Subscribe to
Posts
Comments

MDY v. Blizzard CaptionBlizzard has won its summary judgment motion against World of Warcraft bot maker MDY on copyright grounds.  Blizzard also prevailed on its tortious interference claim.  This means that liability for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and tortious interference is completely off the table and will not go to the jury at trial in September, assuming that the parties do not settle before then.  The only issue before the jury on these two claims will be damages. This is a major setback for MDY, which originally brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that its WowGlider (now MMOGlider) bot software did not infringe Blizzard’s copyright.

For the background of this suit, see Virtually Blind’s complete coverage of MDY v. Blizzard.  Here is today’s Order re: Blizzard’s and MDY’s Summary Judgment Motions (.pdf).

The Court ultimately held that:

Blizzard owns a valid copyright in the game client software, Blizzard has granted a limited license for WoW players to use the software, use of the software with Glider falls outside the scope of the license established in section 4 of the TOU, use of Glider includes copying to RAM within the meaning of section 106 of the Copyright Act, users of WoW and Glider are not entitled to a section 117 defense, and Glider users therefore infringe Blizzard’s copyright. MDY does not dispute that the other requirements for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement are met, nor has MDY established a misuse defense. The Court accordingly will grant summary judgment in favor of Blizzard with respect to liability on the contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims in Counts II and III.

Blizzard had argued that:

In this Circuit, the “copying” element may be proved in software cases by showing an unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted software program in the computer user’s Random Access Memory (“RAM”). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “the loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the Copyright Act.” MAI Sys. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 519 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. dismissed 510 U.S. 1033 (1994); Triad Sys. Corp. v. Se. Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330, 1334 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 478 F. Supp. 2d 607, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (agreeing with the “numerous courts [that] have held that the transmission of information through a computer’s random access memory or RAM . . . creates a ‘copy’ for purposes of the Copyright Act,” and citing cases.) When such a copy is made in excess of a license, the copier is liable for copyright infringement. Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Techs., Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (‘“When a licensee exceeds the scope of the license granted by the copyright holder, the licensee is liable for infringement.”’ (citation omitted)).

MDY argued that loading a copy of the software into RAM is protected by Section 117, and was joined in that argument by Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy group.  The court rejected these arguments, noting that “the Court is not free to disregard Ninth Circuit precedent directly on point.”  From the Order:

MDY urges the Court to follow the approach recently taken by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Vernor, 2008 WL 2199682. The Vernor court declined to follow MAI, Triad, and Wall Data, and instead applied an earlier Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1977). Wise involved the application of the “first sale” doctrine under 17 U.S.C. § 109 to various transfer contracts between movie studios and recipients of movie prints. Vernor concluded that the critical factor in Wise for determining whether a transaction was a sale or a license was “whether the transferee kept the copy acquired from the copyright holder.” 2008 WL2199682, at *6. MDY urges the Court to follow Vernor and Wise and hold that the users of the WoW game client software are owners of the software because they are entitled to keep the copy of the software they acquire from Blizzard. The Court declines this invitation. Whatever freedom the court in Vernor may have had to disregard Wall Data when applying a different statutory provision – section 109 – this Court does not have the same freedom. This case concerns section 117, the very provision addressed by the Ninth Circuit in Wall Data. The Court is not free to disregard Ninth Circuit precedent directly on point.

MDY prevailed on some other other pending summary judgment issues and Blizzard prevailed on others, but the key result is that MDY has been found by the court to infringe Blizzard’s copyright through the sale of its WoWGlider (now MMOGlider) bot program, and to have tortiously interfered with Blizzard’s relationships with its customers through those sales. VB will be interested in seeing if MDY appeals.

Email This Post Email This Post
Print This Post (Printer Friendly Formatting) Print This Post (Printer Friendly Formatting)


Related Posts on Virtually Blind

78 Responses to “Blizzard Wins Key Judgments Against WoW Bot Maker MDY on Copyright and Tortious Interference Claims”

  1. on 14 Jul 2008 at 3:43 pmlarryr

    good day for copyright…blizzards..
    bay day for trademark… Tiffany’s

    and the end of web2.0 continues..
    :)

  2. on 14 Jul 2008 at 6:12 pmWearyman

    Nobody tell the RIAA that loading into RAM constitutes a legal copy under copyright law or we are ALL SCREWED!

    Thanks alot Ninth “Circus” court! Ya boned us again!

  3. on 14 Jul 2008 at 7:31 pmmoo

    IANAL, but this decision looks like it is wrong…
    ________

    Section 117(a) says:

    (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

    (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

    (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
    ________

    According to that, if WoW is copied into RAM “as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner”, then the copy is not an infringement (whether or not it is authorized).

    Therefore, the Ninth circuit, and this court, are both wrong, wrong, wrong! It shouldn’t matter whether users are obeying the EULA or not, or whether they own the actual software program or only have a license to it. Copying it into RAM is “an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine”. It is not used in any other manner. Using it in another manner would be something like, printing out its contents on paper and sending them to a friend. Or publishing them in a magazine. WoW is being used in conjunction with the machine, which is exactly what Section 117 was intended to legalize.

  4. on 14 Jul 2008 at 8:13 pmTaxExemPt

    With that logic, ANYONE that owns ANY intellectual property that can be stored on a computer and loaded into RAM can sue Microsoft for copyright infringement for the COPY tool.

