Patch 5.2 interview with Dave Kosak
Inside an old alt's vault
The latest patch 5.2 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria newsPrivate server company forced to pay Blizzard $88 million
by Amy Schley 
Aug 14th 2010 at 7:00PM
As we've covered here before, private servers are a violation of license limitations of the EULA. Blizzard considers any violation of those license limitations to be copyright infringement and sues people for such. Furthermore, Blizzard established in the "Bnetd" case that crafting software to set up a private server is a copyright infringement all on its own.
The total reward of $88,594,589 comes from $3,053,339 of inappropriate profits, $63,600 of attorney's fees, and $85,478,600 of statutory damages. Statutory damages are damages required by law that are increased for willful and commercially based infringement. Scapegaming may appeal the amount.
Filed under: Blizzard, News items
Reader Comments (Page 5 of 8)
BB Crisp Aug 14th 2010 8:51PM
When Blizzard stops supporting WoW on their own servers, they will have 0 financial incentive to fight the activation and maintenance of private servers. They'd no longer have any subscription revenue to lose. Private servers will take over at that point, likely with Blizzard's blessing.
Tamarin Aug 14th 2010 9:08PM
Perhaps we're all cheering this judgement because Alyson Reeves is a criminal. She is stealing the hard work of others and using it for her own gain. You and I don't feel the pain of this criminal act because we're so far removed from the damage.
Imagine Alyson Reeves tapped into your internet account and used your connection to run her server. This action only degrades your service by 25% so you can still do everything you used to do just slower. She's not really hurting anyone is she? Well she's not hurting me but you might feel different. It's a better society if all of us punish Alyson Reeves for hurting you rather than waiting till she hurts us. Just because Alyson Reeves is hurting a corporation doesn't mean we should cheer her on for her criminal activities.
It's nice to think that a piece of software isn't real property to be stolen but if it had been my work that went into it I'd be feeling violated by Alyson Reeves' actions.
Anne Stickney Aug 15th 2010 2:50AM
It's not a matter of playing retail vs playing a private server.
Say you make a movie. You work really hard on it, put in a lot of effort to make it really good. It opens in theaters to pretty good box office ratings. Suddenly you catch wind of some guy who has gone into the movie theater, taped the movie, and is now selling tickets to people so that they can watch it.
It would be like my writing an article for a website, and finding it several days later on a major news magazine with someone else's byline and hearing that they were paid several thousand dollars for the thing.
Did they write it? No. Did they work on it? No. Is it their property? No. Are they allowed to make a profit off of something that is not their work? Absolutely not.
Or if you want to look at it from another angle, imagine working an 80 hour work week at the job of your choice, and when payday comes around, you're paid for 40, and the other 40 hours are given to random joe schmuck on the street who has nothing to do with your company, you, or the work you do. He didn't do the job you did. He just stole your money.
THAT'S what's wrong with private servers. They are taking content that they did not create and does not belong to them, and selling it for cash that they did not earn.
Killik Aug 15th 2010 5:55AM
@Snappel This woman was not providing free WoW out of the goodness of her heart. She was charging for it via microtransactions. This is not a case of a big, greedy corporation spoiling a lovely, community project.
Snappel Aug 15th 2010 1:21PM
@Killik
There was no charge to play the gameon the private server. The microtransactions were only for if the player wanted over-powered gear, GM status, or other special perk. To log in and play the game was completely free.
ranguvar Aug 14th 2010 8:34PM
As an advocate of rights for end users to use and modify software as they please (yes, I know that's currently frowned upon xD), I'm rather disappointed in this ruling.
A step backwards from the fantastic one explicitly making jailbreaking iPhones legal, but I guess all news can't be good.
I don't really like private servers, Blizzard's are enough for me, but I think that if you want to go on a private server (or host one), you should be able to.
Although I see some people saying this was one at least partly commercial -- that I frown upon and I think should be punished, but non-commercial private servers are IMO completely fine and moral.
As for even creating private server software being copyright infringement, that is (while I didn't expect anything else) bullshit. It's probably enforceable and legal right now, but it's bullshit all the same.
Here's hoping the EFF will make some protest or something, but I doubt it -- they're working on much bigger things (by the way, that Cory Doctorow guy you featured? Works for the EFF. Good man). www.eff.org
Spark Aug 15th 2010 4:58AM
-----
ranguvar Aug 14th 2010 8:34PM
As an advocate of rights for end users to use and modify software as they please (yes, I know that's currently frowned upon xD), I'm rather disappointed in this ruling.
-----
The right to hack is fundamental to a healthy technical ecology. We would not be where we are today without tinkers and builders. Engineering and reverse-engineering. Tweakers and hackers. People who toyed with what came before and built something even the original creators hadn't imagined. Rulings like this endanger this; inducing a chilling effect on innovation.
I find myself torn. I enjoy Blizzard's games and believe they have every right to profit from their hard work. I believe that outright copyright infringement in clearly illegal. However, Blizzard's application of copyright to protect themselves could have far-reaching effects beyond their games.
Luftwaffles Aug 15th 2010 10:51AM
@ spark
I agree in principle I think.. but how did this private server improve WoW? It wasn't an innovation piggybacking Blizzards game. it was just an often-malfunctioning poor copy of it. If she had made some next-gen game that blew Blizz out of the water via hacking/improving their code then I'd be cheering in her corner. But it was just crap that she was indirectly charging for with mico-transactions.
TR Aug 15th 2010 3:22PM
That's sooooo awesome that you feel that way, dude! Do you have a car? How about I hotwire it when you/re not using it, drive it around and give people free rides to the corner store? If they want to go on a road trip or something I charge them and call it a "donation for gas", but I'll probably use it to get myself some nice swag.
