Jan 3rd 2012 3:28AM I can't comment on all the servers, but I did manage to sell an "Adventurer's Journal" for 95 gold and an "A Treatise on Strategy" for 12,350 on Kilrogg (horde). I was surprised by the prices, but undercut the existing listings by a few gold. I now wish I had posted the treatise for a high amount and simply waited out the lower listings.
Of course before I got one I had never even heard of them so I can't really complain.
Jan 3rd 2012 3:02AM Don't forget the +5 skillups for professions as an added way to save money. I had leatherworking at 520 and was looking at many hours of farming or hundreds of gold to buys the mats to make the last 5 points. For the cost of a couple of vendor items (less than 1 gold) I was able to skill up the last 5 points and save more than 1000 gold worth of heavy savage leather.
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.
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.
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.
Jun 15th 2010 1:35AM Amy, I agree, you already covered that and I don't believe there is any conflict in that regard. However, I was curious what type of law you were hoping to practice in the future. I think what people are suggesting is that you seem to be (especially in the earlier articles) very much a Blizzard fan. My guess, and it is just a guess, is that you hope to get a job with a game company like Blizzard and, as such, do not want anything in this blog to hurt your chances of getting such a position.
I am curious, is there anything you think that Blizzard has done wrong? Do you really believe that their interpretation of the DMCA (i.e. the Digital Millennium Contract/Cheating Act) is really correct?
Jun 8th 2010 11:14AM Be careful what you wish for. Don't forget, no one has used Glider for several years now as it is no longer under development, but many others have come up to replace it. Also, botting was never really the problem, it is the account hackers that are the biggest pain, most of the time you won't even recognize if someone is actually a botter, so they have little or no affect on you.
Also, a judgment against MDY would have very serious implications with every other piece of software you use. There have been some seriously bad EULAs that this would support (photo cataloging software which allows the publisher to sell you photos without telling you, not allowed to use Microsoft software to create web pages that Microsoft doesn't like, etc.).
While it would be a minor win for the players, it would also be a very major loss to everyone who "buys" software.
Jun 8th 2010 4:51AM For an incorporated company the company is found liable but the owner is okay. In this case the judge, for some reason, found the owner personally liable for the entire amount so he is pretty much in trouble.
Also, as a correction, the EULA never mentioned bots until this case. You can see old versions at archive.org. Blizzard only added bots when they filed this case.
I am curious about the liability Blizzard has in reverse engineering Glider in order to make Warden more effective. It seems they had a bit of a war going back and forth, so they must have each been doing so. Just because someone breaks the law does not make it right for you to also do so in order to try and stop them, right?
Jun 1st 2010 10:38PM "The EULA banning botting has been around since the earliest days of WoW," - this statement isn't exactly true. The clause regarding bots - "use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the World of Warcraft experience; " was added only after the MDY case (check out http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html for historical copies).
Also, regarding "renters", they don't really apply to WoW since you can download the trial program for free and the price you pay is for the account, not the program.
I don't understand why so many people want to defend the EULA. It is a clear attempt by Blizzard (and every other software company) to override federal laws in a blatant attempt to reduce consumer rights. While most people here would agree that botting is bad and hurts the game, using copyright law to fight it is like using a shotgun to get a fly. You might get the fly, but much more gets destroyed in the process.
Also, look at some bad examples of other EULAs, would you support them? For example, Microsoft had a clause in Front Page (web page creation) that said you could not use it to create pages that said bad things about them or that they might find objectionable in any way (i.e. porn, etc.). Would you really want to give Microsoft such powers?
"Having worked in the retail industry in the past, I can tell you that when you're purchasing the WoW discs, you are buying the discs. That means, the plastic...well acetate really, that the media is carried on is yours. However the software on it, isn't."
That statement doesn't even make any sense. Nobody is trying to take away Blizzard's copyright rights (i.e. to make sure that no one makes unauthorized copies of their work), but Blizzard is trying to extend this to much more than the right to copy. How would you apply this statement to another copyrighted work, a book for example? Does that mean you only own the paper, but not the ink? You cannot read it (i.e. copy it to your brain) if you break some minor clause? That is what Blizzard is saying, you cannot copy it into RAM if you break any clause in the EULA (i.e. swearing in chat).
Jun 1st 2010 1:16PM You just have to read the WoW EULA to see that isn't true. You can open it, examine it, install it, etc. and still return it for a full refund within 30 days if you don't use the activation key. Whoever told you that was mistaken. The software publishers can, and do, set their own return policies. Since that is usually you cannot return it the person who told you such a thing mistook their own EULA for federal law.
Actually, since the EULA is usually inside the box, it doesn't even make much sense as you cannot even read it without opening the box.