Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 news
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 2 of 3)
Firestride Feb 4th 2009 6:24PM
Just my two cents, but I have a feeling copyright law won't really start to be set until 20 or 30 years from now, when it's the internet generation doing the lawmaking.
jurandr Feb 4th 2009 6:30PM
in b4 a botter comes and tries to defend him/herself.
Dreadskull Feb 4th 2009 6:33PM
At this rate they might just have to make changes in stuff like the copywright laws to incorporate MMOs or something if this gets out of hand -.-;
Kenty Feb 4th 2009 6:34PM
If I'm just leasing the game, then are my WoW payments tax deductable? Does that mean when I make a complaint blizzard HAS to respond? Since they have released to me a copy of the property does that make it illegal for blizzard to take away from my quiet enjoyment ie: ban when content liability is disavowed on the very box.
I disagree with botting as much as the next player. But no, I don't like people screwing around with copywrite law more than they need to
Brisket Feb 4th 2009 6:34PM
First. I have never used glider, never wanted to use glider, never will use glider.... But i think that it should have been a calling to blizzard, and i think it was.
Blizzard should have realized after programs like Glider had come out that the game was based way to much on farming, to much on getting things to raid an so forth.
I think Blizzard has changed that with Wrath. I mean you don't have to grind for anything really fi you don't want to.
- Brisk
Cabcru Feb 4th 2009 6:59PM
Isn't that like saying once race officials noticed steroid abuse, they should have changed the rules to let everyone come first?
Driphter Feb 4th 2009 6:39PM
In before comments made by idiot that don't understand the article or the consequences of this trial's outcome. Oh wait, I'm about 7 or 8 comments too late.
~Driphter
Nick Feb 4th 2009 6:40PM
My point wasn't that "lolsalot" would be a copyrighted phrase, merely that such a name is in violation of the EULA. I agree that such names are annoying, however I don't think that using such a name should be treated as copyright infringement.
Nobody can agree that this ruling is for the best. It makes it possible for blizzard to sue any customer they like, for no reason at all, and precident will be set to rule in Blizzards favour. I'm not saying this is likely to happen, I am saying it would now be possible and legal.
1. Blizzard are broke
2. I am chatting happily
3. Blizzard, in their sole and absolute discretion deem my comments offensive (they decide what is offensive, and therefor they decide if I break TOS and thus EULA)
4. Since Blizz decided I broke TOS, they sue me for copyright infringment.
5. Precident is already set, and so the judge rules in Blizzards favour.
6. I now owe blizzard thousands of dollars, simply because they decided they wanted some extra cash.....
djdriverusa Feb 4th 2009 6:41PM
Glider this and Glider that....many articles so far on Glider, yet no explanation as to what Glider is or does (someone above did mention farming but ?????)
Badger Feb 4th 2009 9:20PM
DJ: Glider is a program that essentially enables a player to automatically farm materials for professions in the game world (e.g. ore nodes, herbs, etc.) and rack up levels over hours of gameplay - all without actually sitting at the computer.
In other words, the program is designed to enable players to beat (read: "cheat") the gathering and leveling grinds without any effort on their parts.
I have no idea how it works, but the entire thing appears to be built around automated script(s).
Tagashi Feb 4th 2009 6:41PM
SheldonLock -
You are obviously too young, stupid, or shortsighted to understand these arguments. It's not literally about the names. The point being made here is that Blizzard can literally put anything they want in the TOS (and change it at anytime without notice) then sue you for not complying. This doesn't come down just to the names or even blizzard for that matter. If Blizzard has this power, so does every other software company. Heck, imagine what might happen if other companies find a way to attach TOS agreements to their products! At it's core, this is about corporate America dictating what rights we as citizens in the United States have. Now feel free to respond with posts about how paranoid I am, or how I am just running around yelling about the sky falling. You are the people that are too lazy to even think about this issue, so you use those excuses to justify your lack of action to yourself. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Mihn Feb 4th 2009 6:52PM
Once again, more cries of "The sky is falling!" "Were losing our freedoms!"
tagashi Feb 4th 2009 6:59PM
Mihn -
The sky is not literally falling, but it is true that the people of the USA are slowly but surely losing freedoms and civil liberties, in favor of corporate greed. I'm sorry if you aren't evolved enough to have gained basic pattern recognition skills. Instead, maybe the bony plate on your forehead that protects your acorn-sized brain will get just a little bit thicker....
