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 Lawbringer: MDY v. Blizzard Q & A
by Amy Schley 
Jun 14th 2010 at 5:00PM
Last week's timeline of the MDY v. Blizzard case seemed to prompt more questions than it answered. Therefore, I want to take this week to go through the many questions and comments that were left on the site or emailed to me.
Sean asked:
"Can you explain the unfair competition claim? As the only one that MDY won (far as I can tell), it's interesting in its own right."
Blizzard alleged that MDY's business practices of selling a product that encouraged people to violate their EULA & TOU was a willful and knowing violation of Arizona's Unfair Competition Law. MDY moved for summary judgment and Blizzard didn't oppose the motion. MDY "won" by default.
The Money
A number of you were interested in the $6.5 million judgment against MDY.
How did the judge assign this number?
Both parties agreed that Glider produced approximately $3.5 million in revenue for MDY and that Blizzard had spent approximately $1 million ($942,614.57) per year combating Glider. The judge did not explain how he arrived at $6.5 million.
It is worth noting that under copyright law, the judge could theoretically have ordered MDY pay statutory damages of $2,500 for each copy of Glider sold. It would have required a finding that MDY "willfully and wantonly" infringed, a question which the judge did not decide. Also, Blizzard claimed that the loss of value to its good name (there were over 465,000 complaints of bots while Glider was sold) could potentially be worth $20 million. Note again that the judge did not assign such enormous damages.
Who is responsible for paying this?
MDY was assigned to pay the damages. Under normal rules, a corporation like MDY would have to pay. However, there is a doctrine known as "piercing the corporate veil," in which a director or owner of a corporation may be personally liable for the debts of the corporation. In Arizona, this can happen when directors or officers of a company participate, have knowledge amounting to acquiescence or are guilty of negligence in the management of the corporate affairs causing or contributing to the injury. In this case, Micheal Donnelly was the president of the company. He was certainly aware that use of Glider after November 2005 was a violation of the WoW TOU and of the facts that the court used to decide that MDY was tortiously interfering in Blizzard's contracts. As a result, the court ruled that Donnelly was personally liable for the $6.5 million.
How does Blizzard collect the money?
After all the appeals are heard and assuming MDY and Donnelly are required to pay something, Blizzard will receive what is known as a judgment lien. This is a piece of paper that says Blizzard has a right to receive $6.5 million (or whatever other value may be assigned) and is nothing more, as my Secured Transaction professor likes to put it, than "ink stains on paper." Let's assume MDY does not try to settle or make arrangements to pay. To collect on this debt, Blizzard would then file appropriate paperwork (a writ of replevin) with the sheriff of the jurisdiction that describes what belongs to Blizzard and where it can be found. The sheriff will then go out to the corporation and seize (levy on) as much corporate property as possible, from the furniture to the cash box to any accounts, etc. If this doesn't add up to enough money, Blizzard can then file another writ of replevin (or use the same one) and seize as many of Donnelly's assets as possible. If MDY/Donnelly declare bankruptcy before the property is levied on (which they would almost certainly do), the bankruptcy judge might "cram-down" or reduce the debt, require MDY/Donnelly to come up with a repayment plan or other options, depending on the type of bankruptcy declared.
Some misconceptions
A number of folks questioned where some of my sources of information came from. Everything is from the collection of documents in the docket at Justicia.com. As a reminder, information submitted to the court, whether depositions, statements of fact or other evidence, are submitted under oath that this information is true to the best of the submitter's knowledge. Knowingly giving false information is perjury and can result in jail time.
Technical details
From Blizzard's Statement of Fact Supporting its Motion for Summary Judgment:
"Glider wasn't designed to circumvent Warden."141. Glider avoids automated detection by randomly renaming itself and using the shadow driver to remove its process object from the Windows task list via a rootkit-like technique commonly known as DKOM (Direct Kernel Object Manipulation).
142. Glider avoids direct attempts to examine it by using the shadow driver to hook several kernel functions, including NtOpenProcess, NtUserBuildHwndList, ZwQuerySystemInformation, GetForegroundWindow, and GetActiveWindow.
143. Glider avoids detection of its window titles by randomizing the title bar, including those of any "help windows" created by Glider.