  5. on 14 Jul 2008 at 8:31 pmJane Q. Publicq

    Actually, Microsoft used to put in their EULA (late 1990s) that loading into memory was a “copy” for license purposes, and also said that the installed copy was the “licensed” copy, while the original disks were the official “archival” copy. (Never mind how ridiculous it is to consider the original disks the “archive”… that is what Microsoft put in their EULA.)

    According to the license, then, it was illegal to use their software at all, since the installed (hard drive) copy was the licensend copy, the original disks were the legally allowed “archive”, and… the copy loaded into memory was therefore a third, illegal copy. According to MS, that is.

    Of course that license was not legally enforceable, which brings up this important point: the court erred in ruling, in effect, that the Terms of Use (TOU) automatically extend a copyright holder’s rights. Where they otherwise contrast with or contradict copyright law, they are as void as any other illegal contract. Considering that some courts have also upheld that a “shrink-wrap license” has no legal force, it may be that this judgment will also be overturned. It depends on circuit and a lot of other things.

  6. on 14 Jul 2008 at 8:32 pmNerfbat » Blizzard 1, MDY 0

    [...] against the creators of Glider, which I think is a good thing for the entire MMO industry. More at Virtually Blind. This entry was posted on Monday, July 14th, 2008 at 22:32 in Industry. You can [...]

  7. on 15 Jul 2008 at 5:00 amWilliam Mayo

    Wow.

    Sooooo…. what program exactly is it that one can use without loading it into system RAM? Also, does that mean that my defragmenter is infringing by making partial copies?

  8. on 15 Jul 2008 at 6:32 amFinn

    Section 117(a) says:

    (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

    (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

    (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

    Well glider user are breaking (1) as they are using the program in a manner it was not meant to be used. Or that’s how I am reading the decision currently.

  9. on 15 Jul 2008 at 6:45 amUseYourNoggen

    C’mon people. Use that stuff between your ears. MMOGlider modifies how the client works. I know alot of you are just green behind the ears kiddies, but common sense is required. Leave the anal scrutiny of the letters of the law to the lawyers. And look beyond the end of your nose, beyond your own self-serving interests.

  10. on 15 Jul 2008 at 11:47 amliam_668

    I love people who don’t think through the ramifications; no one can do anything with a program until it has loaded into RAM. So, by extension, any time one plays the game, one is violating copyright. Accordingly, everyone should comply. Stop playing and delete the client from your hard drive, because using it is illegal.

    Way to go WoW!

  11. [...] a summary judgement for Blizzard, the Ninth Circuit held in MDY v Blizzard that this section of law does not apply to anybody. [...]

  12. [...] received a crushing blow yesterday as the court ruled against them, Virtually Blind reports, declaring them guilty of copyright infringement and tortious interference (Apparently, bots [...]

  13. on 15 Jul 2008 at 1:06 pmlolrly

    Did someone actually acronym “IANAL” ;d

  14. on 15 Jul 2008 at 1:16 pmJohn Lopez

    For those who are arguing that this impacts normal use of software, the phrase:

    “that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner”

    needs a bit of emphasis on the “and that it is used in no other manner”.

    The argument seems to be that normal users are using the RAM copy “as an essential step in the utilization”, but when Glider is involved it is being used in “another manner” than simply executing the software in question.

    It seems a pretty fine point that could go either way in appeal, but it doesn’t imply that normal execution of software would fall afoul this type of reading of the law.

  15. [...] From the folks over at Virtually Blind: [...]

  16. on 15 Jul 2008 at 1:28 pmbstaz

    Those of you on the loading-any-program-is-a-copyright-violation kick should re-read the post:


    When such a copy is made in excess of a license, the copier is liable for copyright infringement.

    Glider’s copying the WoW software into RAM is not a licensed use.

  17. on 15 Jul 2008 at 1:37 pmValdis Kletnieks

    Geez – can’t people *READ*? :)

    Yes, the Microsoft EULA used to say you had the copy on your hard drive as licensed, and the install disks as your archival. 17 USC 117 *specifically* addresses that, because it says “yes, copying it into RAM so it will run *is* a copy, but it’s specifically *exempted* as an infringement” (because otherwise there’s no legal way to run the program).

    OK? So you run the program, you are *NOT* violating the copyright. However, if you’re copying the program to RAM so that you can screw around with it and insert bot code, that is *not* running the program, so you don’t get the 17 USC 117 exemption, and the court ends up ruling for Blizzard.

  18. [...] Virtually Blind has the scoop, but in short, Blizzard won on all the major points: the court didn’t go for the copyright argument, saying they were bound by precedent and not a policymaking body; and that making this kind of software looks like tortious interference (meaning, interfering with the contract between Blizzard and users). Further analysis at TerraNova. [...]

  19. on 15 Jul 2008 at 2:43 pmDan

    For all the pro-blizzard zealots, let me break down why this is bad.

    Blizzard is attempting (wont survive on appeal) to get Copyright enforcement for contractual violations.

    That means that if a popular piece of software (Like windows) put in their EULA that you must reboot your computer every 24 hours- And you dont do that- You are not just guilty of a EULA violation, You are guilty of COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT- WHICH CARRYS CRIMINAL PENALTYS.

    The likely summary to this, will be that the law will be modified to state that CP infringements can only happen if the user has not purchased nor licensed the software.

