By this logic you should donate any money you currently pay to MMO developers to charity. There is no way to argue that you -need- to play computer games. So that ~$15 is not something that you 'need'. Then again, you earned the ~$15 right? What you do with it is no one's business unless you're breaking the law in it's use. If you feel compelled to give it to a charity, great!
I cannot agree more, and thank you very much for bringing up the topic. I'd like to invite everyone from the community to put in a subscription to those who DO really NEED it:
I cannot think of a more rewarding contribution that can have such a huge impact on an individual's life. I've been sponsoring a child for the last three years and it's awesome to hear from her how much that money helps in food, clean water, hygiene, and education. It is a blessed work. Please take a moment to check it out. They have very sound financials and have earned these quality charity ratings:
You can make a huge difference in a desperate child's life.
I am with many others on here they did not need the money. The right thing to do would be to donate that 6 million to a worthy charity.
By this logic you should donate any money you currently pay to MMO developers to charity. There is no way to argue that you -need- to play computer games. So that ~$15 is not something that you 'need'.
Then again, you earned the ~$15 right? What you do with it is no one's business unless you're breaking the law in it's use. If you feel compelled to give it to a charity, great! But if you decide to turn it into $1's and throw it at strippers it's no one's right to say word one.
Frankly Blizzard could provide rolls in the stalls of their office bathrooms made from this $6mil judgment for people to wipe their asses with and I wouldn't care less.
If this were true, I would be in the bathroom all day if I worked for Blizzard! "It's like wiping your ass with ... sil... err... money!"
not sure what all the agruing is over - blizz finally did something about all the people who use these bots and go sit in the battlegrounds without being afk so they are booted while the rest of us work our butts off to get them honor. Thats what it boils down to. I see so many boters in battlegrounds, usually the same ones over and over just standing there getting honor cause their bot will make them cast a spell or move around so they dont afk out. And to think those boters are selling their characters on ebay and other franchises for 1000's of dollars. I think so many need to get a reality check here. It's about time Blizzard did this.
Just what [Activision] Blizzard needs... more money.
When the money comes from cheating scumbags who ruin the game experience of everybody else, I say GO GO GO BLIZZARD - MAKE 'EM PAY.
Keep in mind that even if you don't approve of WoW or Blizzard, this may very well deter the cheaters from going after other MMOs. A win win for everybody unless you're a cheater.
Amen brother, this is a lesson to be learned by all cheating bums that try to exploit MMO's for their own personal gains. just as you do, I say Good going Blizzard, this will deter cheaters at least a bit if they know theyr are going to get hit in the pocket for millions of dollars. Im all for the onslaught on Gold farming/powerleveling exploiting 3rd party software. this is a step in the right direction for the genre. keep the lawsuits coming.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
The position of Blizzard was largely that MDY infringed on their copyright. Blizzards position was argued using the Copyright Act, and the DMCA. By order of the Ninth Circuit Court, copying a program to RAM constitutes a copyright infringement because you are making an unauthorized copy of the game. This is one of the biggest building blocks of the Blizzard case.
This is a horrible, horrible decision. Copying a program to RAM on the computer where it is legally installed, should NOT be a copyright infringement (see many many analysis of why back around the time Blizzard filed the suit). Glider may (or may not - not sure exactly how it works) have violated the DMCA (the worst piece of copyright legislation ever passed) but it did not violate copyright.
This decision will likely lead to "really bad things" for all consumers as more and more corporations figure out how to exploit this "copyright violation".
Originally posted by Feyshtey
The judgment of the court also decided that MDY had knowingly violated the End User License Agreement and the Terms of Use they agreed to upon starting the game. This is a HUGE win for game makers globally that cannot be understated. This is another case where the EULA and TOU have been upheld in a court of law, making them even more defensible in the future. The grey area that bot farmers and gold sellers have treaded for a decade is getting quite a bit less grey, and that benefits anyone that would see these parasites hanged.
I'm baffled by this as well. I fails simple logic. MDY wrote Glider. In order to write Glider, they did not necessarily have to run WoW at all (I'm sure they did but it would be possible to develop without). The EULA and TOS only apply to people running the game so unless Blizzard can prove MDY actively ran WoW while actively developing Glider, there is no violation. It is clearly a violation to use Glider to play the game.
Originally posted by Feyshtey
Furthermore the court found that MDY took measures to avoid detection and aided their customers in doing the same. The court found it to be a clear violation for MDY to agree to terms of use, and then deliberately break those terms of use using any means they could, -and- provide those means to other people. The court also commented that this was not a case of altruistic individuals attempting to circumvent the processes for 'fun', but quite clearly that the circumvention was to continue to make money on the copyrighted intellectual property of another entity.
This I can clearly agree with. MDY probably would have been fine if they had not been selling Glider for profit. Glider clearly was designed solely to assist others with breaking the EULA/TOS of WoW and, by charging for it, they open themselves up to many more charges (than if they had just given Glider away).
As I've said before, I don't have a strong opinion on Glider (Chinese gold farmers (most of whom do it manually) are a far bigger problem) but Blizzard's copyright violation charge (other charges were at least reasonable) should have been laughed out of court.
Active: D&D Online (alpha,beta,&unlimited)
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft
I'm sorry, but botting of any type should be illegal. If ya don't like grinding for primals, don't do it. You have to miss out on some of the cool items/gear out there, but if ya can't work/play for it then ya don't deserve to have it. As for botting helping us? I will gladly go out there and gather my own items/reagents. I'm grinding/questing for rep with factions anyway...it's an added plus that I am able to obtain *bonuses* while doing it. It comes down to the player wanting the coolest gear, but not wanting to work for it. It's the work ethic from real life *bleeding* over into virtual worlds. Ya want it? Sorry, bub, but ya gotta play just like the rest of us to get it. Don't like it? Go play Hello, Kitty Big Island Adventure MMO :P.
The position of Blizzard was largely that MDY infringed on their copyright. Blizzard’s position was argued using the Copyright Act, and the DMCA. By order of the Ninth Circuit Court, copying a program to RAM constitutes a copyright infringement because you are making an unauthorized copy of the game. This is one of the biggest building blocks of the Blizzard case.
This is a horrible, horrible decision. Copying a program to RAM on the computer where it is legally installed, should NOT be a copyright infringement (see many many analysis of why back around the time Blizzard filed the suit). Glider may (or may not - not sure exactly how it works) have violated the DMCA (the worst piece of copyright legislation ever passed) but it did not violate copyright.
This decision will likely lead to "really bad things" for all consumers as more and more corporations figure out how to exploit this "copyright violation".
Originally posted by Feyshtey
The judgment of the court also decided that MDY had knowingly violated the End User License Agreement and the Terms of Use they agreed to upon starting the game. This is a HUGE win for game makers globally that cannot be understated. This is another case where the EULA and TOU have been upheld in a court of law, making them even more defensible in the future. The grey area that bot farmers and gold sellers have treaded for a decade is getting quite a bit less grey, and that benefits anyone that would see these parasites hanged.
I'm baffled by this as well. I fails simple logic. MDY wrote Glider. In order to write Glider, they did not necessarily have to run WoW at all (I'm sure they did but it would be possible to develop without). The EULA and TOS only apply to people running the game so unless Blizzard can prove MDY actively ran WoW while actively developing Glider, there is no violation. It is clearly a violation to use Glider to play the game.
Originally posted by Feyshtey
Furthermore the court found that MDY took measures to avoid detection and aided their customers in doing the same. The court found it to be a clear violation for MDY to agree to terms of use, and then deliberately break those terms of use using any means they could, -and- provide those means to other people. The court also commented that this was not a case of altruistic individuals attempting to circumvent the processes for 'fun', but quite clearly that the circumvention was to continue to make money on the copyrighted intellectual property of another entity.
This I can clearly agree with. MDY probably would have been fine if they had not been selling Glider for profit. Glider clearly was designed solely to assist others with breaking the EULA/TOS of WoW and, by charging for it, they open themselves up to many more charges (than if they had just given Glider away).
As I've said before, I don't have a strong opinion on Glider (Chinese gold farmers (most of whom do it manually) are a far bigger problem) but Blizzard's copyright violation charge (other charges were at least reasonable) should have been laughed out of court.
1) I think the point about copying the game to RAM is that does not mean you can then do anything you want to it and still have it affect the software as originally made. To be clear, copying the software to RAM does not make it yours nor does it nullify the original EULA/TOS agreement.
2) There is no way someone could write that program without having access to the game. Maybe if you mean it the same way people talk about an endless number of monkeys with typewriters will eventually come up a shakespear sort of way, but he obviously played the game to decode it and interface with it. I don't think it would take much effort to convince a judge or jury that Glider was written with access to the WoW client and more importantly the client/server communication.
