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 newsA Lawyer's take on the new UI policy
by Adam Holisky 
Apr 1st 2009 at 7:00PM
The intertubes are abuzz with the new UI policy enacted by Blizzard a couple weeks ago. Not being able to charge for add-ons or solicit donations has caused quite a stir amongst some folks. Certain add-on authors are even going as far as to boycott their projects until Blizzard changes their policy.ZAM networks, who runs the WoW information site Allakhazam, got a chance to sit down and talk with Connie Mableson, a lawyer specializing in Intellectual Property Law and Computer and Internet Law. You can read the full interview over at their site.
One of the highlights of the interview is that Connie thinks Blizzard will begin monetizing the UI. "Based on all the changes Blizzard is making, I believe the Blizzard business model is to "Monetize" UI Mods/add-ons by developing them in house and offering them for sale to players "
Now I don't necessarily agree with the end analysis, but her arguments are compelling and make sense.
It will be interesting in another year or so to see where this UI policy change lands us. We'll have to wait and see!
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, News items, Add-Ons, Interviews
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 4)
Xigageshi Apr 1st 2009 8:35PM
I'd like to point something out about the whole Activision Blizzard merger.
Activision did not buy Blizzard, Vivendi, owners of Blizzard bought Activition, or more technically they bought a controlling interest in Activision.
the merging that took place wasn't Activision merging Blizzard into themselves, but rather Vivendi merging their Vivendi Games entity, which includes Blizzard, and Activision into a single game company entity, probably so they could use the combined weight to inflate numbers in spreadsheets somewhere.
don't take my word for it either http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/technology/03activision.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin
ScytheNoire Apr 1st 2009 8:36PM
She's wrong. One thing about lawyers, they are obsessed with money. It's their life. So they think every one else should be obsessed with money too. Lawyers are often wrong, both morally and logically.
Cipri Apr 1st 2009 8:50PM
I'm sorry, but any lawyer that can't tell the difference between an addon(Code written in the LUA language), and glider (A seperate program that runs WoW for you and clicks on things) has no credibility in my book
Especially once she starts quoting the LUA Language's license, which has nothing to do with the code written IN the language, but everything to do with the LUA code INTERPRETER(I.E., the piece of code that Bliz puts in WoW to make your addons run).
It seems to me that this lawyer, who appears to have played a role in the Glider Trial, is merely trying to make MDY/Glider look like a victim here, and is trying to get the sympathy vote from the addon community.
The simple fact of the matter is, you can code whatever you want in the LUA language, and release it however you want.
Any addon you make that will work with WoW, can also be run by different interpreters. Sure, they'll lack the necessary API calls to do what you expect your addon to do, but at the end of the day, the facts are simple:
1) I write the code, I own the copyright.
2) As copyright holder it's my right to determine how my code gets distributed. Be it open source, released into the public domain, shareware, nagware or commercial/payware
3) Blizzard only has the right to limit the addon interaction with its system. It can say "No donation buttons are allowed" and "keep it Rated T-for Teens". They cannot make demands on how the addon is distributed to your computer. My code. My Copyright. Their (LUA-) Interpreter.
eskarel Apr 2nd 2009 6:12AM
Yes, you own the copyright to your code, however, your code is using their APIs(without them it won't work). The fact that it's using their APIs is what gives them copyright control(they control the copyright on the APIs.
You can distribute your add-on any way you like, but if your add-on interacts in any way with Blizzards IP(their APIs for instance) then it requires a valid license to use those APIs.
Technically you could pay for your add-on and try to claim that you weren't the one calling the APIs without a license it was the end user, but then you're selling a product which is illegal to use and therefor not fit for purpose and you're basically screwed anyway.
Your add-on doesn't work without WoW, WoW works fine without your add-on, you need them, they don't need you, so they win.
Spark Apr 2nd 2009 2:09PM
-----
eskarel said...
Yes, you own the copyright to your code, however, your code is using their APIs(without them it won't work). The fact that it's using their APIs is what gives them copyright control(they control the copyright on the APIs.
-----
Where do you get the idea that using an API constitutes a derivative work?
paraax Apr 2nd 2009 2:20PM
Except that api's enjoy no copyright protection. http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201801579 for a case where this has been held. By publishing the API blizzard is making it available for use. I can understand certain in game restriction (i.e. cross-faction language restrictions) but those can and should be held against the subscriber. The initial developer would be outside of Blizzard's reach.
The Glider precedence is troubling, but you can't be so cut and dry in saying that it applies directly to add-ons as well. One is developed against an API published by Blizzard. One manipulates internals outside of that published API. That creates a world of difference between the two and will have to be litigated if Blizzard outright wants to stop "objectionable" add-ons.
There is also a fair use doctrine to take into account. Sega vs Accolade established Accolade's right to develop on the Sega hardware platform... Sega's unquestioned IP. Just because you own something doesn't mean you get to dictate every possible use of that thing and I believe that would eventually be held true for WoW insofar as Blizzard allows any development of add-ons.