    (IE- Using a hacked version of Photoshop you never paid for = CP infringement // Using a “unauthorized download” with your LEGIT photoshop = fair use.)

    ———

    To summarize, Blizzard should not be able to tack on CP infringement for any EULA breakage.

    IE- Its against Blizz EULA to name your charachter anything with leet speak. So if you name your charachter “roflcopter” , You could potentially be brought up on criminal charges.

    Once again- NO CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT FOR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS!!

  20. on 15 Jul 2008 at 3:20 pmMorgan

    COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT- WHICH CARRYS CRIMINAL PENALTYS.

    Copyright infringement does not usually carry criminal penalties. Copyright infringement is a tort, a civil wrong.

    Some judgments on copyright infringement have conferred criminal penalties, however, because the infringement was proven extreme, malicious, or criminally negligent.

    The basic difference between torts and crimes is that torts are redressed by rewarding damages (i.e., money) and crimes are remedied by awarding incarceration or death.

  21. on 15 Jul 2008 at 3:34 pmDan

    Copyright infringement does not usually carry criminal penalties. Copyright infringement is a tort, a civil wrong.

    Usually- being the key word.

    Blizzard (nor any other software co) should have the rights to use this as a tool.

    Breaking some random term in a EULA should not automatically equal copyright infringement, it should be a contract violation.

    If this ruling survives- How could a anti virus company exist? After all- Anti Virus software scans and acceses files/data without access! Bring on the punitive damages!

  22. on 15 Jul 2008 at 4:15 pmAshcroft Burnham

    I hope that this is appealed – it is a serious problem if the numerus clausus of intellectual property is so extremely broad as to include almost everything: it is wrong in principle that a person or organisation should have a property or property-like right in the conduct of others who simply interact with things that have been passed on.

    Intellectual property law needs serious revision, very, very urgently, as, in its current state, it is grossly oppressive of individual liberty and catastrophically damaging to the economy.

  23. on 15 Jul 2008 at 4:20 pmkP

    I believe the beef WoW had was that the ‘Bot was “launching” the WoW client software. While this could be done using a plain old BAT (batch) file, amd that BAT file in turn configured to run when the computer was booted, I believe the crux of WoW’s beef is that the ‘Bot “envelopes” the WoW client as part of the launch, effectively making the Wow client its bitch, being able to monitor the launch of the Wow client on a seperate thread and grabbing vital handles and other resources.

    Anyone know how the Bot really works?

  24. on 15 Jul 2008 at 5:04 pmMakaze

    Blizzard is not tacking CP infringement onto an EULA violation. Though the suit was motivated by EULA violations it is grounded firmly in CP law and the EULA is only used to establish the intended use of the program. Since Glider makes a copy that is not an essential step in utilizing the program and is certainly being used in another manner it violates section 117.
    So this decision is only useful against those using a 3rd party program and has no impact on someone farming for or selling gold manually.

    EULA violations have not been legally equated to CP infringement.

  25. on 15 Jul 2008 at 5:44 pmJon

    There can be two interpretations of the ruling.

    1) blizzard owns the wow software on your computer and therefore any use of their software outside the scope what their license agreement states is a copy right infringement.

    2) “that it is used in no other manner” of 117 subsection 1 is not being followed. That is, the program by copying the software into the ram and in conjunction of the machine is creating a product that is not protected.

    I find that the court probably means the first (and is what blizzard argued). What the other side tried to argue is that one indeed owns the software on their computer (after all, they stated, if you can use the software and never ever have to return it even after you stop paying for the license to use it you should own it).

    I wonder if me running wow is a copyright violation because I no longer pay for the license to use it.

  26. on 15 Jul 2008 at 6:02 pmDan

    @24

    If they have any provision such as “You may not use any third party program in conjunction with this software without our express written consent…”

    That line right there, which any company could easily add- Would allow them to sue ANYONE who used any third party program.

    That means no Anti Virus. That means no Mods for games, That means no integration, addons or innovation.

    And given the statement above, any EULA violation would equal a CP infringement if so chose.

    This is a buyers market, and the amount of leverage given to software companys is ridiculous. Civil lib’s are being stripped away with far out legalese and bullshit theorys. Copyright Law in the US is so far behind where it needs to be that a drastic reform will be needed soon.

    Once again-
    Name your charachter ‘RoflCopter’ in WoW and you are liable for copyright infringement.

    Do you dispute the above statement?
    “Blizz would never bother to sue you” is not a valid answer- They dont get to choose.

  27. [...] Virtually Blind [...]

  28. on 15 Jul 2008 at 6:19 pmDan

    Oh- some more info from the EFF

    http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/you-bought-it-you-dont-own-it

  29. on 15 Jul 2008 at 9:20 pmMakaze

    That line right there, which any company could easily add- Would allow them to sue ANYONE who used any third party program.

    No need, this ruling is based on the premise that that is illegal to use a 3rd party program to make a copy in memory that is not integral for its use and/or not an intended use. No EULA line is required.

    That means no Mods for games

    Not at all, they don’t make an additional copy in memory beyond what running the game normally does. Besides games with even the slightest abiility to support a mod these days are meant to be modable and so it is an intended use.

    That means no Anti Virus.

    Actually technically maybe, but I imagine most copyright holders would be fine with considering being virus free an essential step in its use.

    Name your charachter ‘RoflCopter’ in WoW and you are liable for copyright infringement.

