But Blizzard’s theory is wrong, because it confuses a copyright holder's intellectual property rights in the software it develops with a buyer's rights in the actual copy of the software....
Blizzard argues that players aren’t owners but merely software licensees, so section 117 doesn’t apply. But court after court has held that the question of whether a user is an owner for purposes of Section 117 depends the substance of the transaction, not just how one party wants to describe it. For example, if you buy the software, keep it on your own computer and don’t have to return it when you are done, you probably own it.
Do You Own Your Software? WoW Glider Case Not Just About Getting to Level 70.
Posted by Corynne McSherry
Unbeknownst to most software users, a lawsuit now at a critical stage could drastically expand the ability of software vendors to restrict how their customers can use their software.
Blizzard Entertainment, the company that makes the hugely popular massively multi-player online role-playing game World of Warcraft, sued Michael Donnelly, the developer of Glider, a program that helps WoW users raise their character level to 70 by “playing” for the user while the user goes to get a cup of coffee, read the paper, etc. The WoW licensing agreement ostensibly forbids using programs like Glider. Blizzard says that Donnelly illegally interfered with that agreement by selling Glider and, therefore, encouraging users to breach the license agreement by using the program.
Here’s the scary part: Blizzard also insists that because the license agreement forbids using Glider with WoW, Glider users are committing copyright infringement when they load copies of WoW into RAM in order to play the game. (Blizzard says Donnelly is contributing to that infringement.) If Blizzard’s theory were correct, Glider users could be on the hook for statutory damages, which could start at $750 per RAM copy. Blizzard’s theory would also give software vendors the power to stop the sale of software that interoperates with their product.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
IANAL, but I have a similar
IANAL, but I have a similar infatuation with Imaginary Property law.
I'm surprised Blizzard is using a copyright attack, which seems pretty oblique. Normally they'd be using some weird interpretation of the DMCA (bad law). I also have a hunch that Blizzard isn't as dumb as the RIAA and isn't planning on suing it's users.
And of all places, I'm surprised that the EFF is confusing contract law with licenses in their press releases.
I'm surprised Blizzard is
Using the DMCA is social death among the Digerati.
You're probably right...but what about the next guy? Businesses have the tendency to push the law until it breaks. It's the precedent they're concerned about.
Using the DMCA is social
you're right. It's been a while since I've seen it really come up. Thank god. It's still weird, because this business anti-relationship is more in line with what the DMCA was targeting in the first place.
For the same reason that I think software licenses are even more defensible the way Blizzard uses them (it's not just the game you're buying, but the online network/'service'), they're more vulnerable to unpopular moves like suing their users.
The RIAA knows that if you decide not to buy some album because of their actions, there's not a huge chance that someone else will not buy the album. But if there's a flight from WoW to another MMPORG, then it affects the value of their product.
I'm not a gamer but I
I'm not a gamer but I understand WoW is huge. It must be for a guy to make enough money in a secondary market to be noticed.
As I see it, Blizzard wants to stop the guys who make Glider in a way that scares other developers off the very idea of producing cheat software. A copyright infringement case would do that because the penalty for each case (which would be each time you run the bot) is stupid large.
EFF isn't saying Blizzard is the bad guy here. Blizzard absolutely needs to protect its service. They're saying a copyright infringement case is the wrong way to go due to untoward side effects of the precedent. That's why they suggested contract law.