The position of Blizzard was largely that MDY infringed on their copyright. Blizzard’s position was argued using the Copyright Act, and the DMCA. By order of the Ninth Circuit Court, copying a program to RAM constitutes a copyright infringement because you are making an unauthorized copy of the game. This is one of the biggest building blocks of the Blizzard case.
This is a horrible, horrible decision. Copying a program to RAM on the computer where it is legally installed, should NOT be a copyright infringement (see many many analysis of why back around the time Blizzard filed the suit). Glider may (or may not - not sure exactly how it works) have violated the DMCA (the worst piece of copyright legislation ever passed) but it did not violate copyright.
This decision will likely lead to "really bad things" for all consumers as more and more corporations figure out how to exploit this "copyright violation".
Originally posted by Feyshtey
The judgment of the court also decided that MDY had knowingly violated the End User License Agreement and the Terms of Use they agreed to upon starting the game. This is a HUGE win for game makers globally that cannot be understated. This is another case where the EULA and TOU have been upheld in a court of law, making them even more defensible in the future. The grey area that bot farmers and gold sellers have treaded for a decade is getting quite a bit less grey, and that benefits anyone that would see these parasites hanged.
I'm baffled by this as well. I fails simple logic. MDY wrote Glider. In order to write Glider, they did not necessarily have to run WoW at all (I'm sure they did but it would be possible to develop without). The EULA and TOS only apply to people running the game so unless Blizzard can prove MDY actively ran WoW while actively developing Glider, there is no violation. It is clearly a violation to use Glider to play the game.
Originally posted by Feyshtey
Furthermore the court found that MDY took measures to avoid detection and aided their customers in doing the same. The court found it to be a clear violation for MDY to agree to terms of use, and then deliberately break those terms of use using any means they could, -and- provide those means to other people. The court also commented that this was not a case of altruistic individuals attempting to circumvent the processes for 'fun', but quite clearly that the circumvention was to continue to make money on the copyrighted intellectual property of another entity.
This I can clearly agree with. MDY probably would have been fine if they had not been selling Glider for profit. Glider clearly was designed solely to assist others with breaking the EULA/TOS of WoW and, by charging for it, they open themselves up to many more charges (than if they had just given Glider away).
As I've said before, I don't have a strong opinion on Glider (Chinese gold farmers (most of whom do it manually) are a far bigger problem) but Blizzard's copyright violation charge (other charges were at least reasonable) should have been laughed out of court.
it was made for the sole purpose of exploiting the game for financial & personal gain. I am sure they made alot of money, (most likely regular joes bought it as well a crapload of farmer shops). this game allows you to get both in gold, leveling speed that you cnt do if u played manually. in that they also charged a profit to an individual and made out like bandits. it contradicted as well as utilized the client code in order to "function" and " move" or otherwise " use the character" in such a fashion that was autonomous, with no need for intervention from the player directly,so there fore it was a direct violation of the EULA/TOS. "reverse engineering" of the code to exploit/use it for your own personal gain othe than what it was intended.
I think what you are doing is justifying criminals of their crimes. you do a major disservice to all us players/subscribers who sit down and play and enjoy the game directly. I am all for this, and more lawsuits to transpire on gold farmers/sellers, and other exploiters if they dare make a profit off the back of the hardwork of developers. blizzard has done a stellar job of this game, and they deserve the money they make, who are you to say they make too much money? i know id love to have 10 million people playing my game lol.
I dont have to worry about recieiving a lawsuit from blizzard or any company cause i dont gold sell/farm, or use exploitive 3rd party software lol. so what do i have to bitch about? nothing, ill just be playing my game the old fashioned way,....with a mouse and keyboard and my brain. have a good day sir.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
1) I think the point about copying the game to RAM is that does not mean you can then do anything you want to it and still have it affect the software as originally made. To be clear, copying the software to RAM does not make it yours nor does it nullify the original EULA/TOS agreement.
2) There is no way someone could write that program without having access to the game. Maybe if you mean it the same way people talk about an endless number of monkeys with typewriters will eventually come up a shakespeare sort of way, but he obviously played the game to decode it and interface with it. I don't think it would take much effort to convince a judge or jury that Glider was written with access to the WoW client and more importantly the client/server communication.
3) I agree
1) Copyright does not have any bearing on original intent. That would be covered by the EULA/TOS. You can do anything you want with anything you purchase provided it falls under fair use or normal use (creating a "copy" in RAM is required to run the program so Copyright does not cover it). The (horrible) DMCA is another matter - making a copy in RAM may violate DMCA in certain circumstances (but DMCA != Copyright Act).
2) It could be done using clean-room techniques but that would be very time consuming and possibly expensive. It's highly unlikely Glider was written in this way. Decoding and interfacing is perfectly legal under Copyright (though often not under DMCA). MDY almost certainly violated EULA/TOS to write Glider (if it didn't, that was Blizzard's mistake).
I have no problems with Blizzard going after MDY for EULA/TOS violations and probably DMCA (although I'd be much happier if DMCA was repealed). I just have major issues with Blizzard claiming Copyright violations.
Active: D&D Online (alpha,beta,&unlimited)
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft
it was made for the sole purpose of exploiting the game for financial & personal gain. I am sure they made alot of money, (most likely regular joes bought it as well a crapload of farmer shops). this game allows you to get both in gold, leveling speed that you cnt do if u played manually. in that they also charged a profit to an individual and made out like bandits. it contradicted as well as utilized the client code in order to "function" and " move" or otherwise " use the character" in such a fashion that was autonomous, with no need for intervention from the player directly,so there fore it was a direct violation of the EULA/TOS. "reverse engineering" of the code to exploit/use it for your own personal gain othe than what it was intended.
I think what you are doing is justifying criminals of their crimes. you do a major disservice to all us players/subscribers who sit down and play and enjoy the game directly. I am all for this, and more lawsuits to transpire on gold farmers/sellers, and other exploiters if they dare make a profit off the back of the hardwork of developers. blizzard has done a stellar job of this game, and they deserve the money they make, who are you to say they make too much money? i know id love to have 10 million people playing my game lol.
I dont have to worry about recieiving a lawsuit from blizzard or any company cause i dont gold sell/farm, or use exploitive 3rd party software lol. so what do i have to bitch about? nothing, ill just be playing my game the old fashioned way,....with a mouse and keyboard and my brain. have a good day sir.
Nope. I have no problem with companies going after third-party software producers on valid grounds. Using Glider definitely violates the EULA/TOS. Writing Glider probably violated the EULA/TOS directly and was probably also illegal on grounds that it was written for profit and was designed solely to violate the EULA/TOS.
If Blizzard wanted to go after MDY solely on EULA/TOS and/or DMCA (it is the law even if a bad law), that's great.
However, claiming a copy in RAM is a Copyright violation is ludicrous. A silly example of why this ruling is wrong and dangerous is it would allow a company to claim that making a copy of the software in RAM (in order to run the program as intended) is a Copyright violation and you must pay for that right (if they use some pathetic "encryption" in RAM, it would be illegal under DMCA to circumvent this). This claim would probably be thrown out because you purchased the software and it could not function at all without being in RAM but it would be a valid Copyright claim based on this ruling.
Active: D&D Online (alpha,beta,&unlimited)
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft
Sorry but this is a load of crap. "Blizzard claimed that Glider violates Blizzard’s copyright when Glider copies World of Warcraft into the computer’s memory as part of its loading sequence, and prevailed on that claim"
Well, hell, my operating system also copies World of Warcraft into my computer's memory so they'd better sue Microsoft as well. And Apple too. This is a ridiculously ignorant ruling that will have very dangerous consquences in future lawsuits.
1) Copyright does not have any bearing on original intent. That would be covered by the EULA/TOS. You can do anything you want with anything you purchase provided it falls under fair use or normal use (creating a "copy" in RAM is required to run the program so Copyright does not cover it). The (horrible) DMCA is another matter - making a copy in RAM may violate DMCA in certain circumstances (but DMCA != Copyright Act). 2) It could be done using clean-room techniques but that would be very time consuming and possibly expensive. It's highly unlikely Glider was written in this way. Decoding and interfacing is perfectly legal under Copyright (though often not under DMCA). MDY almost certainly violated EULA/TOS to write Glider (if it didn't, that was Blizzard's mistake). I have no problems with Blizzard going after MDY for EULA/TOS violations and probably DMCA (although I'd be much happier if DMCA was repealed). I just have major issues with Blizzard claiming Copyright violations.
1) Copy WoW to ram, fine. Copy WoW to ram so you can make a program that interfaces with it, modifies it, breaks all the legal agreements you signed, has a negative impact on the original companies ability to operate, impacts their customer base and then try to sell that program for money.... maybe not so fine.
I don't think anyone is saying what you can and cannot copy to ram. However, copying a program to ram just so you can pretend you are not doing anything wrong just does not cut the mustard. That is exactly what happened here, not much else. I think you are worried over nothing.