    Do you dispute the above statement?

    For copyright violation? Yes, emphatically! Naming your character ‘rolfcopter’ does not make an, according to this ruling illegal, copy of the application in memory and therefore does not violate copyright laws. They can hit you for breach of contract for breaking the EULA but not copyright infringement. I think you need to reread the ruling and/or look a little deeper into how Glider works.

  30. on 15 Jul 2008 at 9:25 pmAndrew Smith

    Blizzard Wins vs. Glider: What it means for the virtual currency market

    We posted a blog post on this over at GameRates.com on what this means for some other ToS/EULA violators such as virtual currency sellers:

    “What does this mean for the gold industry however?

    First off it may embolden Blizzard to actually take on major gold sellers in the courtroom. However, this could be a very dangerous move as if they lost or perhaps a U.S court found that virtual currency has real worth it could awake the sleeping giant of legal problems. For example if Blizzard bans someone accidently, or it’s servers crash, or they nerf an item all which destroy virtual goods (with real legal value) in the process one may be able to sue Blizzard for these “real” damages caused. For this and many other reasons we doubt that such a case will arise although the reverse may be true (a gold farmer suing blizzard for preventing them from selling its legally acquired in-game goods for cash outside the game). For those of you that have been around for a while you may remember the BlackSnow Case against Mythic where such a thing happened.

    Still the scary thing is the wide ruling that violating a Terms of Service (ToS) or End User License Agreement (EULA) that you haphazardly click every time you play the game can be counted as copyright infringement. An EULA can say virtually anything it wishes. Does violating any part of it really count as copyright infringement? If you choose to farm items by hand using normal game mechanics without interfering with anyone else and then you mail the items you acquire to another person that is fine (it would be considered “twinking” a friend or new character), yet if you do the same action and the person sends you $10 through PayPal for the gift is it then considered a copyright violation because it violates Blizzards ToS?

    That’s ridiculous and as such we don’t see the case ever being applied to the virtual currency market.

    In fact we think that if the case is appealed it has a very good chance of being reversed. It’s simply too broad in its scope”

  31. [...] http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/07/14/blizzard-wins-sj-mdy/ Mit dem Ergebnis kann ich leben, ab sofort unterliegen Teile der Benutzung von Software dem DMCA. [...]

  32. [...] Industries, makers of WoW bot “Glider” Our friends over at VirtuallyBlind have reported that Blizzard has won the ongoing lawsuit against MDY Industries, the makers of the most popular [...]

  33. on 16 Jul 2008 at 2:31 amphiland » blog archive » wow wins

    [...] reading: virtuallyblind, slashdot posted in headlines || print | email | [...]

  34. on 16 Jul 2008 at 3:35 amBlueweasel

    I don’t understand the confusion here – it’s a simple case of separating the motivation from the tool. To use an analogy, they went after Al Capone because he was a murdering crimelord, how they got him was Tax Evasion. That doesn’t mean every murderer can be charged with tax evasion or that every one who cheats their tax is a murderer.

    Blizzard went after MDY because they were screwing with (and encouraging others to screw with) the ToS. How they got them was Copyright Infringement. There’s no link between the Eula/ToS and the copyright other than that the same company was breaking both.

  35. [...] Bene, ieri MDY ha ricevuto un duro colpo dalla corte, che li ha dichiarati colpevoli di entrambe le accuse. [...]

  36. on 16 Jul 2008 at 7:06 amDan

    @29 Makaze

    I think YOU need to re-read this case.

    For copyright violation? Yes, emphatically! Naming your character ‘rolfcopter’ does not make an, according to this ruling illegal, copy of the application in

    By naming your character “roflcopter” you have broken the EULA. Since you have broken the EULA, You will have no permission to run the game (according to EULA). If you run the game despite this, You have made a “unlicensed” copy of the game in your RAM and you will be liable for CP infringement.

    Thats the whole problem with this. Break ANY rule in the EULA and you are on the hook for CP infringement.

    …Thats sort of the whole point behind this case? Did you read it? I fail to see how you cannot make the connection. This case says pretty clearly- Break the EULA and the copy you are using becomes unauthorized, and hence- CP infringement..

    http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1657

    To quote from the above group

    “Every singly copy of every single piece of software is thus licensed, and anything in violation of that license could be a copyright infringement, as long as that EULA is drafted cleverly.”

  37. [...] argued that loading a copy of the software into RAM is protected by Section 117. And as reported by Virtually Blind: MDY prevailed on some other other pending summary judgment issues and Blizzard prevailed on [...]

  38. on 16 Jul 2008 at 9:33 amAshtaar

    @Dan

    I think YOU need to re-read this case -critically-.

    The court makes a clear and concise difference between the EULA violation and the copyright violation. At no point is the EULA infringement used to justify copyright punishment – how could it? The SOLE use of EULA in this case is to establish intent in the example used.

    So yes, I dispute your Roflcopter claim. Let’s trace this. You name your character Rolfcopter (breaking EULA). You copy WoW into RAM (by running WoW client). Blizzard cannot make any copyright claims because your RAM copy was performed by agent of the licensed software. So they change your name instead for the EULA violation.

    Let’s try this again. You name yourself Roflcopter. You fire up Glide for a nice overnighter of automated goldfarming. You break EULA twice, once via naming violation, once via botting. You copy Glide into RAM, then Glide copies bits of WoW into it’s RAM space.