Mihn Feb 4th 2009 7:16PM
Actually, you don't sound sorry at all. You sound rather contrary and threatening. Taking glee in the assumption that I do not have on iota of what this subject is about.
The fallacy that this will erode our freedoms is plain to see to the people who use their brain to think, and not their heart. That is the problem with modern society, too much emotional judgment, no intellectual though. One only needs to look at afternoon television to see how much we care about feelings over rationality.
Anyway, your screed of pathetic insults amuses me. Acorn brain indeed. My 8 year old could teach you a thing or two about how to dress one down.
I have already posted my thoughts an opinions on this case in another article, if you care to click my name, you will find them. For the obviously lazy poster who responded to me. The one who cares more about being right, than research, here:
Once again, the emotional activist rallying cry of "our freedoms is being stolen" is heard, when they really arent. When you look at the details of the case through unbiased sources, it makes sense. And most of the naysayers on here seem to be using fallacious logic and hearsay to make their point, invalidating it completely.
We often cheer for the government when they use a piece of legal trickery to nail a bad guy. But when Blizzard uses those same tactics to stop the makers of this program from doing tings in their game that a majority of the user base finds unethical, we protest.
Yes, I am sure Blizz could continue to patch Glider out of the game, and, then when the patch is broken, patch again, creating a cycle. Does anyone remember a program called UOExtreme? He lost his case, too. Why? He used the term UO in the name of the program. Legal gymnastics are nothing new in these sorts of cases.
It is a fact that this program copies the client into memory for the express purpose of modifying it in a way that disagrees with the TOS. The same terms that the Glider writers agreed to when they opened the software and installed it while they reverse engineered it.
And before you claim this sets a nasty legal precedent, let me say this one fact, precedents can be overturned. That is why they are called Judges, they Judge. If a Judge thinks the other Judge was less than informed, or, made a mistake, it can be overturned. The mass hysteria that is being spewed forth by the "losing our freedoms!" crowd spews out, is often just that, Hysterics.
And with that, I bid you farewell.
Steve Feb 4th 2009 7:33PM
/cheer Mihn
Badger Feb 4th 2009 9:23PM
Let all who are present know: I officially nominate this Comment for this week's [ 1. Local ] (even though I have absolutely no official capacity on this site). :-D
sleeptastic Feb 4th 2009 7:39PM
Blizz suing you for damages over a name? The best they could win is forcing you to change your name. If you're talking about monetary damages, you only get those if you can show harm. For example by selling a bot that ruins that integrity of the game, thus causing some other people to quit and stop paying Blizz their subscription dollars.
In practical terms, since violation of ToS and helping other people violate ToS are already illegal under contract law, there is very little real impact except to the scholarship of copyright law, because in the real world, software devs will still win under contract law.
Balsa Feb 4th 2009 8:28PM
Agreed. Violating a EULA or TOU does not, in and of itself, constitute copyright infringment. Other specific factors were cited like cercumvention of measures to protect copyrighted material. Violating some randomly chosen term of use doesn't necessarily cermumvent measures to protect copyrighted material, so this case doesn't automatically become precident for all future cases involving EULAs and copyrights. The similarity between this case and some hypothetical future case would be taken into consideration in its validity as precedence.
Thediz Feb 4th 2009 7:32PM
There are probably reasons why blizz lawyers decided to go with the copyright infringement argument. One reason I would guess at is, there is probably more laws with backbone as far as penalties and fines in place to deal with copyright infringement. If blizz went with “you broke our TOS agreement” argument alone there might not be a way to make the charges stick. I know the point of this article is can a violation of a TOS agreement be a copy write issue?
That being said this glider case is pretty unique and as a whole had a very negative impact on blizzard. Will this pave the way for other companies to sue people for TOS violations? Maybe, I doubt it. I think the blizz lawyers have just utilized what they can in place for laws. Will it affect the 99% rest of us very unlikely.
Clayton Feb 4th 2009 7:31PM
Correct me if I am wrong but does this mean that if you posted a vid on Youtube that has wow in it you can be sued? for example the Moviewatch vids?