are against the EULA). They also claimed that the bot tortiously interfered with Blizzard's customer base. MDY sued them right back, claiming they had every right to sell and distribute their bots.
MDY received a crushing blow yesterday as the court ruled against them, Virtually Blind reports, declaring them guilty of copyright infringement and tortious interference (Apparently, bots stealing your kills is now a legal issue, which is sort of cool). The ramifications of this decision are still being discussed in various corners of the net and legal world.
Tobold puts it most succinctly when he says that cheating is now officially illegal. At first glance, he certainly seems to be correct. Any program that loads a part of Blizzard's code into the RAM looks like it can now be declared criminal, not only bots, but speed hacks and teleport hacks and other types of hacks as well. Now, in addition to banning them for breaking the EULA, they -- or any other MMO developer in any game -- can also bring them to court for copyright infringement in the USA.
Of course, others are seeing bad consequences for this. As you may recall, the advocacy group Public Knowledge filed an amicus brief on the case that stated that a ruling in favor of Blizzard could have disastrous consequences for copyright law, allowing copyright holders to sue and win over the smallest of EULA or TOS violations. Some commenters are even predicting that the RIAA may be able to use it to prosecute anyone who plays music on their computer.
So has Blizzard struck a blow for legitimate players and game integrity, or have they opened a Pandora's Box to a future of draconian digital copyright law enforcement? Whether either of these imagined outcomes is completely right on the money is something that only time may truly be able to tell. Right now, MDY still has a chance to appeal, so there's a chance that another ruling will put things right back where they were. In the short term, I'm pretty happy that Blizzard has another tool on their belt to deal with cheaters and hackers, whatever else occurs.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Cheats, Blizzard, News items, Account Security
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
pudds Jul 15th 2008 9:12AM
Good intentions, bad verdict.
I can't help but hope that MDY will appeal; not because I'm in favor of botters, but because the idea that "copy a program into RAM" is copyright infringement is positively ludicrous.
By that definition, I'm currently guilty of copying Firefox, MS Outlook, Visual Studio, and even Windows XP.
Guess what, Mr. Judge? You CANNOT run an application without loading it into memory. Period. Its a functional requirement of modern computing. This ruling is absolutely laughable from a technical standpoint.
Boldwyn Jul 15th 2008 9:33AM
And that's why US copyright laws explicitly makes an exception for it:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
thain Jul 15th 2008 9:27AM
I agree this is ridiculous verdict from a technical standpoint. You copy the code every time you install the game, windows copies it to backup your computer. And every time you RUN the game parts are copied into the RAM, then CPU memory, and Video RAM.
And yes I am much more concerned about having to pay RIAA blackmail money because I legally ripped music from a CD than bots in wow.
thain Jul 15th 2008 9:34AM
One last comment. This ruling could potentially make anti-virus and anti-spyware software illegal as they would be editing copyrighted legal spyware.
Personally I would rather the user have more rights over what is allowed to happen, and not happen on their own computer.
Tridus Jul 15th 2008 9:36AM
Except that you have a license to use those things. Unless you're in breach of the Firefox license, you're not violating anything by using it how it was intended.
tanek Jul 15th 2008 9:44AM
I read the ruling and don't see how it would be specifically applied to *any* application that uses RAM in any way. So I don't see that fear having much of a foundation.
Plus, it specifically makes mention of this part of the Blizzard WoW ToU:
"You agree that you will not (i) modify or cause to be modified any files that are a part of the Program or the Service; (ii) create or use cheats, bots, "mods", and/or hacks, or any other third-party software designed to modify the World of Warcraft experience; or (iii) use any third-party software that intercepts, "mines", or otherwise collects information from or through the Program or the Service. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may update the Program with authorized patches and updates distributed by Blizzard, and Blizzard may, at its sole and absolute discretion, allow the use of certain third party user interfaces."
Given that (which seems pretty clear), while other software developers *may* be able to word their ToU in such a way that it prevents you from any part loading their application into RAM, it would make said application unusable and would only hurt that developer in the long run.
Naix Jul 15th 2008 9:46AM
"Guess what, Mr. Judge? You CANNOT run an application without loading it into memory. Period."
You just lost 99% of the judges.
Ktok Jul 15th 2008 10:51AM
The issue here is not that they are loading it into memory. The issue is that they are loading it into memory in a way that is not required to run WoW in its intended manner. Thus, they are in violation of the terms of use for the software liscence, and due to the violation also including making a copy of the code, in whole or in part, they are furthermore in violation of copyright.
