Comments on: Digital Rights Advocacy Group Weighs in on Copyright Claims in World of Warcraft Glider Bot Case http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/05/public-knowledge-amicus/ Legal Issues That Impact Virtual Worlds Tue, 13 May 2014 04:03:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Guy sues Blizzard for … “WOW caused Riches mind to live in a virtual universe” « nerfmyage news http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/05/public-knowledge-amicus/#comment-20109 Guy sues Blizzard for … “WOW caused Riches mind to live in a virtual universe” « nerfmyage news Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:23:11 +0000 http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/05/public-knowledge-amicus/#comment-20109 [...] do with a case sometimes file motions in U.S. Courts.  These motions usually take the form of the amicusbrief filed earlier by Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy [...] [...] do with a case sometimes file motions in U.S. Courts.  These motions usually take the form of the amicusbrief filed earlier by Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy [...]

]]> By: Jason Archinaco http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/05/public-knowledge-amicus/#comment-17745 Jason Archinaco Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:21:13 +0000 http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/05/public-knowledge-amicus/#comment-17745 Well written brief. -j. Well written brief.

-j.

]]> By: Living in WoW Blog » Blizzard v/s WOW Glider http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/05/public-knowledge-amicus/#comment-17046 Living in WoW Blog » Blizzard v/s WOW Glider Mon, 19 May 2008 23:54:54 +0000 http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/05/public-knowledge-amicus/#comment-17046 [...] Nachtrag mit neuen Links (2008-05-05): Virtually Blind: Responses to Summary Judgment Motions Filed in World of Warcraft Glider Bot Lawsuit Virtually Blind: Digital Rights Advocacy Group Public Knowledge Weighs In On World of Warcraft Glider Bot Case [...] [...] Nachtrag mit neuen Links (2008-05-05): Virtually Blind: Responses to Summary Judgment Motions Filed in World of Warcraft Glider Bot Lawsuit Virtually Blind: Digital Rights Advocacy Group Public Knowledge Weighs In On World of Warcraft Glider Bot Case [...]

]]> By: Rim van Wersch http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/05/public-knowledge-amicus/#comment-16852 Rim van Wersch Tue, 06 May 2008 09:53:41 +0000 http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/05/public-knowledge-amicus/#comment-16852 From a technical angle Blizzards claim, or at least the recap posted here, would also imply that the Windows operating system violates their copyright, as Windows obviously also needs to copy the game into memory in order to start it. I frequently wonder why such practical arguments just don't seem to carry much weight in court and parties choose to split hairs on the tricky ground of software ownership. From a technical angle Blizzards claim, or at least the recap posted here, would also imply that the Windows operating system violates their copyright, as Windows obviously also needs to copy the game into memory in order to start it. I frequently wonder why such practical arguments just don’t seem to carry much weight in court and parties choose to split hairs on the tricky ground of software ownership.

]]> By: Ashcroft Burnham http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/05/public-knowledge-amicus/#comment-16845 Ashcroft Burnham Mon, 05 May 2008 23:24:05 +0000 http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/05/public-knowledge-amicus/#comment-16845 This question - the status in copyright law of software "licence" agreements - has been a live and very important issue for well over a decade, and it is very surprising that it is only now being resolved. Resolution in either direction would have far-reaching implications for the computer software industry. One other related issue, not so much pertinent to online games downloaded over the internet, but applicable to software bought on physical media, is that the terms of the contract/"licence" are often found only <i>inside</i> the box. In English contract law, at least, there is a clear line of authorities that terms in a contract must be ascertained at the moment that the contract is entered into, and if notice of the purported terms is only available to one of the parties after the payment has been made and thus the contract concluded (in one particular case, a notice inside a car park where the customer had to pay to enter), it is of no effect, and the contract is to be construed without reference to those terms. This question – the status in copyright law of software “licence” agreements – has been a live and very important issue for well over a decade, and it is very surprising that it is only now being resolved. Resolution in either direction would have far-reaching implications for the computer software industry.

One other related issue, not so much pertinent to online games downloaded over the internet, but applicable to software bought on physical media, is that the terms of the contract/”licence” are often found only inside the box. In English contract law, at least, there is a clear line of authorities that terms in a contract must be ascertained at the moment that the contract is entered into, and if notice of the purported terms is only available to one of the parties after the payment has been made and thus the contract concluded (in one particular case, a notice inside a car park where the customer had to pay to enter), it is of no effect, and the contract is to be construed without reference to those terms.

]]>