Transmog yourself into an Avenger!
6 blue posts to read before Diablo 3's launch
Cross-realm zones coming soon
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria newsThe Glider outcome and copyright law
by Mike Schramm 
Feb 4th 2009 at 6:00PM
Well, as you may have heard, Blizzard has all but finished off Glider -- pending one more appeal (which doesn't seem likely to win), Glider is getting shut down for good next week. Good news for Blizzard, but not so good for copyfighters? Blizzard used a controversial argument for copyright in its case -- they claimed that by circumventing the ToS, the Glider folks were actually breaking copyright law, and an interest group called Public Knowledge didn't take kindly to that. They argued that a decision for Blizzard would mean that any software developer could then prevent any customer from doing anything they didn't want to do, just by calling it a copyright infrigement. Blizzard responded that "buying" your WoW software was actually "licensing" it, but of course that didn't settle anyone down.And now, Glider has lost -- so what next?
Tim Lee over at Ars Technica does call the decision "troubling" -- the Judge in the case made a distinction between the "literal elements" of Warcraft (the actual bits on the game disc), and the "non-literal" elements (the gameplay itself), and that Blizzard didn't control access to the "literal elements" (anyone can make copies of the game disc), but that they did control access to the "non-literal elements" (as the Warden program keeps you from using apps like Glider). If it sounds confusing, that's because it is, but the bottom line is this: the decision in this case does basically confirm that Glider circumvented part of Blizzard's copyright, and thus, if taken completely literally, this precedent could mean that anyone who did anything with any software that was against anything in the Terms of Use could be sued under copyright law.
Whew. Of course, we're not done yet -- the case is still moving on to a higher court, and if by some chance it passes appeal there, we could have another outcome. And this precedent is shaky to say the least -- another case could come along and knock that part of Blizzard's argument out (that wasn't the only argument they had against Glider). But despite the fact that Blizzard and many players are cheering that the bots lost, they may have opened up a rift in copyright law that interest groups on the other side may have a little trouble closing.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Virtual selves, Odds and ends, Blizzard
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
shadowrider Feb 4th 2009 6:07PM
damn that is good news but also bad
SheldonLock Feb 4th 2009 6:17PM
It's only bad if you use/used Glider. If you think it's bad, then you've probably used Glider and you're probably going to be sued out the ass.
Karilyn Feb 4th 2009 6:36PM
Sheldon? Did you read the article.
It's GREAT that Glider has officially been shut down...
It's potentially a bad thing as the court case may have opened a can of worms in the future for less legitimate lawsuits... We don't really know yet though.
Thisisbad Feb 4th 2009 6:37PM
What people need to realize is that this is more than lol botter vs blizz.
This is what does a ToU or EULA mean and what is RAM?
For example do to this precedent anyone who has ever been suspended has committed copyright infringement.
HOW?
Say we have Bill. Bill was banned for 3 days. He was banned because he breached to ToU or EULA.
The new court precedent shows that you do not OWN anything. You are only given a license to play. By breaching the ToU or EULA you do not have the license any more.
But heres the kicker. Playing the game requires copying data into your RAM. Without a license they are declaring the copy to RAM illegal as it is copyright infringement because you have no license to copy it. Better yet, this is not something you INTENTIONALLY do. It is just a requirement of using a computer.
So a name called "lolwutomg" is against the EULA. -Sued
Temporarily banned -Sued
Anything against the ToU or ELAU -Sued
Blizz will of course not do this. however it sets a scary precedent. As anyone "could." Microsoft comes to mind but I am just paranoid like that.
Regestry Edits? SUED
Anything against their ToU? SUED
I could care less about botters and whatnot, people should be angry this happened. Sure the botter's were kicked, but we got some FAR worse collateral damage.
Quantumflea Feb 4th 2009 6:41PM
Sheldon, you are a dumbass and have completely missed the point of the article. That point was about precedent in copyright law. Did you even read the article before you comented?
Psy Feb 4th 2009 6:48PM
No, it's bad overall because it means we could accidentally (or purposely) break apart of the ToS, and get done for copyright infringement. Even if that part of the Terms doesn't have anything to do with the copyright.
I don't know how Glider broke copyright laws, but they did break the ToS. Breaking the Terms of Service of a something is illegal as a ToS is a legal binding contract between the company who issued it and the client who signed it (in this case, every single WoW user).
In saying this, whose to say they actually subscribed to World of Warcraft? Technically speaking, if I never signed up for WoW I could do whatever I like, even if it breaks their ToS, because I never signed to their terms. If it breaks other laws (like copyright laws) then yes, I could be done. And that's why it's bad.
Anyone who makes a program for a game that breaks the ToS will be done for copyright infringement. Even if it either does not break copyright laws, or the developer didn't sign any Terms of Service Agreement.
hold up Feb 4th 2009 7:27PM
Here's an interesting scenario. Lets say Blizzard accidently codes a bug where the damage reduction of Hand of Protection persists after the buff goes away. Now you are an invincible paladin walking around and destroying everything in your path. Blizzard determines that you are using an exploit to gain an unfair advantage and now your being sued.
That doesn't sounds like good news.
FYI - I'm not sure if exploiting a bug is technically a ToU violation, but you get the idea.
KnowYourFacts Feb 5th 2009 9:50AM
You will only get sued for copyright infringement if the copyright holder can how you are profiting (in real world money) from the breach or preventing the copyright holder from gaining revenue as a result of the copyright breach.