2) Like I said before, put enough monkeys in a room with enough typewriters and eventually you will get shakespeare. This guy didn't do that.
Blizzard used copyright violation as the grounds for their case, because it was stronger than a EULA/TOS case by itself. I understand your fear, but I am not ready to fear things the way you are and I am one to normally look at the precident over the actual situation. Personally I think this is exactly what these laws are here to defend.
This is a horrible, horrible decision. Copying a program to RAM on the computer where it is legally installed, should NOT be a copyright infringement (see many many analysis of why back around the time Blizzard filed the suit). Glider may (or may not - not sure exactly how it works) have violated the DMCA (the worst piece of copyright legislation ever passed) but it did not violate copyright.
This decision will likely lead to "really bad things" for all consumers as more and more corporations figure out how to exploit this "copyright violation".
Are you aware of what the DMCA acronym stands for? Allow me to enlighten...
Digital Media COPYRIGHTAct
If Glider violated the DMCA, then it inherently violated the Copyright.
The purpose of the DMCA is to criminalize methods of circumventing protective measures on digital media, and to persecute those who illegally copy and distribute digital media. Blizzard has methods installed in it that prevent the use of bots, hacks, cheats, etc. (Not just botters, but everything you would be screaming bloody murder about if it were allowed to run rampant... and you didn't get to use it too.) Glider -purposefully- copies the WoW processes to RAM in order to side-step those protective measures that would shut Glider down. Therein lies both the violation of the DMCA, and Copyright infringment. Glider DID violate Copyright on WoW because it removed controls of the Copyright owner on aspects of the Copyrighted material. Specifically it removed a level of security measures over the game, and it removed a level of control of the in-game economy and gameplay experience. Clearly this is a violation of Copyright as Copyright is legally defined. Look it up.
The only reason any corporation will ever care if you're copying their product, is if you're doing it to make sales of the copies, or breaking the purpose behind the software's funciton for personal gain. If you are doing neither, no one will give a rat's ass if you copy the processes to ANYWHERE. If you are doing either of those two things, you are blatantly breaking the law and you're well aware of the fact that you are. If you get smacked with a multi-million dollar suit or a criminal case or BOTH, you deserve it.
This decision doesn't set any long term precident for anything that honest people need be concerned about. If you ever created anything that could be exploited by ****heads if there weren't laws like the DMCA to protect them, you'd be the first one cheering and the last crying about some fictitious doomsday scenario.
I'm baffled by this as well. I fails simple logic. MDY wrote Glider. In order to write Glider, they did not necessarily have to run WoW at all (I'm sure they did but it would be possible to develop without). The EULA and TOS only apply to people running the game so unless Blizzard can prove MDY actively ran WoW while actively developing Glider, there is no violation. It is clearly a violation to use Glider to play the game.
There's no way to identify all of the processes a program creates, how they run, where they run, and what means you have to take to manipulate them without actually running the program. You can't run WoW without logging into the Blizzard servers, and you can't log into the Blizzard servers without agreeing to the EULA. They logged into WoW to build Glider, and no BS doubletalk gets around that fact. The WoW client that you have any ready access to on your PC is just a shell that functions with instruction from the WoW Servers. You cannot remove the WoW servers from the equation and tell what data is transmitted back and forth, and it is that data transmission that Glider means to modify. That is the purpose of Glider. They cannot have developed Glider without running the game. AND they continued to release updates to the program, modifying it to circumvent Blizzard's newest measures to defeat Glider. So they continued to break the EULA regularly.
1) Copyright does not have any bearing on original intent. That would be covered by the EULA/TOS. You can do anything you want with anything you purchase provided it falls under fair use or normal use (creating a "copy" in RAM is required to run the program so Copyright does not cover it). The (horrible) DMCA is another matter - making a copy in RAM may violate DMCA in certain circumstances (but DMCA != Copyright Act).
It doesn't matter. In order to use a piece of software in a manner it was never intended to be used in, you would have to modify it's function (Glider's purpose). You cannot modify it's function without removing controls over the software by it's Copyright owner (copying to RAM to circumvent security measures in the software). If you remove controls over the software by the Copyright owner, you diminish control by the Copyright owner over the software. By definition, removing control of a Copyrighted material from it's rightful Copyright owner, you are in violation of Copyright law.
It has nothing to do with the fact that there was a 'copy' made, per se. It is about the effect that particular kind of copy has on the level of control the rightful Copyright owner has over the product if you do.
Copyright isn't just law to prevent you from making copies. It also prevents you from exploiting something that is Copyrighted, or removing control of the material from the Copyright owner. And actually, the origin intent of both the Copyright holder AND the accused violator are taken into consideration by the court in handling a judgment. In this case it was clear that the intent of the measures taken to prevent the copy to RAM were a security measure that has tangible and verifiable ramifactions if circumvented. And the intent of the intent of the Glider creators was personal profit. Both with considered by the court when it made it's ruling, neither of which played into MDY's favor.
2) It could be done using clean-room techniques but that would be very time consuming and possibly expensive. It's highly unlikely Glider was written in this way. Decoding and interfacing is perfectly legal under Copyright (though often not under DMCA). MDY almost certainly violated EULA/TOS to write Glider (if it didn't, that was Blizzard's mistake).
Decoding and interfacing with a program is perfectly legal IF YOU DO NOT MODIFY THE FUNCTION OF THE PRODUCT IN A MANNER THAT REMOVES CONTROL OF THE PRODUCT FROM THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. If you do, it's copyright infringment. See above.
This was a decision that the court reached under Counts II and III of the Blizzard case involving Copyright Infringment, and not under Count IV which involved the DMCA violations.
However, claiming a copy in RAM is a Copyright violation is ludicrous. A silly example of why this ruling is wrong and dangerous is it would allow a company to claim that making a copy of the software in RAM (in order to run the program as intended) is a Copyright violation and you must pay for that right (if they use some pathetic "encryption" in RAM, it would be illegal under DMCA to circumvent this). This claim would probably be thrown out because you purchased the software and it could not function at all without being in RAM but it would be a valid Copyright claim based on this ruling.
If a company were to sell you a product, any product, claiming that it could perform duties A, B and C, and you got that product home only to find that it didn't function at all unless you also paid for WidgetZ, both the product manufacturer and the party that sold it to you would be guilty of a Bait and Switch. Which is highly illegal.
That being said, this ruling doesn't apply to a scenario like that AT ALL anyway.
The only way THIS CASE applies, is that the program is forced into RAM specifically to evade it's ineherent security measures. There's no legitimate reason to purposefully force a program into RAM to evade it's security except for MAYBE troubleshooting permissions issues with the program's intended function. In a case like that if your measures actually uncovered a flaw in the program, I'd bet that most companies would be thankful if you pointed the flaw out to them!
Well, hell, my operating system also copies World of Warcraft into my computer's memory so they'd better sue Microsoft as well. And Apple too. This is a ridiculously ignorant ruling that will have very dangerous consquences in future lawsuits.
No, it doesn't. WoW runs processes normaly on your computer when you run it the way it was intended. Those process utilize your RAM, but they are not 'copied' to RAM in their entirety. Glider does.
What's ridiculous is all the people spouting off about this when it's abundantly clear they haven't bothered to actually READ THE RULING.
Look, none of this is really that complicated. Copyright Law is meant to protect the creators of intellectual property, and the intellectual property itself, from sabotuers, thieves and exploiters that damage that property. That is exactly why this case turned out the way it did. There were exploiters actively damaging Blizzard's intellectual property, and they got a stake driven right through there little vampiric hearts. There's no precident that's going to screw you over, unless you are one of these ****ing parasites that needs a stake through your heart too. There's no ruling here that removes protections from you, or your rights, or sets up Microsoft to finally complete its domination of the world that you're surely suffering cold sweats and ensomnia over nightly.
I'd encourage you all to actually read the court's judgment brief available here:
You're likely to actually know what was argued, what was ruled in favor of Blizzard, and what was not. (Blizzard didn't actually win every single Count in it's arguments.) You're also less likely to completely confuse the issues with all this ignorant hysterical rhetoric.
Originally posted by Feyshtey Are you aware of what the DMCA acronym stands for? Allow me to enlighten... Digital Media COPYRIGHT Act
Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It does not replace or directly amend the Copyright Act. In every legal case, Copyright violation is mentioned separate from DMCA violation. Therefore, DMCA violation does not equate to Copyright violation.
Orginally posted by Feyshtey If Glider violated the DMCA, then it inherently violated the Copyright. The purpose of the DMCA is to criminalize methods of circumventing protective measures on digital media, and to persecute those who illegally copy and distribute digital media.
The purpose of the DMCA is to gut fair use out of the Copyright Act. It was pushed straight through from huge corporations (primarily RIAA and MPAA). Even some of the original sponsors in Congress have said they never would have brought the bill forward if they knew how it would be (ab)used.