144. Glider's shadow driver avoids detection by randomly renaming itself and removing itself from the list of loaded modules.
"Glider couldn't have been designed to circumvent Warden because Warden didn't exist yet."From Blizzard's Statement of Fact Supporting its Motion for Summary Judgment:126. MDY does not dispute that Glider was designed to circumvent Warden. Deposition of Micheal Donnelly, Sept. 25, 2007.
Warden was in use for Diablo II in patch 1.11 (8/8/05) and was publicized as part of WoW by Oct 20, 2005. Furthermore, the June 2, 2005 EULA expressly notes: (caps original)
While this isn't primary proof that Warden existed, it seems strange that Blizzard would require players to agree to Warden-like monitoring if Warden didn't exist. It should be noted that this EULA was in force before MDY started selling Glider (6/14/2005).WHEN RUNNING, THE GAME MAY MONITOR YOUR COMPUTER'S RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (RAM) FOR UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAMS RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH THE GAME, AND "UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM" AS USED HEREIN SHALL BE DEFINED AS ANY THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANDY "ADDON," "MOD," "HACK," "TRAINER," OR CHEAT," THAT IN BLIZZARD'S SOLE DETERMINATION: (i) ENABLES OR FACILITATIONS CHEATING OF ANY TYPE; (ii) ALLOWS USERS TO MODIFY OR HACK THE GAME INTERFACE, ENVIRONMENT, AND/OR EXPERIENCE IN ANY WAY NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY BLIZZARD; OR (iii) INTERCEPTS, "MINES," OR OTHERWISE COLLECTS INFORMATION FROM OR THROUGH THE GAME...
The EULA/TOU didn't forbid botting or use of Glider, so MDY couldn't have tortiously interfered/ contributorily infringed copyright.
I hope this has answered some of the questions raised last week. Next week, I'll be taking you through the arguments, both written and oral, made by MDY and Blizzard.From Blizzard's Statement of Fact Supporting its Motion for Summary Judgment:
100. Before October 16, 2006, the WoW TOU provided in pertinent part: Users may not "Use bots or other automated techniques to collect information from World of Warcraft or any forum or website owned or administered by Blizzard Entertainment; ... Cheat or utilize World of Warcraft "exploits" in any way, including without limitation modification of the game program files." June 2, 2005 TOU
101. After October 16, 2006, the WoW TOU provided in pertinent part: "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." Oct.16, 2006 TOU
102. After October 16, 2006, the WoW TOU provided in pertinent part: Users may not "Use bots or other automated techniques to collect information from the Program or any forum of website owned or administered by Blizzard; ... Cheat or utilize 'exploits' while playing the Program in any way, including without limitation modification of the Program's files...." Oct. 16, 2006 TOU
This column is for entertainment only. If you have a real legal question, consult a real lawyer. For questions about law, law school or the joys of bar prep, you can email me at amy@wow.com, tweet me @wowlawbringer, or /whisper Patent <It Came From the Blog> on Zangarmarsh on Thursday nights.Filed under: The Lawbringer
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 3)
David Jun 15th 2010 1:56AM
I know you are just quoting the documents that were submitted, but the part about bots being in the TOU before October 16, 2006 is not entirely correct. Here is the TOU for January 2010 http://web.archive.org/web/20060113035717/http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html
They have obviously buffed up the description of what a bot is as it could easily have been misinterpreted in the original version.
This is not a criticism of you, but it does indicate that things are not as cut and dry as it seems upon reading your summaries of the case. Since Blizzard changed the definition of a bot they must have believed that the original description was not sufficient, which implies that MDY might have had some doubt when they started.
TehHaxes Jun 15th 2010 3:53AM
Very well put article, however I did notice a few 'issues' to say the least.
I realize that the legal documents state:
"126. MDY does not dispute that Glider is designed to circumvent Warden."
However, that is a bit out of context (if you read the other accompanying documents as well). Glider was originally designed without any form of Warden circumvention, since, Warden didn't exist at the time. Once Blizzard deployed Warden on the WoW client, MDY was forced to circumvent it to retain their business. (Sorry, I can't link exact documents here, but these arguments are straight out of the appeal documents, and initial appeal hearing audios [available elsewhere on the net].)