If Blizzard thinks you are using an exploit, you will simply get the typical ban for breach of EULA. IF Blizzard thinks you are using an exploit to gain real money at their expense, then you will get sued. If Blizzard thinks you are breaking the EULA for profit (i.e. gold farmer), you will get sued.
Alarmists pipe down.
KnowYourMyths Feb 5th 2009 11:50AM
KnowYourFacts said...
You will only get sued for copyright infringement if the copyright holder can how you are profiting (in real world money) from the breach or preventing the copyright holder from gaining revenue as a result of the copyright breach.
---
Ummm.... WRONG!
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
""If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property.
Just because you aren't profiting in real world money DOES NOT protect you from being sued for copyright infringement.
/Actually NOTHING protects you from being sued. You can be sued at anytime by anyone, albeit they don't necc. win.
kala Feb 4th 2009 6:08PM
Next, they should start implementing hard antimeasures against ingame goldspammers - IN SERVER LEVEL!
It is mindboggeling they are still not doing it, with all the talk they do.
Deadlock Feb 4th 2009 6:22PM
I'd rather they dealt with Twinks first. It's not much trouble to leave the channels gold spammers are on, but leaving a battleground means we miss out of a big aspect of the game until we reach level 80.
Cabcru Feb 4th 2009 6:52PM
It's actually more mind-boggling that people believe that if there was a fix possible that could be done server side and instead of going through something like this - that Blizzard wouldn't have already done it by now.
Seriously, if you find yourself thinking "All they need to do is..." or "They should just...", stop right there. You're not a super genius who has suddenly stumbled on to the secret of stopping bots / gold-sellers / etc. that has hitherto eluded everyone else for the four years the game has been running.
Simply put, your 'idea' isn't in game already because...
a) It's plain stupid.
b) It'd be ineffectual.
c) You're too short-sighted to see the ramifications.
d) You're too self-absorbed to care what the ramifications are.
e) All of the above.
Badger Feb 4th 2009 9:15PM
Deadlock: No offense, dude, but you must have missed where the PvPers on Blizzard's staff - namely Tigole - have been actively encouraging and supporting Twinks. The new "Bind on Account" loot mechanic was actually created, at least in part, to help this behavior continue.
Nick Feb 4th 2009 6:10PM
Whilst a victory against the bots is indeed a victory against the bots, I truly wish glider had won here. Copyright law should have absolutely nothing to do with this arguement, it should solely come down to Blizzard making warden/WoW secure enough to deter botters.
Read through the EULA and I think you'll find that more than half of the WoW player base are now copyright infringers. Got a character called "lolsalot"? Could be $6 million in damages right there........
SheldonLock Feb 4th 2009 6:17PM
I got two sides to that last thing you said. One, the only Lolsalot wouldn't be a "Copyright" kind of thing. For one, you CAN'T Copyright 'words' like that. Plus, people that don't even play WoW used "lol". "lol" can't be copyrighted(?) and besides, do you think Blizzard really wants to fuck up the money flow they get by doing something like that?
Second, anyone that gives a character that name SHOULD be sued. Stupid names like that really ruin the game. Which is why *I* put a good 15 minutes into thinking of a character name. Hell, I made a Gnome Rogue named "Kneepain" and deleted him just because I thought his name was retarded.
Stone_Rhino Feb 4th 2009 6:42PM
You missed his point entirely sheldon.
Naming a character "lolsalot" is against the EULA because it contains multiple words that are similar to a sentence.
According to this ruling breaking the rules of the EULA is copyright infringement. And thus you are breaking the law.
So characters with names containing sentences, special characters, or inappropriate references are not just against the TOS, they are illegal.
This goes even further, swearing in chat is breaking the law now. Spam is breaking the law. Using unintended game mechanics (such as mcing mobs to get buffs) is against the law.
This is a VERY BAD ruling, even for law abiding players.
email Feb 4th 2009 6:45PM
Sheldonlock - you fail to understand.
The EULA states that you can't have a name like "lolsalot" or a name that represents a famouse person etc. Since you are breaking the EULA, you are breaking Blizzard's copyright. Therefore, they can sue you for damages.
This decision didn't give Blizzard the ability to copyright "lol," it gave them the ability to sue you for breaking any arbitrary rule they can put in a EULA that you signed.
Blizzard won't do this (you don't sue paying customers), but other companies can use this precedent to do so in the future.
Thunderbuck Feb 4th 2009 6:55PM
Yes, I agree.
I don't really object to Glider being sued, and subsequently banned. It's kind of retarded anyway; to me it's like hiring someone to watch a movie for you.
I don't even mind that they've used the EULA to do it. My big problem is that they SEEM to be stretching the concept and definition of "copyright" to a point where they can use the EULA as a club to batter anything that Blizzard capriciously decides is against their concept of what WoW should be.
shawn Feb 4th 2009 6:17PM
The fact remains that copyright law is still very confusing and most people over seeing the use of these laws do not fully understand them. The other side is the people who write these copyright laws most often do not understand technology and how people want to consume it. I think there can be a happy middle, but both sides are going to have to work together. As for glider, I am personally glad that they are being shut down. Just my two cents.
Zeplar Feb 4th 2009 6:23PM
I just... am not seeing America falling to pieces over a trial about video-game botting. Say what you will about "The precedent, our rights, they is failing us!" but the world is not going to end over Blizzard and Glider.