I've worked in the software industry (one of the supposed "helped" industries) for almost 20 years and the DMCA is a horrible piece of legislation. Even worse is software patents but that's a separate issue.
Orginally posted by Feyshtey There's no legitimate reason to purposefully force a program into RAM to evade it's security except for MAYBE troubleshooting permissions issues with the program's intended function. In a case like that if your measures actually uncovered a flaw in the program, I'd bet that most companies would be thankful if you pointed the flaw out to them!
Security researchers have (on multiple occasions) disclosed flaws to the producer so that they could fix the issue prior to any public disclosure and been slapped with DMCA lawsuits to keep them from ever disclosing the flaws. Fortunately, the corporations have lost the majority of these type lawsuits.
Orginally posted by Feyshtey What's ridiculous is all the people spouting off about this when it's abundantly clear they haven't bothered to actually READ THE RULING.
Look, none of this is really that complicated. Copyright Law is meant to protect the creators of intellectual property, and the intellectual property itself, from sabotuers, thieves and exploiters that damage that property. That is exactly why this case turned out the way it did. There were exploiters actively damaging Blizzard's intellectual property, and they got a stake driven right through there little vampiric hearts. There's no precident that's going to screw you over, unless you are one of these ****ing parasites that needs a stake through your heart too. There's no ruling here that removes protections from you, or your rights, or sets up Microsoft to finally complete its domination of the world that you're surely suffering cold sweats and ensomnia over nightly.
I'd encourage you all to actually read the court's judgment brief available here: http://virtuallyblind.com/files/mdy/07-14-08_Order.pdf You're likely to actually know what was argued, what was ruled in favor of Blizzard, and what was not. (Blizzard didn't actually win every single Count in it's arguments.) You're also less likely to completely confuse the issues with all this ignorant hysterical rhetoric.
Actually, Copyright (and Patent) law is supposed to strike a balance between the rights of the creators and the good of the public. In recent years, courts have destroyed the balance and sided way too often with the creators (aided massively by the hideous DMCA).
Fine. I'm now going through the brief and I'll argue things directly from there if it will make you happy...
Page 5, line 14: MDY's argument is spot on.
Page 5, footnote 3: What? Since when is a court not allowed to go against previous precedent? This happens all the time. It's the job of the appeals court to rule on which to uphold (if an appeal is filed based on the decision going against precedent). The judge copped out in a massive way.
Page 6, line 6: Fine. Given the above, he "had" to rule this way. MAI Sys Corp v Peak Computer, Inc was a terrible decision. Either that case or this one should be (have been) appealed.
Page 6, line 12-#1: Does the user have to agree to the EULA before installing WoW or only before playing? I don't rememember. If it is when installing, Blizzard's claims seem valid. If it is only when playing, the EULA at least partially invalidates itself (since software has already been installed) and MDY's claims are valid.
However, I believe it has been previously established that bulk retail software does not meet the terms of licensed product (not having to return/destroy the product if not licensed, etc) so it would fall under first sale doctrine (you bought it, you can do what you want with it (except see DMCA)) and not licensed software (which invalidates Blizzard's claims). However, the connections to Blizzard's servers would almost certainly be seen as limited by contract (or license).
Page 9, line 11: Copying and modifying of works are allowed under fair use. Distributing software that allows users to conduct fair use are not a violation of Copyright.
Page 11, line 1: It's normal but I hate those clauses that stipulate a EULA/TOU are bound by some other state's laws. I can see why the corporations do it but it should be a burden on the corporation to make sure they follow all state laws (or can't sell their product there) rather than a burden on the consumer to make sure they know what license and contract laws are in the stated state (DE in this case). It's irrelevant for this specific case though...
Page 11, line 7: And here is why I hate lawyers - "whether the loading of software into RAM constitutes "copying" for purposes of copyright law is a legal, not a factual, question". So, the court admits there is (at least possible) factual flaws in the MAI decision but still uses it as a basis for this case.
Page 13, line 12: *sigh* Remind me to make sure I never end up with a lawsuit in the 9th circuit. The conditions specified for licensee vs owner in Wall Data are much too broad and contradict other legal precedent (can't find the case right now - presumably it's not 9th circuit). I believe the case I'm thinking of involved Sun Microsystems but I can't find it with a quick search (and it's been quite a while since I read it). Based on page 15, line 21, it sounds like the case I'm thinking of was an extension of US v Wise and/or Vernor (that was one of the conditions but there were a few others and it involved software rather than movies).
I skipped the DMCA and other claims as they are probably valid.
Given the highly flawed (but legal) logic used by the court to determine ownership vs licensee and if copying something to RAM constitutes a "copy" (in the Copyright sense), it's hard to refute their decision. I can only hope this case gets appealed (to the Supreme Court if needed). While MDY should probably lose the case, the Copyright precedent set in this case (and referenced cases) in the 9th circuit need to be shot down in flames. Unfortunately, the possible relevant parties (EFF, ACLU, etc) will probably wait for a better case to appeal on (unfortunately, that piles up even more bad legal precedent).
Active: D&D Online (alpha,beta,&unlimited)
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft
Pretty obvious that the courts need help understanding how to apply existing law when it comes to the added complexity of computer software. Of course the legislature had not helped with their confusing laws they wrote.
Only have time for one quick reply. I'll try to get to the rest tomorrow.
Originally posted by wilcoxon
The purpose of the DMCA is to gut fair use out of the Copyright Act. It was pushed straight through from huge corporations (primarily RIAA and MPAA). Even some of the original sponsors in Congress have said they never would have brought the bill forward if they knew how it would be (ab)used.
The purpose of the DMCA is not to 'gut out' anything, the least of which being fair use. It's purpose is to suppliment the existing Copyright law that is inadaquate in regard to digital media. Digital media didn't exist when the copyright laws were written, and there are too many grey areas about digital media that are not clearly addressed without the DMCA.
The DMCA is also meant to criminalize the purposeful circumvention of protective measures within digital media. Anyone who has worked in the software industry for 20 years would know that... There's really a very very very limited few legitimate reasons to ever circumvent the inherent security measures in a piece of digital media. If you're doing it, chances are pretty good you're doing it in order to break the software, illegally copy the software, or use the software without a valid license. Or modify it's use to make it do something it was never intended to do at all. Any of these things should be illegal (and are). There's no moral dilema about it. The only one which even approaches being boarderline ok, is the modification to make the software do something it wasnt intended to do. If you need something that does that badly enough, make it yourself and dont ride on the coat tails of someone who spent what was probably millions of dollars developing it. And if you try to get rich in the process you should burn.
What exactly do you categorize fair use as? In copyright terms 'fair use' would be something like displaying a copyrighted image in order to discuss that image, but not specifically to profit from it. Or to use the image in satire. But you can't take an image someone else created, and use it to, say, market a product or use it in a logo for a business or something like that.
Now in software terms, what exactly do you call 'fair use'? The only thing I can think of that would be a legitimate break would be something like making copies of a song for your IPod when you own the cd, and the cd has copy protections on it. But I've never heard of a prosecution of an individual with copies of songs or movies anywhere when they could prove that they had legitimate originals that they had purchased. Not unless the prosecutor could prove that the copies were in use in multiple places at the same time by multiple individuals.
You also mentioned somewhere in your post that Copyright is also meant to protect 'good of the public'. I'd love to hear your elaboration on that, because frankly I don't get it. The entire purpose of Copyright legislation is to prevent one person from profiting from the work of another, or preventing the original creator from profiting on his creation.
Please outline a scenario where the owner of a piece of intellectual property is harming the public by not allowing copies of that property or by making money on that property. Unless you're suggesting that the public would just find things a hell of a lot more convenient if they didn't have to compensate that creator for his creation...
Only have time for one quick reply. I'll try to get to the rest tomorrow.
Originally posted by wilcoxon
The purpose of the DMCA is to gut fair use out of the Copyright Act. It was pushed straight through from huge corporations (primarily RIAA and MPAA). Even some of the original sponsors in Congress have said they never would have brought the bill forward if they knew how it would be (ab)used.
The purpose of the DMCA is not to 'gut out' anything, the least of which being fair use. It's purpose is to suppliment the existing Copyright law that is inadaquate in regard to digital media. Digital media didn't exist when the copyright laws were written, and there are too many grey areas about digital media that are not clearly addressed without the DMCA.
The stated purpose of the DMCA is to update the Copyright Act for the digital age. The actual purpose (or, at least, the effect) of the DMCA is to gut fair use and put almost all control in the hands of the creator (well, usually not even the actual creator - the rights holder). There have been many articles about this since the passing of the DMCA.
What aspect of Copyright was inadequate with regard to digital media? I can't think of any.
