Patch 5.4 patch notes
Virtual Realms feature revealed
The Proving Grounds are coming
The latest patch 5.4 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 3 of 3)
epoxyclip Feb 4th 2009 8:11PM
Hmm .. interesting.
Does this mean because of this precedent, if say Microsoft put a clause in their Windows OS Licensing Agreement that forbids you from ridiculing them, some of you who often say bad things about Microsoft can actualy be sued for this agreement violation.
Or a similar clause in Microsoft Visual Studio to stop people from making software that competes with Microsoft products.
That is great! I am a big fan of Microsoft you see and I want them to get bigger and get the monopoly of the software market. And this precedent is a step in the right direction.
Rudolphe Feb 4th 2009 8:18PM
Don't blame Blizzard, blame the US justice system!
zentzuken Feb 4th 2009 8:47PM
Ever since the other recent post on WoWInsider about Glider, I've been doing some research about WoW botting.
My methods were simple: Google & IRC.
And I've discovered something. A lot (A LOT) of hardcore botters who bot not for just leveling toons but for heavy farming, don't give a piss about this ruling.
From my understanding, many of these botting rings run their own private, unreleased bots (someone even mentioned a macro-bot which is nothing more than a waypoint system and spamming user-defined macro's on actionbars).
So this might turn out to be such a hollow, hollow victory for Blizzard.
Glider seemed to have been the best bot designed for mass consumption, but its shutting down seems to not matter at all for hardcore botters.
Also, as someone with programming knowledge, I've found out that though making a hard can be challenging and does require patience and persistence, it can be done effectively by a single programmer.
Hah. hah.
Sakarabu Feb 4th 2009 9:35PM
I don't think blizzard believes that they are going to stop EVERY. SINGLE. BOTTER. but like you said, they may have stopped the most widely used method of botting. I personally don't believe there are enough 'hardcore botters' to bother blizzard after the 'any idiot can download it' ways of botting are stopped.
zentzuken Feb 4th 2009 9:39PM
Ah but the point I was trying to make was that the botters that are doing the most damage to the game are not these casual glider botters. They are of a different sort.
Anyway, when Glider shuts down, it will be replaced. That's just the way of things.
Plastic Rat Feb 4th 2009 9:49PM
First, it will shut down the casual script kiddies who bot. The hardcore botters who actually write their own stuff and are intelligent enough not to get caught constantly are a LOT rarer than the mouthbreathers who have to buy a pre-written bot.
It's like saying if we ban the manufacture of guns, people will still build their own. Yes, there are people out there capable of it, but they're definitely a lot more scarce.
Second off, it allows them to sue the pants off the next organization that raises its head promoting botting. I'm guessing it's not going to take much now for Blizzard's lawyers to shut down websites who advertise free downloads of bots.
So another step in the right direction.
mensrea Feb 4th 2009 9:55PM
"they claimed that by circumventing the ToS, the Glider folks were actually breaking copyright law"
And the court shot down that argument. The judgment was based on the circumvention not of the ToS but of warden itself.
Tagashi Feb 4th 2009 10:21PM
Mihn-
No, I really am sorry, and you do not have an iota as to what this means. The only reason I can see what this could POTENTIALLY mean for society is because I am using my brain and not my heart. I am not saying that this ONE decision will erode our freedoms. I am saying that this decision, combined with many others from the past, opens the door for us to lose freedoms. I am not saying it WILL happen. I just think it is a bad idea to give any entity, especially a corporate one, so much power. You know they only have their own (and their shareholders) interests in mind, and will usually do whatever it takes to make money. This is not emotional. It’s pure logic.
Insulting you was probably not the best way to get my point across, and for that I apologize. Still, you should know that even though you may hear your couch talking to you, in reality, a couch is an inanimate object with no thoughts, emotions, or feelings.
As for your opinions, I have read many of your postings previously, including the copy/paste of your comments this time around (and you call others lazy).
Regarding legal trickery: You are only assuming that “we” cheer when the government uses it to catch a “bad” guy. I seriously doubt you did any sort of formal survey to come to that conclusion. For the record, I think it is terrible when anyone uses legal “trickery” for any reason. If it can be used by the “good” to catch the “bad”, it can also be used in the reverse, and often times it is.
Overall, it is better for the industry for software makers to evolve their programs to increase security, not attempt to use laws to deter people who don’t really care about laws in the first place. Adversity used to make us stronger. Now if something is difficult, we sue it until it goes away. How will the law help Blizzard when someone posts the source code for Glider on a bit torrent page? Heck, it doesn’t even have to be Glider. Now that there is a hole in the market for cheater software, it’s possible that some other company will find a way to use “legal trickery” to sell a similar piece of software. If Blizzard could write a secure piece of software in the first place, this would be a non issue.
Lastly, I don’t feel you are taking the concept of legal precedence seriously. Judges take the decisions of other judges very, very seriously. They must see OVERWHELMING proof that the other judge was misinformed. Unfortunately, in cases where relatively new technologies are involved, most judges are not educated enough to even understand what they are making a judgment on. Much of the technology related cases really require some schooling in computer science or electronic engineering to even begin to understand. The fact that you are being so flippant about it suggests that you do not understand what is going on here.
Look, I would love to sit here and give you more reasons as to why you are wrong, but I’m not sure what the character limit here is. I’ll just leave it at this: Why give any corporation (which exists for the sole purpose of making money) more legal or political power than they must have? I guarantee you that they do not, and will not, have your interests in mind (unless they happen to coincide with their own). Think big picture and long term, and you may be able to see what I can. Good luck with life. You will need it.