The TOU/EULA/TOS/OTHERRANDOMACRONYM did clearly not state 'bots' anywhere in it when MDY first began selling it's software. (This is also pulled from the appeals docs, and is not disputed by Blizzard.) I'm not sure where you got your versions, but I'm inclined to believe Blizzard when they say themselves 'we didn't say bot'. It appeared shortly before the original claims were filed.
Also; you're a good summarizer, however I'm failing to see any actual insight on the... y'know... law?
Tortious interference's definition [via: Wikipedia for lack of time]: "Tortious interference, in the common law of tort, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships.".
If that is to 'retain' it's properties after a company decides to reword their 'magic license', they can effectively snuff-out any company they want, just by adding a few words. It's the equivalent of MS saying "You can no longer use Notepad++ on Windows, or you are violating our copyright.", and then MS has the justification to sue the creators of Notepad++ for an after-the-fact change. That doesn't make much sense does it? As we all know, the law doesn't always make sense, but that's the main reason MDY and Blizzard are in court
I won't refute the $6.5M claim, but I do think it is far too excessive to make a person completely liable for. (Isn't that really what an LLC is for? To protect you from things like that?)
A little ramble on what Warden does (because, yes, I can. And yes, I can back these claims up [assuming you have the knowledge to understand the proof that is]);
Scan.dll is the 'preemptive' measure in WoW that checks for common applications running, and 'blocks' WoW from getting any further than the 'You have program running, WoW cannot start until you close it' (or whatever the message actually is). Some of the applications include, ASpeeder, CheatEngine, LSpyro's MHS, and a bunch of others. This is where the 'access control' really stops.
The 'resident' client [also known as 'Warden'] runs every ~15s after logging into the client. (As soon as you enter your password and hit enter, you start receiving periodic Warden scan requests, and potentially new scan modules) Every time the WoW client receives a request for a scan, Warden loads the requested module, and proceeds to execute the specified scan in said module. After the scan has finished, it returns what is basically a true or false to the server, specifying whether or not a cheat was found. (Side note: every time you receive a Warden scan request, it checks for speed hacks [QPC/TGT time mismatches]) If the server receives a 'true', then it flags your account as a 'cheater'. Whether or not you are banned instantly, is a matter of what seems to be a serverside schedule. (Sometimes it's instant, sometimes it's not for months. Proven by numerous amounts of data from previous banwaves). There are roughly 250 different scans active at this point in time. And quite a bit more inactive. Any scan can be 'turned on' at any time if Blizzard chooses. (They used to have a scan roughly 3 years ago now, that would read window titles for certain strings. This is obviously a privacy issue, and has been disabled. However, it can be turned back on whenever they choose.)
With that said; the DMCA states (to dumb it down a bit) that Warden must PREVENT access to a copyrighted work to be classified as a preventative measure. However, that prevention really only applies [and very loosely] to the Scan.dll aspect of Warden. Once logged in, you may, or may not, be 'removed' from the server for cheating. That's not a preventative measure by any means of the word. You also have full access to the complete file system for WoW (MPQs, text files, binaries, etc) without ever needing a valid account with Blizzard. They even provide you the client for free, with no strings attached. The DMCA was made to prevent pirating, which Blizzard obviously does not have an issue with, or they would not be making the entire client available for free, and for anybody who wants it. Glider required you to have a valid WoW account to even work properly. Quite the opposite of piracy.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this case isn't about "MDY is a bad person because he made a bot!". It's about the DMCA being leveraged for illegitimate means, so companies can take complete control over things they shouldn't be allowed to.
And for my personal opinion;
Blizzard is trying to bend the law to their will (and illegitimately too) to snuff out some aspect 'they don't like' because they couldn't find a cheaper, cost-effective way to do it legally. If they do end up winning this case, we're all in for one hell of a time in the US. I wouldn't doubt it if the entire software industry goes to shit.