Originally posted by Feyshtey The DMCA is also meant to criminalize the purposeful circumvention of protective measures within digital media. Anyone who has worked in the software industry for 20 years would know that... There's really a very very very limited few legitimate reasons to ever circumvent the inherent security measures in a piece of digital media. If you're doing it, chances are pretty good you're doing it in order to break the software, illegally copy the software, or use the software without a valid license. Or modify it's use to make it do something it was never intended to do at all. Any of these things should be illegal (and are). There's no moral dilema about it. The only one which even approaches being boarderline ok, is the modification to make the software do something it wasnt intended to do. If you need something that does that badly enough, make it yourself and dont ride on the coat tails of someone who spent what was probably millions of dollars developing it. And if you try to get rich in the process you should burn.
Anyone who's worked in the software industry for even 10 years knows the DMCA does not do what it's stated purpose is. Fair use that can be illegal under the DMCA (and have had lawsuits filed over it):
Making an archival backup copy of the media (software, CD, DVD, whatever)
Copying a CD/DVD onto a computer/iPod/whatever for personal use
Doing security research to make sure something really is secure (or just to see how it works)
...I know there have been more instances but I can't remember them off the top of my head right now...
Then there's the DMCA take-down notice provisions which have been constantly abused by copyright owners to order takedowns of things that fall under Fair Use (video and song excepts on YouTube being the most often abused).
Then there's also the DMCA categorization of pretty much anything as a security measure. CSS (used on DVDs), for instance, is not a security measure - it's a joke. If the DMCA restricted the limit to things that were actually remotely secure, I would have less of an issue. It's been discussed that Rot-13 would probably be considered a security measure under the DMCA.
Originally posted by Feyshtey What exactly do you categorize fair use as? In copyright terms 'fair use' would be something like displaying a copyrighted image in order to discuss that image, but not specifically to profit from it. Or to use the image in satire. But you can't take an image someone else created, and use it to, say, market a product or use it in a logo for a business or something like that.
Fair use also allows you to do almost anything you want with something for personal use. Distribution is prohibited by most of the allowances under fair use.
Originally posted by Feyshtey Now in software terms, what exactly do you call 'fair use'? The only thing I can think of that would be a legitimate break would be something like making copies of a song for your IPod when you own the cd, and the cd has copy protections on it. But I've never heard of a prosecution of an individual with copies of songs or movies anywhere when they could prove that they had legitimate originals that they had purchased. Not unless the prosecutor could prove that the copies were in use in multiple places at the same time by multiple individuals.
You weren't paying attention then. The RIAA and/or MPAA did threaten to file suit against people for having fair use copies of CDs/DVDs with protection. I'm not sure if they ever did file suit as their standard tactic is to extort settlements from people by threatening them with a DMCA lawsuit (P2P is a different issue).
Originally posted by Feyshtey You also mentioned somewhere in your post that Copyright is also meant to protect 'good of the public'. I'd love to hear your elaboration on that, because frankly I don't get it. The entire purpose of Copyright legislation is to prevent one person from profiting from the work of another, or preventing the original creator from profiting on his creation.
Nope. The entire point of Copyright and Patent is to strike a balance. They are supposed to spur innovation (by protecting creator rights for a set amount of time) and benefit society by giving it the innovations once expired and to allow reasonable uses (Fair Use for Copyright) in the mean-time.
In the last decade or so, this balance has been pretty well destroyed in regards to Copyright. The DMCA outlaws many Fair Uses and the "Disney extensions" (and previous extensions) mean that society has to wait generations before Copyright expires.
Originally posted by Feyshtey Please outline a scenario where the owner of a piece of intellectual property is harming the public by not allowing copies of that property or by making money on that property. Unless you're suggesting that the public would just find things a hell of a lot more convenient if they didn't have to compensate that creator for his creation...
To summarize ones scattered above...
Disney is denying Mickey Mouse (and other characters) from the public domain (not a DMCA issue but still an abuse of Copyright).
Any software that can run on a stand-alone computer (eg not a MMO) where the company has used security measures to "protect" the software and then gone out of business. With it illegal to circumvent the security, all users are screwed. This may have been corrected - I know it was being discussed in the last round of DMCA exemptions but I don't recall if it was approved.
Security researchers find a flaw in a program or protocol and report it to the rights owner ahead of time so that it can be fixed before disclosure. In far too many cases, the rights owner uses the DMCA to gag the researcher. In almost every case, this has been overturned but it is a dis-service to the researcher and the public (on multiple occasions, researchers have had to cancel conference appearances while fighting the gag).
As I've said several time, I think MDY should lose but not on Copyright grounds (on DMCA and EULA/TOU grounds).
Active: D&D Online (alpha,beta,&unlimited)
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft
Page 5, footnote 3: What? Since when is a court not allowed to go against previous precedent? This happens all the time. It's the job of the appeals court to rule on which to uphold (if an appeal is filed based on the decision going against precedent). The judge copped out in a massive way.
I'll need to research this sometime when I have the time to, to see what the court's actual authority is, but here are my thoughts on the matter:
The footnote to which you're refering is pretty clear. A lower court should not have the ability to rewrite law in order to determine the outcome of a case. A judge in the 9th district is not a lawmaker. His duty is to UPHOLD the law, not write it. His judgments and reasoning behind them can help set a precedent for interpretation. But he can't just decide that a law is wrong and not uphold it. That would undermine the lawmaking process of the country. The judge also did not mention precedent. He said -law-. This is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of black and white legislation.
This is at least partly why there is an appeal process. If the outcome of a trial is deemed to have been a demonstration of a flaw in the law, the appeals process can bring that to a state or federal supreme court which has the authority to rule that a law is unconstitutional as applied in that particular case.
Page 6, line 6: Fine. Given the above, he "had" to rule this way. MAI Sys Corp v Peak Computer, Inc was a terrible decision. Either that case or this one should be (have been) appealed.
Copyright law stipulates that you are not allowed to copy anything unless specifically authorized to do so by the copyright holder. Fair use is the only exception, and those cases must involved education, discussion of, parody on, or other use that does not negatively impact the ability of the copyright holder to make money on that property. Copyright law states that if your copies negatively impact the commercial value of a property you are in violation of Copyright law (not DMCA law). Additionaly, he DMCA states that you may not make copies of software except in order to make that software function as it was intended to function. A very clear, important and -fair- distinction. If the software itself creates copies in RAM, no foul, no argument.
If you force a copy to RAM, because you are trying to circumvent the normal function of that software, you fail for three reasons:
1) You have produced a copy that is not explicitely allowed by the copyright holder. The law is clear. If the author/owner didn't say it was ok to make a copy, it's not. Period. (barring Fair Use)
2) You have allowed a copy of the software that directly and negatively impacts the gameplay experience of other people from whom Blizzard recieves monthly income based on their copyrighted material. You have, in effect, produced a situation where customer's of Blizzard can (and verfiably have) quit specifically because of botters. The fact that the copy of the software is specifically in RAM is only marginally relevant. If you were able to copy the software to another computer in order to allow Glider to function the result would be indentical, and the ruling would be as well. The end result is that the commercial value of the property is reduced because fewer people are paying Blizzard because of the copy.
3) You have produced a copy in order to make the software run in a way it was never intended to run. A clear violation of the DMCA.
All of these factors contribute to both the Glider case and the one refered to on Page6 Line6 for purposes of copying to RAM. If nothing else, the DMCA covers this clearly and undeniably, and the reason behind it is perfectly legitimate and reasonable. It should , in my opinion, be law and be upheld. Can you state a specific reason why it should not?
For the purposes of that argument, it's not relevant when the user sees the EULA or TOU. That argument is a matter of copyright law, not contract law. The statement by MDY asserts that the users aquire a license to copy to RAM when the purchase the software. That is not true. By Copyright law they aquire a license to make copies of the software that allow it to run under its normal operating parameters. Copying to RAM is not one of those ordinary parameters unless the software does it itself. Regardless, we're back to the DMCA which states everything listed above that is again a violation.
But just to throw a wrench in your plan, you do have to agree to TOU in order to install WoW and again with an EULA to play it.
Page 9, line 11: Copying and modifying of works are allowed under fair use. Distributing software that allows users to conduct fair use are not a violation of Copyright.
Correct. But Glider does not apply in any manner to Fair Use.
Fair Use is only for purposes of education, discussion parody or satire, or purposes that do not impact the commercial value of the property. Glider modifies the gameplay experience of players, players have (verifiably) quit because their gameplay experience was diminished, Blizzard earns less money on it's product, ergo the commercial value of the product is diminished. That means, A) it is not fair use, and it is copyright infringement.
You may be thinking instead of Copyright Missuse by Blizzard, stipulating that Blizzard is squashing the ability for another party to create a product that earns money. That legislation only governs competing products. Glider is not a competing product. It is a product wholly reliant on WoW. The judge ruled in this brief somewhere (not digging for it right now) that anyone was free to make a game like WoW and choose to allow Glider to run with it. So there was no monopoly on Blizzard's product, and so no Copyright Missuse.