Don't worry, I'll always put your car back where I found it! After all, you have the money to maintain it, put new tires on it, make improvements, etc. so I won't have to. The best part about /that/, is that I can then charge slightly higher "donations" for new options you've added. Thanks dude!!!
Amaxe Aug 14th 2010 8:41PM
This reminds me of when I was a noob and had heard of private servers. I had always assumed that Blizzard franchised them and wondered how much it would cost to buy the software and play by myself.
Pretty hefty fee it seems ;-)
Exravier Aug 14th 2010 9:52PM
While this isn't explicitly linked to what's happened here (namely someone running a private server of a current game/build), this story reminds me of the SWGEmu - the Galaxies Pre-Combat Upgrade emulator. Basically, when the project started gathering steam, enough that you could actually zone into the "old" version of SWG before the first revamp, SOE stood up and took notice.
Now, rather than going "You'll fight the law and the law will win", they sat down with the developers of the Emulator project and talked to them. In the end, what happened is what you see today - the Emulator project is still going, in fact to the point where combat and missions are working, as well as the crafting and entertainment professions. The main stipulation is you must have the physical CDs/DVDs of the SWG client - doesn't matter what version as the emulator will modify the code in order to make it Pre-CU. If players download the trial client from SOE and then use that to go onto the Emulator - bang, that's against what the devs and SOE agreed, and you'll get banned. Same with the digital version, actually.
As I said, this isn't explicitly linked. But it does make me wonder what'll happen when WoW is no longer supported by Blizzard. Whenever that may be. Will people run private servers then? And what will happen?
Randy Lee Aug 14th 2010 10:39PM
And this is why private servers are fail, ladies and gentlemen.
ISA Aug 14th 2010 11:01PM
I know this isnt a popular opinion but TBH, I dont care about private servers and who all plays on them. This from a player paying 15$ a month to play on official servers. I know Im getting the real version of the game with a large player base, active moderators, and designers working on new content. What people do on free servers, or the people that host them, I dont give a crap. It doesn't effect me in any way.
Cambro Aug 15th 2010 12:14AM
It does and it could affect you. It does in that it's the same "go around the terms of use" mentality people use when they buy gold, knowing it's against the terms of use. It's also what drives a number of private servers that collect some amount of money from you (not all are free). Because both of those markets feed directly into gold sellers...which actively hacks accounts or outright steals your credit card info when you pay a private server or buy gold.
So passively, it affects you in that as a player you very often see gold sellers spamming in your game. But more directly, Blizzard has to protect their intellectual property, and litigation costs money. So it could affect all of us at some point if Blizzard feels the need to raise our subscription rates to help cover the cost of going to court all the time. Personally I'm very glad when they win a suit, because it 1) shuts someone down that's operating illegally, and 2) puts money in Blizzard's pocket so they're not taking more out of mine.
Lhock Aug 15th 2010 1:03AM
Cambro- if people are turning to private servers and not giving Blizzard their money, then obviously the private server is offering something that Blizzard isn't. I don't think private servers should EVER receive any moneys, but in general I don't think private servers hurt anyone very much.
jslim419 Aug 15th 2010 8:31AM
two things will happen here.
1. blizzard will settle for a smaller amount when the statutory damages have been appealed. there is no way they are getting anything at all with 85 mil in statutory damages. the company will simply declare bankruptcy.
2. blizzard won't make a deal just for the purpose of ruining the owner of the company, but as history has shown us... "ruining" is a short term thing, and they will be back to making money off something else that they don't own soon enough in the future.
and i honestly do not know what blizzard will do here. they are already swimming in money, so 5 to 10 mil will be nothing but a drop in the bucket for them. however if the blizzard store is of any clue... then we know that blizzard loves money. so they may just hold out hope that the money fairy will visit scapegaming so that they can pay the reward.... who knows.
Rajah Aug 16th 2010 11:25PM
I seriously doubt there will be any appeal. There was apparently no defense at trial. Also, it should be noted that Blizzard sued Alyson Reeves individually. I haven't yet seen any evidence that Scapegaming was formally organized (e.g. as a LLC). If that's the case, then the only bankruptcy possible is personal. I could see how Blizzard might use the size of the award to pry information out of Alyson Reeves - things like identities of those who worked with her and even information about those who used the private server. In a few months time, the banhammer might be coming down pretty hard.
Lhock Aug 15th 2010 12:57AM
Shut down the server? Sure. Recover attorney fees and the profit money reaped from said server, Definitely. Jack up the total charges 20x higher? Excessive.
I agree they should have punishment coming down, but 88 million is about as stupid as record companies claiming $750 for EACH song you share.
Spark Aug 15th 2010 1:44AM
-----
Cambro Aug 15th 2010 12:14AM
It does and it could affect you. It does in that it's the same "go around the terms of use" mentality people use when they buy gold, knowing it's against the terms of use. It's also what drives a number of private servers that collect some amount of money from you (not all are free). Because both of those markets feed directly into gold sellers...which actively hacks accounts or outright steals your credit card info when you pay a private server or buy gold.
-----
That is an amazing bit of mental gymnastics. Next time, perhaps you can explain to us how private servers and game emulators contribute to terrorism.
QQinsider Aug 15th 2010 10:16AM
Well it's obvious isn't it.
Private servers break the law
Terrorists break the law
THEREFORE (copyright Cambro thinking 2010, All RIghts Reserved): private servers are run by terrorists.