David Jun 15th 2010 5:02AM
Very well stated. However, you are not quite correct in Blizzard's interpretation of the DMCA and piracy. You are right in that they do not try to protect the majority of their copyrighted files and data, they are claiming that the stream of data coming from the server is also copyrighted and it is what is controlled by Warden. Why they chose to only protect such a minor amount of data is unclear, but that is the claim. Of course it could be that this was an argument developed after the fact by the lawyers and Warden is not really a copyright protection, but a contract protection scheme (which is what MDY's lawyer claims).
Personally I don't understand how Blizzard can claim copyright over a stream of data coming from the server, especially since Glider does not attempt to pirate it (i.e. copy it and make it available to people who have not paid Blizzard). For a copyright to exist the work has to be "fixed in a medium", which is not true for a stream of data that is used by the client and then discarded.
I don't deny that this is a contract violation, but contract violations should not involve DMCA or copyright.
TehHaxes Jun 15th 2010 5:13AM
Personally, I don't see why the judges even allowed suck a crockpot claim to be entered. Also, I don't think many of the judges actually understand the case material being presented. A fairly intimate knowledge of computer science is required for a case like this. It's fairly apparent that nearly all of the judges are lacking in that department.
I think the justice department needs some nerds on the bench!
The only 'copying' Glider does, are literally boiled down to very minor things, which are just 'status' variables. Obviously its mostly irrelevant in court, but I don't think that it should be included in any form of copyright. That's like having Winamp sue someone from reading the current song from the application, via an external application, so they can do something elsewhere with it.
Lastly, to clarify a point I somehow forgot to state for the paranoid:
Warden does not look outside of it's own address space (excluding Scan.dll which more or less checks the process list). It only 'scans' its own memory. Not other processes' memory. It can't tell what type of porn your watching, or anything like that. So you can keep making self-love to your favorite goat-porn without fear of a hammer coming down on you.
LandMineHare Jun 15th 2010 10:10AM
Probably not. But we have plenty of products in our society that have legit uses but people overwhelmingly use for Bad Things™.
Garret Jun 15th 2010 5:25PM
Call my crazy but isn't MDY a LLC? The company and person are treated as separate entities in an LLC, meaning that if Blizzard is suing MDY (which they are) they can seize MDY COMPANY (not cooperate law gal) property. However they cannot seize Micheal's personal property without first suing him. Hope they don't have anything about LLC's on the bar!
Longgun Jun 15th 2010 11:21PM
Garret, I won't call you crazy because you are pretty much correct. However, in some situations the judge can decide that both the corporation is responsible and, if the officers were aware of any "illegal" activities, they will be held personally responsible as well. That is what was done in this case.
Fortinbras Jun 15th 2010 6:58PM
"cram-down" =/= "reduce the debt"
cram-down refers to forcing a creditor to accept a plan of reorganization. sure, the issue could be one of disagreement over the amount of the payout, but more frequently it has to do with timing or priority. Of course these things might have financial consequences, but there are other processes by which a claim might be reduced outside of plan confirmation.
@Kemikalkadet, bankruptcy repayment is not "for the rest of your life." on the contrary, most plans last 3 years, 5 years at the outside, and it's not "every cent he earns," it's his disposable income, less if his income increases over the life of the plan. if he has no assets or simply liquidates what he has, there is no plan and he effectively gets to start with a fresh balance sheet from the moment he files for bankruptcy. anything he makes from then on is his to keep.
Niennee Jun 15th 2010 7:36PM
I was advocating prison for people who attempted to trick their way out of paying back what they owe (having pretty much unlawfully obtained that money), by trying to claiming they don't have money that they do have. :)
Shadow Jun 15th 2010 11:24PM
From a layman's point of view, there's one thing in the whole argument (which I've actually listened to) that bothers me. If I were a judge, it's something that would send up a red flag for me.
In the oral argument, MDY's lawyer is asked by one of the judges if at some point he purchased information on Warden in an effort to bypass it. Here's the thing, in doing this, MDY would have been given in depth understanding just what Warden was, and how it is intended to prevent access to the game by certain users. The problem I have with this, is that by purchasing information on how to bypass it, I find it hard to believe that Donnely who was at the time quite active on the Glider forums, would not know that players were using his software not to aid handicapped and disabled players; but instead to breach Blizzard's terms of service and to in effect "cheat."