I think you're actually refering to Page12, line7. Regardless, the court never even suggested that there could be a potential flaw in either the law or the MAI decision. It is clarifying that it doesn't really matter if the -fact- is that the copy was to RAM or not in the MAI case and that this case is 100% equivelant. The -fact- is that there was a copy, and that the copy is infringing, which is a matter of -law-.
I'm not going to address the court case you think you remember something about that might have relevence. But I do find it pretty damn funny that you have chosen to skip all the DMCA stuff because it's 'probably valid' when the DMCA stuff is the stuff that you threw your arms up about to begin with.
You continue to state that the logic is flawed, and that the DMCA is bad, and that it's all going to screw us in the end. But you have given not a single logical statement or defense of why you believe so. You have cited no situation in which the arguments are just not right that can't be clearly and undeniably refuted, and you haven't even come up with a reason why the DMCA is wrong.
What EXACTLY is it that you think the DMCA or Copyright law for that matter can do that it should not be able to do? I'm tired of hearing the doomsday rhetoric without hearing a logical reason for why it could be abused. Change my mind. Challenge my thinking. But dont just scream about how this is all so horrible without explaining how.
Originally posted by Feyshtey I'll need to research this sometime when I have the time to, to see what the court's actual authority is, but here are my thoughts on the matter: The footnote to which you're refering is pretty clear. A lower court should not have the ability to rewrite law in order to determine the outcome of a case. A judge in the 9th district is not a lawmaker. His duty is to UPHOLD the law, not write it. His judgments and reasoning behind them can help set a precedent for interpretation. But he can't just decide that a law is wrong and not uphold it. That would undermine the lawmaking process of the country. The judge also did not mention precedent. He said -law-. This is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of black and white legislation.
Except that they must be talking about precedent in parts of the footnote - "established 9th circuit law" pretty clearly says it's really talking about precedent. No circuit has any laws unto itself - laws are either Federal, State, or Municipal.
Originally posted by Feyshtey Copyright law stipulates that you are not allowed to copy anything unless specifically authorized to do so by the copyright holder. Fair use is the only exception, and those cases must involved education, discussion of, parody on, or other use that does not negatively impact the ability of the copyright holder to make money on that property. Copyright law states that if your copies negatively impact the commercial value of a property you are in violation of Copyright law (not DMCA law). Additionaly, he DMCA states that you may not make copies of software except in order to make that software function as it was intended to function. A very clear, important and -fair- distinction. If the software itself creates copies in RAM, no foul, no argument.
I'd forgotten (prior to reading the brief and some of your replies) that Copyright covered some more vague areas such as negative impact on profitability and vicarious infringement. MDY is definitely guilty of vicarious infringement if you allow that WoW is licensed and not purchased.
Glider probably actually increases income for Blizzard (directly by attracting a small number of players who wouldn't otherwise play and indirectly by causing Glider users to have to rebuy WoW once they are banned) but it definitely interferes with Blizzard's control of their online gameplay (I would expect this to fall under contract law due to EULA/TOU but it's likely again under Copyright if you accept that WoW is licensed (and not purchased)).
Originally posted by Feyshtey If you force a copy to RAM, because you are trying to circumvent the normal function of that software, you fail for three reasons: 1) You have produced a copy that is not explicitely allowed by the copyright holder. The law is clear. If the author/owner didn't say it was ok to make a copy, it's not. Period. (barring Fair Use) 2) You have allowed a copy of the software that directly and negatively impacts the gameplay experience of other people from whom Blizzard recieves monthly income based on their copyrighted material. You have, in effect, produced a situation where customer's of Blizzard can (and verfiably have) quit specifically because of botters. The fact that the copy of the software is specifically in RAM is only marginally relevant. If you were able to copy the software to another computer in order to allow Glider to function the result would be indentical, and the ruling would be as well. The end result is that the commercial value of the property is reduced because fewer people are paying Blizzard because of the copy. 3) You have produced a copy in order to make the software run in a way it was never intended to run. A clear violation of the DMCA. All of these factors contribute to both the Glider case and the one refered to on Page6 Line6 for purposes of copying to RAM. If nothing else, the DMCA covers this clearly and undeniably, and the reason behind it is perfectly legitimate and reasonable. It should , in my opinion, be law and be upheld. Can you state a specific reason why it should not?
Except that Glider facilitates a Fair Use copy of the user (except that aspect of Fair Use is a violation of the DMCA). A copy in RAM for personal use is perfectly valid under Fair Use.
Probably valid. I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to be able to interpret some portions of Copyright (or most other laws).
Definitely a violation of the DMCA (allowed under Copyright but irrelevant).
Originally posted by Feyshtey Correct. But Glider does not apply in any manner to Fair Use. Fair Use is only for purposes of education, discussion parody or satire, or purposes that do not impact the commercial value of the property. Glider modifies the gameplay experience of players, players have (verifiably) quit because their gameplay experience was diminished, Blizzard earns less money on it's product, ergo the commercial value of the product is diminished. That means, A) it is not fair use, and it is copyright infringement.
However, speaking strictly of Copyright (not DMCA), a copy in RAM is a valid Fair Use so Glider simply assists users in making a Fair Use copy. If users have verifiably quit due to botters, that definitely gets into interference with profits of the rights holder (and the law doesn't care if there are other players who play because of Glider so that aspect is irrelevant).
Originally posted by Feyshtey I think you're actually refering to Page12, line7. Regardless, the court never even suggested that there could be a potential flaw in either the law or the MAI decision. It is clarifying that it doesn't really matter if the -fact- is that the copy was to RAM or not in the MAI case and that this case is 100% equivelant. The -fact- is that there was a copy, and that the copy is infringing, which is a matter of -law-.
You're right. I was referring to page 12, line 7. The passage could be read with either interpretation. I would argue that MAI fails factual and common sense tests as a copy into RAM is perfectly valid Fair Use under Copyright (but often violates DMCA).
Originally posted by Feyshtey I'm not going to address the court case you think you remember something about that might have relevence. But I do find it pretty damn funny that you have chosen to skip all the DMCA stuff because it's 'probably valid' when the DMCA stuff is the stuff that you threw your arms up about to begin with.
I don't blame you as I wasn't able to find it and I'm the one that remembers reading it in the past.
Nope, my argument has always been against Copyright applying in this case. Here is an excerpt from my original message...
Originally posted by wilcoxon This is a horrible, horrible decision. Copying a program to RAM on the computer where it is legally installed, should NOT be a copyright infringement (see many many analysis of why back around the time Blizzard filed the suit). Glider may (or may not - not sure exactly how it works) have violated the DMCA (the worst piece of copyright legislation ever passed) but it did not violate copyright.
Reading that now, I see that I was writing only half-thinking as I should have mentioned Fair Use (for copying to RAM) and should have said Glider probably violated the DMCA.
I detest the DMCA but was not going to argue that it did not apply in this case as I'm pretty sure MDY did violate the DMCA.
Originally posted by Feyshtey You continue to state that the logic is flawed, and that the DMCA is bad, and that it's all going to screw us in the end. But you have given not a single logical statement or defense of why you believe so. You have cited no situation in which the arguments are just not right that can't be clearly and undeniably refuted, and you haven't even come up with a reason why the DMCA is wrong.
Just a few examples of why the DMCA is wrong...
Takedown notice provisions of the DMCA mean that sites basically have to remove content prior to any proof that the material is infringing. This has been massively abused (mostly by RIAA and MPAA) to remove tons of content (mostly song/video excerpts on YouTube and other video sites).
Make it illegal to bypass "security measures" to exercise Fair Use (eg copying protected CDs/DVDs for personal use). This guts a large portion of Fair Use and is technically insane (pretty much anything is considered a "security measure" regardless of actual security (CSS used on DVDs is a joke and there has been discussion that Rot-13 would probably be covered by the DMCA)).
Security researchers have been gagged from presenting valid research at conferences (often having to cancel appearances) because corporations don't want anyone to know there was ever a flaw in their program/protocol. In every case I've heard of, the researchers contacted the owner long before presentation so that the flaw could be fixed prior to any public disclosure. EFF and other groups have fought these many many times (and won most of them eventually).
Some clean room engineering techniques are illegal under the DMCA (mostly due to the bypass of "security measures") preventing companies from creating competition for the owner.
Modifying a "secure" data set for a program is illegal even if it is for personal use. Several filtering companies sued several schools under the DMCA for modifying the sites filtered by their software (eg valid sites were marked as porn and the companies either would not correct it or were very slow so the schools corrected it themselves).
If a software company goes out of business and their software was "secure", all users are out-of-luck as it is illegal to modify or update the software. There was a specific instance of this happening that I can't recall (I believe the rights owner sued someone over it even though the company was no longer in existence and could not do anything useful itself). I know this was considered in the last round of DMCA exemptions but don't think it made it in (though it may have).
I know there are other abuses but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
Can you name one thing good in the DMCA?