    Suddenly, the EULA -> Copyright link isn’t so direct, now?

    When you break EULA, you DO NOT automatically call copyright violations, unless you also copy the software by a third party application. This seems pretty clearly stated, especially in the legalese.

    Or, in other words, breaking the EULA and running the client (despite not having ‘permission’) is handled within the client and license bounds. The licensed software creates the RAM copy. Breaking the EULA and hacking the client to bypass built-in protections involves a third-party program or codebase to copy the client code. This elevates the offense to copyright infringement, as alleged by Blizzard and upheld by the court.

    This simply upholds that Blizzard owns their client software, and licenses you to use it. If you do not abide by TOS and run the client, that copy that the client makes is indeed making an unauthorized copy to RAM. However, since the client is owned by Blizzard, they would be suing… themselves? No. They handle that as a simple EULA violation, internal to the client access controls.

  39. on 16 Jul 2008 at 2:11 pmJoeB

    Im just a working type schmuck, but then aren’t all the little hacker groups that release “hacks / trainers” for video games going to be punishable under this ruling also?

    http://www.fileplanet.com/search.aspx?searchtype=2&q=trainer

    Whats the score on this gem.. Diablo2 Character Editor V1.6
    plus all the others? IMHO once this genie is out of the bottle, a lot of people might find themselves in a bad spot. Wasn’t it Blizzard that stole our registry files via BattleNet?
    http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19980430S0015

    @Ashtaar re-read post 36, I fail to see the mention of loading the tool in question. Your assuming, and you know what daddy says about doing that.

    By naming your character “roflcopter” you have broken the EULA. Since you have broken the EULA, You will have no permission to run the game (according to EULA). If you run the game despite this, You have made a “unlicensed” copy of the game in your RAM and you will be liable for CP infringement.

  40. on 16 Jul 2008 at 4:06 pmDan

    @joe-

    Most EULA’s dont disallow trainers, and they dont bother anyone either.

    Hacks, Might be another story. FPS Hacks dont typically launch the game though, the game gets started first.

    And @ashtarr

    This ruling will kill AV companys, so its likely it would get overturned anyways. Yes, its likely blizz would not sue norton, but i highly doubt norton will leave the possiblity open.

    Also, what about big “third party” companys like xfire, etc..??

  41. on 16 Jul 2008 at 4:19 pmDan

    One last thing-

    None of this means anything unless it survives on appeal.

    Its just that a judge was narrow minded enough to let it get this far.

  42. on 16 Jul 2008 at 5:17 pmSirmabus

    “UseYourNoggen” and other such people.
    You live in your little hole, go home and play WOW, and
    think that’s all there is to life.
    Take your own advise and pull your head out!

    WTF are you talking about?
    Look beyond the issue of just botting in WOW.
    The issue at stake here is basic human rights and freedoms.
    The freedom to run what you want on your computer, how and when.
    Do you really want corporate monopoly to control more of our laws? You want a cooperation to control what you can run on your computer?

    Part of the problem too is just bad bot design. And the people that run them. It’s just irresponsible people.

    World wide human rights, should not be sacrificed for cooperate profits.

    It not all about some cheap game that will last a few years.
    This not only effects you, but future generations.
    Do you really want your kids to live in the “1984″, “Brave New World” world?

  43. [...] Blizzard wins against a third-party program. (More analysis) [...]

  44. on 17 Jul 2008 at 4:54 amAndrew Mead

    If WoW was a game that relied on artistic creations on groups of friends uploading special looking armour etc then this Glider wouldn’t be a problem.

    The trouble is WoW relies too heavily on the economic ‘grinding’ aspect of the game. Just like most people do in real life.

    If people could cheat to get L$ in second life that can be transferred into real cash then we would probably all understand a court case.

    Imagine installing an autopilot in your car and then getting in the back and sleeping. (add job as taxi driver!)

    You want to play WoW, then play how the owners intend or not at all. Common Sense. MDY should’ve kept this one to themselves, made money and put miners out of business, oh and collapsed WoW economy.

  45. on 18 Jul 2008 at 10:17 amA WOW player

    As a WOW player I cheer for everyone that plays fair. Programs/Writers/players that Cheat in multiplayer game should be hunted down and banned from ever playing any multiplayer games.

  46. on 18 Jul 2008 at 10:38 amLayman

    WOW, pardon the pun, there sure are a lot of shadetree schiesters around here. Gee with all this collective legal genius it’s amazing there is still injustice in the world.

  47. on 18 Jul 2008 at 2:34 pmErik

    I’m glad, I play WoW constantly and I’m sick of bots. Regardless what this means in the future, this is a good step to stop lamers who ruin games for everyone else.

  48. on 18 Jul 2008 at 6:42 pmPaul

    Anyone else think that the tortious interference laws need to be reworked? Having read the court order, I have no doubt that the court has applied the current laws correctly but it seems to be missing the point.

    The person breaching the EULA/TOS actually wants to break them, it’s not like MDY is pressurising them to use their bot. Blizzard should be getting their $105 from each EULA violater rather than the third-party bot supplier. It’s like going after the gun manufacturer every time someone is shot – just doesn’t seem right.

    It will also be interesting to see how they determine “damages” in this case. Will it be based on the number of detected bot users (which afaik is small) or will it be on the total number of licenses sold (some of which may have never been used).