What strikes me really strange, is recently a user by the name of Rowro quoted something saying "Blizzard altered Warden to improve detection of Glider bots, but these innovations were circumvented after MDY purchased information about Warden's improvements for $18,000." That user goes on to say "I hadnt heard that before. Is it true?" A few posts later, user Ocktra (a moderator) says quote "I can't comment on anything."
Why is that strange? I hate to use a Star Wars quote here, but "I've got a bad feeling about this."
Longgun Jun 16th 2010 11:41AM
Shadow, don't forget that you are assuming that he actually did something wrong in the first place. While many people here think that botting is bad, it is not necessarily against the law, nor is it normally a copyright violation.
Also, MDY claims that Warden is a violation of their right to do business and an attempt to put their legal business out of business, so they had a right to bypass it. If it wasn't actually protection for copyright (which is a very thin claim), then it would be okay for them to go around it. If you listened then you might remember the judge asking if cheating at Scrabble should be considered a copyright violation.
Basically it comes down to there are no real red flags here. The copyright claim is against a very small component, maybe not even copyrightable, and if that fails then much of Blizzard's case also fails. Both sides made a good case, so it really now up to the judges, and they were hard to read.
Shadow Jun 16th 2010 3:45PM
Here's the thing that sends up the flag to me. If, as some on the forums there have said (and many of the "botting" supporters have stated) MDY knew as a corporation that they were doing nothing wrong, then there wouldn't have been an attempt by Donnely to distance himself from the botting use of the program. By his own statements, he claims that first that's not what the program was intended for, even though he does not dispute that he paid google to have Glider appear as a supported search when people searched for WoW Hack, and WoW Cheats.
If, as the claim by some is, that botting wasn't a breach of contract between players, and that Donnely was breaking no laws by aiding players in doing it, then why would he go to such great trouble to obfuscate his actions? The irony of this, is that on the front page of the Glider website it says quote "Glider is a tool that plays your World of Warcraft character for you, the way you want it. It grinds, it loots, it skins, it heals, it even farms soul shards... without you." Those last two words are in bold, further emphasizing that the intended purpose of Glider was to bot. Yet time and time again, MDY has tried to play the disability card, saying that without Glider, there were disabled players who wouldn't be able to play. If, as some suggest, that was the original design for Glider; then why wouldn't the front page reflect it?
Looking to the FAQ it goes on to say:
Question: Is using Glider cause for suspension/ban?
Answer: Yes, Glider is against the Terms of Service as provided by Blizzard for World of Warcraft. If you are detected using Glider, your account will be suspended for 72 hours and very likely banned completely.... Bottom line: use at your own risk.
Again, if as so many attest, Glider was intended for use by disabled persons, why would this passage need be in the FAQ? Again, this further points (at least in my layman's eyes) to the suggestion that MDY knew the program would be used for botting, knew that it was against the TOS, and tried to "Cover Their Ass" with the repeated claims that it's for Disabled persons. Sadly, until that front page and FAQ changes, it really makes them seem quite petty and small the more people try to defend the action with this obviously false claim.
David Jun 17th 2010 2:18AM
I think the whole disabled stuff isn't really an issue. They never brought i up in court, so it isn't part of their defense. If someone on a forum somewhere is trying to use it, that is not really relevant.
As for the breach of contract, remember that MDY claims that botting was "legal" (according to the TOU) when they started and only became "illegal" later. As such they were justified in attempting to bypass Warden. The FAQ supports this claim in that they say now that if you use it now, you could be banned.
The problem is (for MDY) that Blizzard has raised this from a simple contract violation (which is minor and really only affects the user) to a copyright violation (which is major and affects MDY).
I am not rying to defend MDY, it is just that this type of discussion is only really useful if all aspecs are looked at with a cool head. There are too many comments that seem to focus on a dislike of botting without really looking at the issues involved.
If MDY loses here then it would be a major blow to the smaller software developers and consumers. The judge even asked (in one of the three cases heard last week) if this meant that books could now include shrink wrapped EULAs preventing resale and the lawyer agreed that it was possible.
robusticus Jun 19th 2010 10:48AM
Well irrespective of what the lawyers think of putting in their fillings...