Originally posted by Feyshtey What EXACTLY is it that you think the DMCA or Copyright law for that matter can do that it should not be able to do? I'm tired of hearing the doomsday rhetoric without hearing a logical reason for why it could be abused. Change my mind. Challenge my thinking. But dont just scream about how this is all so horrible without explaining how.
Copyright itself is a great idea. The only major problem is the multiple extensions in recent years to the duration of Copyright (often prompted by Disney not wanting to give up Mickey Mouse and other characters and willing to pay lots for it (lobbyists, bribes (err...campaign contributions), etc)).
I can't think of a single good thing about the DMCA. There may be some aspect of it that is beneficial but it is vastly overshadowed by the truly horrid parts.
Back to Blizzard vs MDY...
As I've said all along, I don't have any issues with MDY losing - I just don't think it should be under Copyright (DMCA and/or contract (EULA/TOU) but not Copyright). However, Copyright may be valid for some claims (interference with profits of the rights holder).
I have two major issues with the brief which I really hope are overturned (but don't expect to be until there is a better case to appeal on):
A copy of any software in RAM (or anywhere else for personal use) should be valid Fair Use. For many programs, this would be a violation of the DMCA (but that's a separate issue).
WoW (and 99.99% of all software) is purchased and not licensed. The conditions expressed in Wall Data are appallingly broad and contradict earlier precedent (Wise and Vernor).
Active: D&D Online (alpha,beta,&unlimited)
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft
Comments
I cannot agree more, and thank you very much for bringing up the topic. I'd like to invite everyone from the community to put in a subscription to those who DO really NEED it:
www.compassion.com/default.htm
I cannot think of a more rewarding contribution that can have such a huge impact on an individual's life. I've been sponsoring a child for the last three years and it's awesome to hear from her how much that money helps in food, clean water, hygiene, and education. It is a blessed work. Please take a moment to check it out. They have very sound financials and have earned these quality charity ratings:
You can make a huge difference in a desperate child's life.
http://www.allaboutgod.com/
Kudos to Blizzard for winnng against another company that violated the EULA.
For those who think botters are good for the game =
By this logic you should donate any money you currently pay to MMO developers to charity. There is no way to argue that you -need- to play computer games. So that ~$15 is not something that you 'need'.
Then again, you earned the ~$15 right? What you do with it is no one's business unless you're breaking the law in it's use. If you feel compelled to give it to a charity, great! But if you decide to turn it into $1's and throw it at strippers it's no one's right to say word one.
Frankly Blizzard could provide rolls in the stalls of their office bathrooms made from this $6mil judgment for people to wipe their asses with and I wouldn't care less.
If this were true, I would be in the bathroom all day if I worked for Blizzard! "It's like wiping your ass with ... sil... err... money!"
Dude!
[MDY hands Blizzard a melon]]
not sure what all the agruing is over - blizz finally did something about all the people who use these bots and go sit in the battlegrounds without being afk so they are booted while the rest of us work our butts off to get them honor. Thats what it boils down to. I see so many boters in battlegrounds, usually the same ones over and over just standing there getting honor cause their bot will make them cast a spell or move around so they dont afk out. And to think those boters are selling their characters on ebay and other franchises for 1000's of dollars. I think so many need to get a reality check here. It's about time Blizzard did this.
When the money comes from cheating scumbags who ruin the game experience of everybody else, I say GO GO GO BLIZZARD - MAKE 'EM PAY.
Keep in mind that even if you don't approve of WoW or Blizzard, this may very well deter the cheaters from going after other MMOs. A win win for everybody unless you're a cheater.
Amen brother, this is a lesson to be learned by all cheating bums that try to exploit MMO's for their own personal gains. just as you do, I say Good going Blizzard, this will deter cheaters at least a bit if they know theyr are going to get hit in the pocket for millions of dollars. Im all for the onslaught on Gold farming/powerleveling exploiting 3rd party software. this is a step in the right direction for the genre. keep the lawsuits coming.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
This is AWESOME NEWS. GO BLIZZARD GO!!!
This is a horrible, horrible decision. Copying a program to RAM on the computer where it is legally installed, should NOT be a copyright infringement (see many many analysis of why back around the time Blizzard filed the suit). Glider may (or may not - not sure exactly how it works) have violated the DMCA (the worst piece of copyright legislation ever passed) but it did not violate copyright.
This decision will likely lead to "really bad things" for all consumers as more and more corporations figure out how to exploit this "copyright violation".
I'm baffled by this as well. I fails simple logic. MDY wrote Glider. In order to write Glider, they did not necessarily have to run WoW at all (I'm sure they did but it would be possible to develop without). The EULA and TOS only apply to people running the game so unless Blizzard can prove MDY actively ran WoW while actively developing Glider, there is no violation. It is clearly a violation to use Glider to play the game.
This I can clearly agree with. MDY probably would have been fine if they had not been selling Glider for profit. Glider clearly was designed solely to assist others with breaking the EULA/TOS of WoW and, by charging for it, they open themselves up to many more charges (than if they had just given Glider away).
As I've said before, I don't have a strong opinion on Glider (Chinese gold farmers (most of whom do it manually) are a far bigger problem) but Blizzard's copyright violation charge (other charges were at least reasonable) should have been laughed out of court.
Active: D&D Online (alpha,beta,&unlimited)
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft
Awesome auto camper 2000 reference.
I'm sorry, but botting of any type should be illegal. If ya don't like grinding for primals, don't do it. You have to miss out on some of the cool items/gear out there, but if ya can't work/play for it then ya don't deserve to have it. As for botting helping us? I will gladly go out there and gather my own items/reagents. I'm grinding/questing for rep with factions anyway...it's an added plus that I am able to obtain *bonuses* while doing it. It comes down to the player wanting the coolest gear, but not wanting to work for it. It's the work ethic from real life *bleeding* over into virtual worlds. Ya want it? Sorry, bub, but ya gotta play just like the rest of us to get it. Don't like it? Go play Hello, Kitty Big Island Adventure MMO :P.
Peace.
"I am handicapped...I'm psychotic."
This is a horrible, horrible decision. Copying a program to RAM on the computer where it is legally installed, should NOT be a copyright infringement (see many many analysis of why back around the time Blizzard filed the suit). Glider may (or may not - not sure exactly how it works) have violated the DMCA (the worst piece of copyright legislation ever passed) but it did not violate copyright.
This decision will likely lead to "really bad things" for all consumers as more and more corporations figure out how to exploit this "copyright violation".
I'm baffled by this as well. I fails simple logic. MDY wrote Glider. In order to write Glider, they did not necessarily have to run WoW at all (I'm sure they did but it would be possible to develop without). The EULA and TOS only apply to people running the game so unless Blizzard can prove MDY actively ran WoW while actively developing Glider, there is no violation. It is clearly a violation to use Glider to play the game.
This I can clearly agree with. MDY probably would have been fine if they had not been selling Glider for profit. Glider clearly was designed solely to assist others with breaking the EULA/TOS of WoW and, by charging for it, they open themselves up to many more charges (than if they had just given Glider away).
As I've said before, I don't have a strong opinion on Glider (Chinese gold farmers (most of whom do it manually) are a far bigger problem) but Blizzard's copyright violation charge (other charges were at least reasonable) should have been laughed out of court.
1) I think the point about copying the game to RAM is that does not mean you can then do anything you want to it and still have it affect the software as originally made. To be clear, copying the software to RAM does not make it yours nor does it nullify the original EULA/TOS agreement.
2) There is no way someone could write that program without having access to the game. Maybe if you mean it the same way people talk about an endless number of monkeys with typewriters will eventually come up a shakespear sort of way, but he obviously played the game to decode it and interface with it. I don't think it would take much effort to convince a judge or jury that Glider was written with access to the WoW client and more importantly the client/server communication.
3) I agree
This is a horrible, horrible decision. Copying a program to RAM on the computer where it is legally installed, should NOT be a copyright infringement (see many many analysis of why back around the time Blizzard filed the suit). Glider may (or may not - not sure exactly how it works) have violated the DMCA (the worst piece of copyright legislation ever passed) but it did not violate copyright.
This decision will likely lead to "really bad things" for all consumers as more and more corporations figure out how to exploit this "copyright violation".
I'm baffled by this as well. I fails simple logic. MDY wrote Glider. In order to write Glider, they did not necessarily have to run WoW at all (I'm sure they did but it would be possible to develop without). The EULA and TOS only apply to people running the game so unless Blizzard can prove MDY actively ran WoW while actively developing Glider, there is no violation. It is clearly a violation to use Glider to play the game.
This I can clearly agree with. MDY probably would have been fine if they had not been selling Glider for profit. Glider clearly was designed solely to assist others with breaking the EULA/TOS of WoW and, by charging for it, they open themselves up to many more charges (than if they had just given Glider away).