  49. [...] gana el juicio contra MDY Julio 21, 2008 — Isilion Blizzard ha ganado el juicio sumario contra MDY, los desarrolladores del software MMOGlider. Esta aplicación se utiliza para gestionar bots dentro [...]

  50. on 21 Jul 2008 at 2:57 pmConnect4

    @Paul: Well, guns have uses other than just shooting people. What other uses does Glider have?

  51. [...] here for more details on the rest of the [...]

  52. on 22 Jul 2008 at 1:09 amblobby

    The USA really needs to completely rework the copyright laws. This won’t happen tho, due to the fact that the corporations have more than enough money to keep any such discussion from ever approaching capital hill; and if it did, I’m certain the courts would be full of cases brought by these companies to challenge the legitimacy of such legislation.

    It is a sad sad world we live in, and the masses of morons who cheer further rollbacks of their personal freedoms in the name of stopping “lamers”, need to get a clue, or at least do us a favor and go kill themselves. What is dealing with a stupid “cheater” compared to loss of our rights and freedom?

  53. on 24 Jul 2008 at 2:28 pmSybil Clarke

    With that judges logic, anyone who own ANY intellectual property that can be stored on a computer can sue Microsoft for the COPY tool.

  54. on 30 Jul 2008 at 3:11 amIchinin

    I think that the ruling has some merit, but it is insane.

    AFAIK; (MMO)glider copy a memory space from the wow.exe process, then parse it and send back key events to the real live wow.exe process (maby using API calls like SendInput() or something similar).

    However, this is not a permanent copy – and one that is NOT used. The copy of wow is NOT being executed in memory and the technology behind it is more like what antivirus software does, it opens up processes and scan them for content.

    Intrestingly enough, according to MMOGlider.com’s FAQ, “Q: Is Glider detectable?” @
    http://www.mmoglider.com/FAQ.aspx#G1

    “1) The game itself detects the software by searching memory, your hard drive, window titles, or some other means.”

    So, Wow’s warden code also scans the memory of other processes, no regard for if they are bots/exploits or not and to be able to do so – it has to COPY memory from those processes.

    Tomorrows news: “Microsoft sue blizzard for copyright infringement of windows”.

    Blizzard, can you say “Can of worms”?

  55. on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:58 amEZ

    In response to 38 Ashtaar, and Dan, this passage makes it pretty clear that Dan has the better of the argument:

    “MDY relies on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005), to argue that “uses” which violate a license constitute copyright infringement only when the uses themselves infringe one of the exclusive rights granted by the Copyright Act. Dkt. #57 at 6-7. The Court is not convinced that Storage Technology should be read so narrowly. It is obvious that a person cannot be liable for copyright infringement without committing an act of infringement. Thus, where a license is at issue, the person must not only act outside the scope of the license, but must also engage in an act that infringes upon the exclusive rights granted the copyright holder by section 106 of the Act. This much is clear from both Ninth Circuit law and Storage Technology. But to the extent MDY suggests that the act that causes the person to fall outside the scope of the license and the act that constitutes copyright infringement must be one and the same, MDY has cited no Ninth Circuit authority Nor does this proposition make logical sense. If A grants a software license to B on the express condition that the license will remain in effect only so long as B makes monthly payments to A, and B then stops making payments to A, any subsequent copying of the software to RAM by B would constitute copyright infringement – a conclusion with which MDY’s counsel agreed during oral argument. This would be true even though the act that took B outside the scope of the license – nonpayment – is different from the act that constitutes infringement – subsequent copying of the software. The Court cannot accept MDY’s assertion, at least as a matter of Ninth Circuit law, that the act that takes one outside the scope of the license and the act that constitutes infringement must be one and the same.”

    Meaning, if you do anything that takes you outside the scope of the license, you lose the right to use the license, and any subsequent copy is an infringement.

  56. on 05 Aug 2008 at 12:13 amdirksj

    You are all continuing to miss the boat with claims of wide reaching CP implications.

    EULA is no part of the judgement. Note the complaint that was actually ruled on; it has nothing to do with EULA.

    From Blizzard’s motion:
    “In order to avoid easy detection and blocking of Glider by Blizzard’s anti-cheat technology, Glider users rely on Glider’s “launch pad” to initiate the start up and loading of WoW into RAM. Clearly, Glider users’ loading of WoW into RAM creates a copy for purposes of the Copyright Act.

    The Glider users’ copying of WoW in circumstances exceeding their license is copyright infringement.”

    If Blizzard’s software copies WoW into memory. The software itself is an agent of Blizzard so it copying said software CANNOT be an infringement. Blizzard is allowed to copy their own software.

    In order to circumvent WoW’s protection scheme (Warden) Glider is copying WoW into memory and blocking/evading/routing around Blizzard’s anti-cheat technology. WoW is not copying itself into memory which is the intended use of the software and non-infringing. Glider is making illegal copies.

    That is an infringment.

    Again GLIDER is making copies into RAM at the behest of the user against the copyright and license terms. If Glider were instead making these copies to a DVD-ROM then I doubt there would be so much arguement but in fact this is the same thing. The media is beside the point; it’s the copying that is against the law.

    You’ll note Blizzard isn’t and won’t try to tackle cheats in court that simply alter what data is sent to Blizzard or interpret said data. They rely on Warden for this as it’s not a copyright issue and would be very difficult to get a favorable judgement on.