The word "handicap" refers more to a levelling of the playing field. Third party tools like Glider increase accessibility to a game for people who don't have time or inclination to farm themselves. If you could magically get rid of all bots and gold sellers you would also get rid of their customers, which is a far larger group than those 465,000 compaliners (if they are not duplicates).
It isn't so much a question of breaking a contract or cheating. It is the claim that that breach was tortious, that Glider harmed Blizzard's business. The opposite is likely true - bots increase Blizzard's business by increasing accessibility. Given that WoW's claim to success has been accessibility it is confusing why they've pursued this and other litigation. Is it because they are selling gold in large amounts to currency traders?
So you know, you can have a highbrow standard for what the rules ought to be, etc. You can make those rules without any sort of negotiation. You can spend all that money enforcing those rules. But what you're saying is you don't want the business of people who disagree with your rules. Again, that's fine, but you can't pretend that if you ban 20-30% of your customers because your opinion differs that you are somehow harmed by a third party. You set those rules yourself, you didn't allow for any input from the players, or set up any alternatives, you engaged in enforcement... at what point does personal (corporate) responsibility come in to play here? If your game only has a hard mode, how can you claim you are harmed by a third party that helps people make it easy?
What's next? Netflix going to claim a tort if people fast forward through boring parts of a movie?
Cheating is normal in a video game. Most of the time games include the ability built in, but for whatever reason MMOs don't. If I'm not mistaken, every other Blizzard game allows for it in some way.
BB Crisp Jun 26th 2010 5:36PM
@robusticus
I'd love to be a professional athlete, but I don't have the time or inclination to actually do what I need to do to become one. Guess what. That means I'll never be a professional athlete. If you don't put forth the same time and effort that everybody else does to accomplish the something, you're not going to acquire the same level of success, nor do you deserve it.
If Blizzard felt that Glider enhanced the value of their game, they wouldn't have tried to stop them. It would have been against their own financial interests to do so and I'd bet that they pay more attention to their revenue than you do. By promoting a minority of the population that cheats, they would be negatively influencing the majority that doesn't, losing the respect (and money) of their consumers. I can think of a number of games where the community backlashes against the distributer because they didn't do enough to curtail the activities of cheaters (Modern Warfare 2 is the first that comes to mind, though many others exists). With WoW having continuing subscriptions, Blizzard has an even stronger incentive to maintain the high standards that the community demands. What major distributer wouldn't want to protect their community from cheaters in an effort to maintain their loyalty?
As to your assertion that the customers of gold sellers and those that bot is "a far larger group than those 465,000 compaliners [sic]"...really? You also say that enforcing their clearly stated rules will result in a ban of "20-30% of (Blizzard's) customers". Really?!? Those are massive assumptions to make and they have very little meaning without anything to back it up.
Cheating at a game that you're playing solo or in an isolated arena with your own friends to alter a game is one thing. You are agreeing to adjust your individual gaming experience and it in no way impacts anybody else outside of your own little world (but if you win at Solitaire this way, you're just a loser). Starcraft 2 is likely to have numerous cheats that alter the gaming experience. They would, however, never allow those cheats to work in their matchmaking systems, because cheating at a game where you interact directly with other people that you don't know is not intended in any game. Cheating for an advantage implicitly puts those that don't at a disadvantage and, as a result, you impact their gameplay and overall enjoyment of the game. That's an easily distinguishable difference. All games that support multiplayer features try to prevent cheating, some more aggressively than others, because cheating reduces the enjoyment of non-cheaters. Companies that value the continued support of their customers enforce these rules well.
robusticus Jun 28th 2010 11:38PM
Ah, well, I needn't remind you that being a "pro" WoW player is cheating, and likely a DMCA violation. As to the pro status analogy, you are working against Gossen's first law there, which states the diminishing marginal utility of content. In other words, there are only a finite number of times before any content loses all value to a player. If a game world encourages reusing that content for some other purpose than enjoyment (learning), it is turning play into work.
Pro sports are different in that the game imposes no arbitrary limits on the rate you can improve. You gain XP and gold only so fast in an MMORPG, no matter so much your talent or desire. The scale is very small, you are comparing slot machines to chess. Many a fine slot player no doubt thinks they ought to be pro status but they just can't be, sorry.