Vhalkirian Apr 1st 2009 8:52PM
Actually, I think she is kinda right. But I think that Blizzard's plan is at sometime to potentially "license" their code to outside developers to develop "official" UI addons and Mods for their games.
justlikehoneybaby Apr 2nd 2009 4:23PM
FACTUAL ERROR: "Not being able to charge for add-ons or solicit donations has caused quite a stir amongst some folks"
They can still solicit donations, just not in game.
hpavc Apr 1st 2009 9:02PM
april what?
Leviathon Apr 1st 2009 10:08PM
I think people just look too into the addon policy change. It more or less was common sense in the past to not advertise in game and some addons were getting carried away with that hence why Blizzard had to go and say something. I highly doubt Blizzard will ever go about trying to make money from addons.
Dreadangus Apr 1st 2009 10:13PM
I think that the notion that Blizzard is going to "monetize" addons isn't grounded in reality, and from my read of her interview she's only somewhat informed on the wider issues of internet gaming. She characterizes Glider as a simple addon rather than what it was: a bot. Bots are prohibited in many, many internet games (and rightly so) because of their destabilizing effect. She glosses over that rather quickly.
The legal implications here are overblown, but considering which side she was on during the MDY case it's not surprising. She's very good at the evil empire angle on Blizzard, and the representation of Glider as "just another addon" is misleading at best. It should also be mentioned that it was Glider that took Blizzard to court, not the other way around.
Creating an "ala-carte" addon market is just as likely as Valve creating such an option for its updates of Team Fortress 2 that include community maps. Or Epic Games deciding that they're going to charge people to download community map packs. And all of these games, coincidentally, only grant you license to play the games and stuff made by the community commonly belongs to the company by way of the same licenses.
In all of these cases too you don't own the game, which is the crux of the friend of the court argument made by her outfit. Steam has a similar EULA, as does Quake 4, as does any PC game. The EULA is a means to stop the hacking or reverse engineering of a company's property for another party's profit by granting a license that may be rescinded at any time (since ownership is a more complicated term legally than Ms. Mabelson lets on, especially when it comes to the digital sea). But there's nary a mention of the fact that these have been the practice since the DMCA was enacted. That people have been playing games under these terms for a very, very long time and haven't noticed much of a difference.
Cliff's: Ms. Mabelson, who was part of a lobbying firm that took the side of MDY, takes the absolute worst case scenario in terms of the future of addons and makes it sound like irrefutable fact while glossing over the fact that such a model would do more harm than good to Blizzard's business. In other words, she's a very good lawyer.
Pester Apr 2nd 2009 6:43PM
I am disappointed that WoWInsider ran this story from a person who has an axe to grind
Derek Apr 2nd 2009 1:29AM
The argument that this woman uses to support her point that Blizzard is going to "monetize" addons is inane. If the lua is in clear text Blizzard can read it, but so can anyone else. Why would anyone pay for a blizzard addon that someone else made and can use just as easily.
Now one thing they MIGHT do is an addon store, where access to the addons comes at a price, but every addon is guaranteed to work every patch day.
obarthelemy Apr 2nd 2009 1:50AM
Another proof that lawyers have no clue.
Blizzard just wants to level the playing field (no better addons for rich people), and avoir WoW turning into TV (ads spammed everywhere).
They just don't realize that ticking off addon writers is not such a good idea, especially since addons are so important (vital ?) to the game.
Treeston Apr 2nd 2009 2:00AM
Her analysis was completely right...look what comes next...
The In-Game ADDON STORE! (http://www.wowinterface.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21585). Addon Authors get 60% of the AddOns profit, with Blizzard keeping 40%.
Personally, I can't really imagine playing WoW without my many addons, but I am not at all looking forward to paying for them...
Serious quitting thoughts here...
Eskarel Apr 2nd 2009 12:41PM
L2 recognize april fools joke.
Maralach Apr 2nd 2009 2:39AM
Don't. You just happened to post the aprils fools joke of WoWinterface
chilisizzle Apr 2nd 2009 7:52AM
Right on!
The only thing that kept me from hitting that cancel button was seeing that the Your Mom button add-on was free! Whew!
Ah what would April 1st be without the gullible I wonder.
SDevil Apr 2nd 2009 2:31AM
I wish we could have seen an interview with a more neutral party. Someone not connected to the whole glider bot program thing.
As for the new rules, it seems to me given the timing and the nature of the rules, that carbonite was the target.
I have 149 objects in my addons folder and I can't find one that I can't pop open the folder and load the code in notepad. Not one of my addons has popups with ads or donations requests, not one of them charges for download. 3 of them do have donation requests viewable in game, either on the about pages or a quick line of text on load.
Carbonite starts charging and talking about an "ad supported version" and suddenly we have all new addon rules.
poggg Apr 2nd 2009 2:57AM
Assuming this is real:Is blizzard charging for people to use the wardrobe thign coming in 3.1? No. Addons do that, too, gee...
Blizz probably won't charge for addons. The odds of that are horrible.
If this is ANOTHER April Fools:DAMN you guys are good.