    All of the reactionist claims in this comment section about wide reaching implications will fail the intended use clause.

    Example:
    Opening a purchaced picture in a software that shows pictures may very well copy that picture into RAM. The intended use of that picture however is to open it and look at it. By choosing a picture encoding scheme like JPG the maker is specificly stating their intent for what type of software can open and look at the picture. Loading into RAM is a normal part of these programs. A court should easily support this.

    If they wanted a more restrictive hold they would choose something like PDF or create their own format and viewing program. Alternately they would use one of the many digital rights solutions being constantly developed.

  57. on 26 Aug 2008 at 11:17 amWarDaft

    It makes perfect sense to me. And I don’t see why it opens a pandoras box. WoW isn’t exactly typical software…

    Most software is inherently useful. WoW isn’t. It’s only useful with an account. The actual data is worthless. You can download it from their OWN WEBSITE for FREE – the trial client will fill out everything you need to put the software on a new computer. Plunk in a real password and you can do whatever you want in game.

    If we’re actually paying for THAT software when we buy the box, then we’re all a bunch of idiots… because IT’S FREE.

    The freaky thing is, it’s legal by the EULA to copy the game if you can’t play it, because you can’t even break their EULA if you can’t actually log in.

  58. on 15 Sep 2008 at 12:53 amHyperDave

    “numerous courts [that] have held that the transmission of information through a computer’s random access memory or RAM . . . creates a ‘copy’ for purposes of the Copyright Act,” and citing cases.” I hate Case Law!

    If you just used some sort of Hypervisor to get around the RAM issue. I mean just run Glide on another instance, say on a LinuxOS, which could locally control the other instance running WoW. Something like VNC or whatever; instance to instance locally. That wouldn’t violate Blizzard’s EULA or the TOS right?

    Just seems logical anyway…

  59. [...] and distribute their bots. MDY received a crushing blow yesterday as the court ruled against them, Virtually Blind reports, declaring them guilty of copyright infringement and torturous interference (Apparently, bots [...]

  60. [...] If you’d like to read up more about the first part of the lawsuit, check out this link. [...]

  61. on 05 Oct 2008 at 1:59 pmrogue

    Im just wondering when someone will question the voracity of the wow characters remaining the property of blizzard. Sure they own the software but the hours played in character development are worth time. Time=money so besides gold being at issue so should character development. I should if I choose to be able to sell or transfer my login information to a 3rd party without blizzards permission. I know its off topic but I didnt know where else to put it.

  62. [...] Nachtrag mit neuem Link (2008-07-17): Virtually Blind: Blizzard Wins Key Judgments Against WoW Bot Maker MDY on Copyright and Tortious Interference Claims [...]

  63. on 04 Nov 2008 at 8:59 amGarrett

    I think that the creator of this program, should move far far away from blizzards reach, and through donations, survive and code for as long as he wants.

  64. on 30 Nov 2008 at 6:46 amBrandon Blaylock

    What happens when Blizzard finds out I run WoW on VMWare!? Oh noes! Blizzard can sue VMWare! Man, the government’s concept of technology is so outdated. Good thing there are companies that are here to take advantage of our civil liberties.

  65. on 15 Dec 2008 at 3:21 amrequired

    bot 4 ever

  66. on 27 Dec 2008 at 2:08 amJa

    I dont really understand the Harm of this program in general. There are a lot of “casual gamers” out there that use Glider to save some time when they are out on full time jobs, especially if you’re in a raid guild, its almost impossible to sustain the costs of raiding without either buying gold, or using a program like glider to farm your materials.

    Blizzard in general doesnt care much for the custimers they have and is always focused on macking new custimers. They where also at a certain point in time concidering swipping the Honor system and reseting it to “encourage” new gamers to join because everyone would have a “fresh” start. But after a complaint from over two hundred thousand active gamers, they had to withdraw that act.
    Blizzard likes banning botters because most botters are hard core gamers that wil “re-buy” the whole game,
    (WoW, TBC, and WotLK) which means they make tons more money in the prosses.

    But I think blizzard is underestimating what effect this wil have on their “casual gamers” market. Without Glider I do not think I’ll continue playing this game, for the simple reason that I would have to be behind my computer over 8 hours a day farming materials if I wish to see the end game content….

    No thank you..

    Good going blizzard, my gues is you are going to lose over 30% your gamers within the proceding 5 Months after you screw mercury over

  67. on 09 Jan 2009 at 12:31 pmJoseph

    been using glider for awhile wouldnt play this game without it. Half the stuf blizz does to the game is fucked and backup mmoglider 100%

  68. on 09 Jan 2009 at 12:33 pmJoseph

    Also think they will loose more than 30% due to inflation

  69. on 09 Jan 2009 at 12:35 pmJoseph

    Also want to say thanks to mercury for letting me have a life to spend with my kids and still have the time to enjoy wow with my guild when i do play.

  70. on 08 Feb 2009 at 8:16 amKevin

    /sigh

    The government is not saying what is legal and what isn’t legal to run on your computer.

    IN FACT: IT is not illegal to run any program on your computer at all.

    You will only face criminal charges if the program you are using is used to commit a different Crime. For Example: IF I create a program that when I activate it somebody dies, I would not be charged with “Running an illegal program”. I would be charged with “Murder”

    Running Glider doesn’t break any laws. Selling Glider does break laws:

    in that it loads an UNAUTHORIZED COPY of WoW.
    This would be the equivalent of creating a copy of a DvD for distribution even though it is only authorized for home use.