Plus, to use Firefox, an open source application, in any example of copyright violation proves you don't know what you're talking about. You can copy Firefox till the cows come home... you can even edit the code, so long as you don't *sell* your edits.
The only people who should be worried about this ruling are those people who use cheats in WoW. Fly right and you have nothing to fear here.
Verit Jul 15th 2008 1:59PM
From what I understand of the case is that in the EULA you copy the game into memory is perfectly legal, however if you violate the EULA (which users are doing using glider) that EULA is null and void and the user no longer has permission to copy the game into ram. And glider is helping customers violate that agreement.
Faar Jul 15th 2008 2:47PM
I believe Blizzard's argument was not that it was illegal to copy a program into RAM per se - because that would make it impossible to play/run WoW period; clearly not logical.
Instead, they meant it was copyright infringement for a program to copy and/or modify AN ALREADY RUNNING program's memory contents.
This - if taken to extremes - would actually make virus scanners/killers illegal to run on a PC, as they by necessity have to read (and thus copy) the contents of a system in order to protect it.
I'm elated Blizzard won against a bunch of cheater fsckheads, but not so happy they won on the copyright infringement count. Tortuous interference would have been enough, though I kind of understand Blizzard's reasoning here; they threw everything + kitchen sink at these guys in order to make at least something stick, and unfortunately this one did...
Tony Jul 15th 2008 9:15AM
Personally, I'm adopting a "wait and see" additude. I think all this talk about setting precident is coming from a bunch of fearmongerers.
Makoto99 Jul 15th 2008 9:14AM
I fully support anti-piracy and anti-cheating and so forth, but any sort of copyright-enforcement worries me, especially with the RIAA around as the articles mentions. It'll be great when computer software license philosophy makes its way to other sectors.
Imagine it - you don't buy a car, you just license it from Ford or Toyota or wherever. And if you ever get a speeding ticket or a parking violation, your license to the car is revoked and voided, and to be re-licensed, you have to pay them a fee.
Awesome. I'm gonna go down to the supermarket and license an apple right now.
Carbon Jul 15th 2008 5:10PM
You show me how an apple is intellectual property and can be copy-written, and I'll glady accept your money for an apple license. I don't think we'll be near that age until we're wildly modifying genomes.
And how can intellectual property be consumed? Isn't it against the whoel spirit of intellectual property? You can't destroy and idea, but you sure as heck can destroy that apple.
q(0_o)p
I honestly don't see anyone going to court over virus protection software, and even then, the makers of spyware can just as easily be slapped with a tortuous invasion or something.
In other news, the sky is falling. I'll worry about the RIAA when I start to pirate music that the RIAA cares about.
Makoto99 Jul 15th 2008 10:17PM
"You show me how an apple is intellectual property and can be copy-written, and I'll glady accept your money for an apple license."
Hi. Sarcasm. Know of it or were you just looking for a soapbox?
Isherwood Jul 16th 2008 9:17AM
Of course you don't license a car. You buy it. It's a physical item that *can* be taken away if you abuse it. Software and songs are very easy to copy, and those copies are fully functional. This is why most stores won't take back opened software or CD's.
Physical items are much harder to copy, requiring more time and specialized tools. However, if you went into your garage and built an exact duplicate of your car and then tried to sell it, you would certainly be visited by some nice attorneys from Ford or Toyota.
Andrethir Jul 15th 2008 9:15AM
IANAL, but just as an FYI: Copyright infringement is a civil tort, it's not a criminal act, such as theft.
The bot makers won't face jail time (at least not AFAIK), but they will most likely face substantial, nigh crippling, fines. The fines would probably be based on either the number of botting client downloads MDY admits to, or some voodoo math performed by Blizzard's law-specced Shammy corps.
Jim Jul 15th 2008 11:25AM
IAMAL, You are right. It won't be "declared criminal".
But I really don't see why it didn't end with tortious interference. I still think that's where this ends up, down the road.
Buckshot Jul 15th 2008 9:15AM
draconian digital copyright law enforcement ftl
Calarius Jul 16th 2008 5:13PM
Right, because making money off of someone else's work, cheating, and basically being a bunch of low-life scumbags should be rewarded, not punished.
jbodar Jul 22nd 2008 8:10PM
@Calarius
False dilemma. Being against draconian DRM schemes does not mean that someone is for rampant abuse of IP. That MAY be the case, but there is a vast middle ground.