Ravenwhite Feb 4th 2009 11:09PM
Excellent rebuttal :)
Most people dont think anything through with logic, those that do are few and far between.
I think it is a dangerous road they are taking, only time will tell the true ramifications of this.
Sadly when it does affect people personally(on the receiving end from said verdict) then they will be the ones bitching and moaning they are being injustly accused/abused by the very verdict they cheered.
Nikkadaem Feb 4th 2009 11:37PM
Has anyone considered that add-ons would be considered copywrite infringement under this decision? They do, afterall manipulate "the "non-literal" elements (the gameplay itself)".
This would leave the door open to Blizzard requiring license fees be paid by developers. At the very least it could mean a new License Agreement for add-on developers. It could also lead to Blizzard taking code from the add-ons and not giving the author the proper recognition or royalties.
In general, I don't have a problem with the decision against Glider. It's intent is to circumvent the intention and use of game play. However, I do have a problem of copywrite being interpreted in such a broad way.
smack Feb 5th 2009 3:31AM
This case and subsequent hysterics spawned by it are neither new nor exciting.
First, software companies have always had contractual remedies available to them for violations of ToS's and EULA's. Of course, this did not help Blizzard in this specific case because the makers/distributors of Glider were not contractually bound by such agreements. However, such remedies have ALWAYS been and REMAIN today available to Blizzard for use against those who are bound by such agreements (the actual WOW players running the Glider program). Blizzard will not enforce these contractual rights against individual WOW players, however, because recovery from a single WOW user is unlikely to even cover the cost of Blizzard's legal fees...much less any actual damages. Furthermore, such actions against its player-base, while within the bounds of the law, would be business suicide. This is an example of the old adage: Just because it legally possible doesn't make it right.
Second, the premise that a ToS violation gives rise to a copyright violation via the software's code being copied to the computer's RAM (a necessary step for the software to function) was put into play over 15 years ago. Yes, the world has undergone significant changes in the last 15 years; however, it has not ended. Thus, this adaptation of copyright law to the computer age has neither doomed personal freedom nor computer technology and advancement.
In case you were wondering, curious, or desperately in need of doing some actual research on the law in this area (as most replying to this thread are); start here: [b]MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.[/b] 991 F 2d. 511 (9th Cir. 1993).
onetrueping Feb 5th 2009 4:33AM
From my interpretation of the ruling, I believe that the above article is incorrect. The ruling did not state that circumventing the Terms of Use was violating copyright law, but that accessing Blizzard's data IN A WAY THAT WAS NOT APPROVED BY BLIZZARD (i.e. the official Blizzard client) did.
Glider was considered illegal because it manipulated the server-side date by a means that Blizzard did not intend, and since the server data is considered Blizzard's intellectual property and was not released to the general public, it constituted a copyright violation.
So, rather than going after people who chose stupid names, it gave Blizzard (and others) the right to chase after private servers, botters, custom clients, and the like.
If you want to look at legal extremes, it could be potentially used by a website with a Terms of Use page to block out everyone that doesn't use a particular browser. For example, using a browser other than Internet Explorer to get Windows updates.
It's still a potentially troubling ruling, but one that common sense should keep from being abused.
Cheating is copyright infringement. The Fed says so. Aim-bots, texture patchers, and private servers beware!
sikyon Feb 5th 2009 2:13PM
It violates copyright because the gameplay of WoW is something that is copyrighted. When Glider modifies this gameplay by breaking the terms of service, it creates a derivitive work which is illegal without consent under copyright law.
Basically WoW has copyrighted its own brand of farming under it's broader copyright, and since Glider changes this experiance it violates copyright. And because it damages the economy of the game that shows damages to Blizzard.
Yes, technically interface addons very much do infringe on copyright. But you'll be hard pressed to show damages (unless it's addon based PvPers beating normal UI Players) etc, infact arguably they benifit the game. Blizzard couldn't get monatary damages, they could file an injunction or cease and desist if they wanted.
Anyhow, this relates to the ToS because WoW is considered "Leased" through there and not "Owned". You do not own WoW. You Lease WoW and own the CD. Because if you owned WoW, creating this derivative work might not be copyright infringement (though I think it still would be). But because you lease it, it's very clear that it is copyright infringement.
As far as I understand it, this does not mean that ToS = Copyright Law.
And most likely Blizz sued under copyright law because that way they can actually recover clear damages, instead of sueing under the more vague contract law (which they probably don't want to test a ToS under anyways).
Shamandin Feb 6th 2009 11:05AM
Having read the actual decision (and not someone else's interpretation of it), it actually says that the copyright violation came, not due to EULA/TOS Violations (Blizz lost that part) but because Glider speficially and deliberately evades the protections put in place on the interactive content that is copyrighted.
In the bug exploit scenario, that's a bannable offense. It's not a tort offense (with this decision as a precedent) because the user exploiting that bug is not deliberately and explicitly bypassing Warden to access the content.
The decision went into several pages of detail to make that distinction. There is no violation for reading the MPQ files directly to display the data. That's why all the 3D model viewers around aren't getting sued for copyright violations.
Accessing the protected content (as defined as the animated, interactive content as provided through the Blizzard client interacting with the server) is the violation because there are active mechanisms in place to prevent unwanted access to the content. Glider repeated, and explicitly, circumvented these mechanisms. And that right there is why they got slammed. And rightfully so.
Now, how does this apply in the future? Dunno. EULA/TOS violations aren't going to be affect as much, imo. Since the primary violation being cited is the Warden circumvention, it's more of a case that you might get hit with a copyright violation if you're also circumventing other programs countermeasures.