    BLIZZARD SHOULD BE COMPENSATED.
    How can you say they couldn’t be? Seriously…
    Because of Glider blizzard has had to cancel many players accounts. (“Well, gee der dumb dee bob they could have let the accounts exists right george?” WRONG! IF they did that then many other players would be so sick of all the bots they would quit) Either way blizzard loses out on money it would have made if not for this program.

    Look at it like this: IF you had a house cleaning business in which people were contracted that everytime you cleaned their house they would pay you $100 and you had 50 clients and cleaned their house 1/month each… Normally you would make $5000 / month. Now if I went around SPECIFICALLY to ONLY your clients and convinced 20 of them to not use your services anymore you would be out $2000 / month because of my malicious intent. (OMFG You better point out every possible micro-inaccuracy in this METAPHOR)

    Now… How much blizzard would be awarded based on guesses of who they banned or how much money they would have made, or if those players would have kept playing if it weren’t for the bot… None of that is up to us… its up to a JURY. that JURY will hear both MITIGATING and AGGRAVATING points from both parties and decided what they feel is the fairest amount to award blizzard.
    IF YOU DONT LIKE THIS FACT then HOLY SHIT! I hope your not an American because you make a shitty one.

    Finnaly:
    A Virus Scan does not actually create a ‘copy’ of a program. Instead it loads a few bytes of the program at a time, compares them then unloads them from memory, it doesn’t actually “USE” the program.

    For EXAMPLE: I have a program that when used tells you what day of the week Christmas falls on, and that i only allow you to use this program for that reason only. Now if you make a program that loads my program and changes it so that it will tell you what day of the week Easter falls on then you have used the copy of my program in a way that it wasn’t intended to be used.
    Now the virus scan looks at my program and compares its 10101010010101 doesn’t = virus. My program isn’t actually RUN, or USED in anyway. Norton has no idea what my program even does.

    USE COMMON FUCKING SENSE ppl, stop using doomsday logic and conspiracy theories to explain everything. NOBODY ON THIS EARTH is ever going to make using a virus scan illegal…. For fuck’s sake guys…

  71. on 28 Apr 2009 at 6:35 amVaractor

    Post By UseYourNoggen

    C’mon people. Use that stuff between your ears. MMOGlider modifies how the client works. I know alot of you are just green behind the ears kiddies, but common sense is required. Leave the anal scrutiny of the letters of the law to the lawyers. And look beyond the end of your nose, beyond your own self-serving interests.

    GOOD POST, agreed..

  72. [...] friends over at VirtuallyBlind have reported that Blizzard has won the ongoing lawsuit against MDY Industries, the makers of the most popular [...]

  73. on 19 Jun 2009 at 3:09 amThink twice

    They’re being unfair, we are part of their success so why they can’t give us a fair share. What’s that, whatever you do with your character their part of it and they have ownership of your own fan arts or whatever stuffs? Jeez, I was actually thinking of selling my account and having second thought because of wow eula till I finally found this site http://www.easyarticles.com/article-339043.htm that enlightened me on what to do. I know you’ll agree with that article.

  74. [...] available here: 200901-lca-games.pdf 1) See, for example, Davidson v Internet Gateway (bnetd); MDY v Blizzard. 2) Sega v Galaxy 3) Skylink v Chamberlain 4) [...]

  75. on 06 Jan 2010 at 12:35 amAcer Aspire 4810TZ

    what program exactly is it that one can use without loading it into system RAM? Also, does that mean that my defragmenter is infringing by making partial copies?

  76. on 03 Apr 2010 at 3:40 amtdid

    ok so let me ask this then for all you legal geniuses so say i went to someones house who had wow and i download glider and log into my account whos at fault now? my friend or me? eula can have such a broad scope its not even funny…and when you say third party software that clearly can be defined as any background program you run while playing wow so listening to itunes is breaking eula?? and you actually think that those things make sense??? copyright-the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video……..lets think about this for a second….so what i think about this (im a regular joe smoe not a lawyer by any means) i dont see how saving anything to ram can be considered copyright infringement….ram doesnt save anything to it if you want to get technical it runs what you are on then dumps it so i just dont get it so by definition wouldnt your ram be borrowing the information???….now a hard drive saves information long term….so if someone wants to open a program and go outside the eula they are guilty because the program they used accessed their ram temporarily??? seriously??? that is the dumbest stupidest claim in history blizzard is like a little old lady sueing mcdonalds for her coffee being hot

  77. [...] lands in your RAM.1  Courts have routinely held this sort of thing to be a copy.  One recent case finding copies in RAM to be copies under the Copyright Act was Blizzard v. MDY, the makers of the popular Glider automation [...]

  78. [...] Blizzard Wins Key Judgments Against WoW Bot Maker MDY on Copyright and Tortious Interference Claims [...]

Leave a Reply

Notes on Comments: Your first comment must be manually approved, but after it is you'll be able to post freely with the same name and email. You can use some HTML (<a> <b> <i> <blockquote> etc.) but know that VB's spam blocker holds posts with five or more <a> links. VB supports gravatars. Got a gravatar? Use the associated email and it'll show with your comment. Need one? Set it up for free here.