Which kind of leads to my other point about categories of cheats and legal status. You seem to want to lump this into the category of dupe or speed/teleport hack, which it isn't. There is a profound difference between enabling something that a player COULDN'T do versus enabling something that they WOULDN'T do. Automation is the latter.
You say the rules are clearly stated. Well, at the time it was carte blanche [no unauthorized third party software], and still remains with the late addition of [no automation]. So what of Ventrillo or Thottbot or any of the Lua UI mods? Without authorization, the very same logic and legality applies to those. The difference is none of those offend the sensibilities of what I refer to as the Luddite farmer.
In the Luddite movement the complaints would be quashed and "machine breakers" executed. Which seems a bit harsh to me even for 1813, and even if the law sided correctly with technology.
And if 100% of those complaining Luddite farmers wanted to make more money from the game? Ex turpi causa non oritur actio. No bannings can come from wrongful complaints.
Yes, really. The link is the widely cited data. 20-30% may be lowballing it actually. Not including who benefits from lower prices and social fabric - you may have a norm, a majority, with those people factored in.
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001469.php
As for what goes on with matchmaking I don't play that one either but I understand the rulesets are widely varied and agreed upon. You only have one ruleset for all MMORPGs, and no legal means of changing it. So you end up with Country Club rules no matter what. You're not banning golf carts on your course, you are trying to eliminate golf carts from existing at all. At least ones made by people who adhere to the rule of law. And remember, since it is Gossen's first law, the difference may be important.
The heart of it I think is the DMCA that was designed to restore property holders from being denied revenue due to allowing people to use a piece of art without paying for it. This application has never once been used for that purpose. Therefore there is no wrong, no tort only offended sensibilities. One can feel bad for that but I still find restitution on that basis more than a little bit unjust.
As for "protecting against the " [ pumpkin eaters ]... well, plenty of examples of sharding people off into seperate servers that seems to work well (i.e. Steam). Ah, well, cake, eat it too, well, then.
BARDSTALE000 Jul 10th 2010 12:08AM
The Blizzard suit is an absolute farce.
For those saying "Yay Blizzard!" stop playing WOW for a moment an and consider life outside of your WOW-centric world.
Look below the surface.
What this suit is affirming that these stupid EULA are enforceable by law.
And just by running a copy of a program in memory you can be committing a copyright violation!
This is just madness, and shows how technically inept what ever "experts" were used in court.
Once legal premises are established, they are there.
Do you really want some corporate software developer to control what you run, and don't run on your computer?
A funny thing now a malware author can put something on your machine and trick a EULA up that says you can't uninstall it, you can't hold them responsible, etc.
Imagine this scenario:
You buy a new car from the Acme corporation.
In doing so there are several pages of fine print called a EULA that comes along with it.
Most people are not going to spend an hour to read the fine print, most people will not bring a lawyer along (imagine the expense).
Now in there it says "You can only buy any 3rd party parts or assessors from Acme".
Now these means you can only by tires, etc., anything for this car from Acme simply by clicking "I agree".
This is what corporations want, this is what Blizzard wants.
Not only do they want your money, they want to control you to get yet more money out of you.
And these things do nothing for you as a consumer.
Blizzard has their huge legal EULA to protect them self, plus wording to conscript you, but here in the hell is your representation?
Every time you loose some personal rights, or freedom it's a loss for you.
It's not "Hurray for Blizzard!", "It's a sad say because I lost a personal freedom, a right as a human being".
And you just walked along and bought it all like a sheep.
Note Blizzard lawyers go around and threaten to sue a lot of sites just for having screen shots, and threatening their ISP.
Even when the no full well these screen shots in no shape or form violate the law.
Furthermore, this does not get rid of bots.
It just shifted from the most popular USA bot, to the most popular offshore bot (what ever that is/was).
It's more income, more jobs/work to China or what ever.
Furthermore establishment of restricted, Corporate controlling USA software laws will continue to just hurt USA software development, free enterprise more and more.
Less jobs, less income, yet more money flowing out of the country then coming in.
Sirmabus Jul 9th 2010 11:16PM
This sums up better what I was trying to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W04LFvH1K8Y