As I've said before, I don't have a strong opinion on Glider (Chinese gold farmers (most of whom do it manually) are a far bigger problem) but Blizzard's copyright violation charge (other charges were at least reasonable) should have been laughed out of court.
it was made for the sole purpose of exploiting the game for financial & personal gain. I am sure they made alot of money, (most likely regular joes bought it as well a crapload of farmer shops). this game allows you to get both in gold, leveling speed that you cnt do if u played manually. in that they also charged a profit to an individual and made out like bandits. it contradicted as well as utilized the client code in order to "function" and " move" or otherwise " use the character" in such a fashion that was autonomous, with no need for intervention from the player directly,so there fore it was a direct violation of the EULA/TOS. "reverse engineering" of the code to exploit/use it for your own personal gain othe than what it was intended.
I think what you are doing is justifying criminals of their crimes. you do a major disservice to all us players/subscribers who sit down and play and enjoy the game directly. I am all for this, and more lawsuits to transpire on gold farmers/sellers, and other exploiters if they dare make a profit off the back of the hardwork of developers. blizzard has done a stellar job of this game, and they deserve the money they make, who are you to say they make too much money? i know id love to have 10 million people playing my game lol.
I dont have to worry about recieiving a lawsuit from blizzard or any company cause i dont gold sell/farm, or use exploitive 3rd party software lol. so what do i have to bitch about? nothing, ill just be playing my game the old fashioned way,....with a mouse and keyboard and my brain. have a good day sir.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
1) Copyright does not have any bearing on original intent. That would be covered by the EULA/TOS. You can do anything you want with anything you purchase provided it falls under fair use or normal use (creating a "copy" in RAM is required to run the program so Copyright does not cover it). The (horrible) DMCA is another matter - making a copy in RAM may violate DMCA in certain circumstances (but DMCA != Copyright Act).
2) It could be done using clean-room techniques but that would be very time consuming and possibly expensive. It's highly unlikely Glider was written in this way. Decoding and interfacing is perfectly legal under Copyright (though often not under DMCA). MDY almost certainly violated EULA/TOS to write Glider (if it didn't, that was Blizzard's mistake).
I have no problems with Blizzard going after MDY for EULA/TOS violations and probably DMCA (although I'd be much happier if DMCA was repealed). I just have major issues with Blizzard claiming Copyright violations.
Active: D&D Online (alpha,beta,&unlimited)
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft
Nope. I have no problem with companies going after third-party software producers on valid grounds. Using Glider definitely violates the EULA/TOS. Writing Glider probably violated the EULA/TOS directly and was probably also illegal on grounds that it was written for profit and was designed solely to violate the EULA/TOS.
If Blizzard wanted to go after MDY solely on EULA/TOS and/or DMCA (it is the law even if a bad law), that's great.
However, claiming a copy in RAM is a Copyright violation is ludicrous. A silly example of why this ruling is wrong and dangerous is it would allow a company to claim that making a copy of the software in RAM (in order to run the program as intended) is a Copyright violation and you must pay for that right (if they use some pathetic "encryption" in RAM, it would be illegal under DMCA to circumvent this). This claim would probably be thrown out because you purchased the software and it could not function at all without being in RAM but it would be a valid Copyright claim based on this ruling.
Active: D&D Online (alpha,beta,&unlimited)
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft
Sorry but this is a load of crap. "Blizzard claimed that Glider violates Blizzard’s copyright when Glider copies World of Warcraft into the computer’s memory as part of its loading sequence, and prevailed on that claim"
Well, hell, my operating system also copies World of Warcraft into my computer's memory so they'd better sue Microsoft as well. And Apple too. This is a ridiculously ignorant ruling that will have very dangerous consquences in future lawsuits.
Octane
Author of SpamMeNot.
1) Copy WoW to ram, fine. Copy WoW to ram so you can make a program that interfaces with it, modifies it, breaks all the legal agreements you signed, has a negative impact on the original companies ability to operate, impacts their customer base and then try to sell that program for money.... maybe not so fine.
I don't think anyone is saying what you can and cannot copy to ram. However, copying a program to ram just so you can pretend you are not doing anything wrong just does not cut the mustard. That is exactly what happened here, not much else. I think you are worried over nothing.
2) Like I said before, put enough monkeys in a room with enough typewriters and eventually you will get shakespeare. This guy didn't do that.
Blizzard used copyright violation as the grounds for their case, because it was stronger than a EULA/TOS case by itself. I understand your fear, but I am not ready to fear things the way you are and I am one to normally look at the precident over the actual situation. Personally I think this is exactly what these laws are here to defend.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wilcoxon
This is a horrible, horrible decision. Copying a program to RAM on the computer where it is legally installed, should NOT be a copyright infringement (see many many analysis of why back around the time Blizzard filed the suit). Glider may (or may not - not sure exactly how it works) have violated the DMCA (the worst piece of copyright legislation ever passed) but it did not violate copyright.
This decision will likely lead to "really bad things" for all consumers as more and more corporations figure out how to exploit this "copyright violation".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you aware of what the DMCA acronym stands for? Allow me to enlighten...
Digital Media COPYRIGHT Act
If Glider violated the DMCA, then it inherently violated the Copyright.
The purpose of the DMCA is to criminalize methods of circumventing protective measures on digital media, and to persecute those who illegally copy and distribute digital media. Blizzard has methods installed in it that prevent the use of bots, hacks, cheats, etc. (Not just botters, but everything you would be screaming bloody murder about if it were allowed to run rampant... and you didn't get to use it too.) Glider -purposefully- copies the WoW processes to RAM in order to side-step those protective measures that would shut Glider down. Therein lies both the violation of the DMCA, and Copyright infringment. Glider DID violate Copyright on WoW because it removed controls of the Copyright owner on aspects of the Copyrighted material. Specifically it removed a level of security measures over the game, and it removed a level of control of the in-game economy and gameplay experience. Clearly this is a violation of Copyright as Copyright is legally defined. Look it up.
The only reason any corporation will ever care if you're copying their product, is if you're doing it to make sales of the copies, or breaking the purpose behind the software's funciton for personal gain. If you are doing neither, no one will give a rat's ass if you copy the processes to ANYWHERE. If you are doing either of those two things, you are blatantly breaking the law and you're well aware of the fact that you are. If you get smacked with a multi-million dollar suit or a criminal case or BOTH, you deserve it.
This decision doesn't set any long term precident for anything that honest people need be concerned about. If you ever created anything that could be exploited by ****heads if there weren't laws like the DMCA to protect them, you'd be the first one cheering and the last crying about some fictitious doomsday scenario.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wilcoxon
I'm baffled by this as well. I fails simple logic. MDY wrote Glider. In order to write Glider, they did not necessarily have to run WoW at all (I'm sure they did but it would be possible to develop without). The EULA and TOS only apply to people running the game so unless Blizzard can prove MDY actively ran WoW while actively developing Glider, there is no violation. It is clearly a violation to use Glider to play the game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's no way to identify all of the processes a program creates, how they run, where they run, and what means you have to take to manipulate them without actually running the program. You can't run WoW without logging into the Blizzard servers, and you can't log into the Blizzard servers without agreeing to the EULA. They logged into WoW to build Glider, and no BS doubletalk gets around that fact. The WoW client that you have any ready access to on your PC is just a shell that functions with instruction from the WoW Servers. You cannot remove the WoW servers from the equation and tell what data is transmitted back and forth, and it is that data transmission that Glider means to modify. That is the purpose of Glider. They cannot have developed Glider without running the game. AND they continued to release updates to the program, modifying it to circumvent Blizzard's newest measures to defeat Glider. So they continued to break the EULA regularly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wilcoxon
1) Copyright does not have any bearing on original intent. That would be covered by the EULA/TOS. You can do anything you want with anything you purchase provided it falls under fair use or normal use (creating a "copy" in RAM is required to run the program so Copyright does not cover it). The (horrible) DMCA is another matter - making a copy in RAM may violate DMCA in certain circumstances (but DMCA != Copyright Act).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter. In order to use a piece of software in a manner it was never intended to be used in, you would have to modify it's function (Glider's purpose). You cannot modify it's function without removing controls over the software by it's Copyright owner (copying to RAM to circumvent security measures in the software). If you remove controls over the software by the Copyright owner, you diminish control by the Copyright owner over the software. By definition, removing control of a Copyrighted material from it's rightful Copyright owner, you are in violation of Copyright law.
It has nothing to do with the fact that there was a 'copy' made, per se. It is about the effect that particular kind of copy has on the level of control the rightful Copyright owner has over the product if you do.
Copyright isn't just law to prevent you from making copies. It also prevents you from exploiting something that is Copyrighted, or removing control of the material from the Copyright owner. And actually, the origin intent of both the Copyright holder AND the accused violator are taken into consideration by the court in handling a judgment. In this case it was clear that the intent of the measures taken to prevent the copy to RAM were a security measure that has tangible and verifiable ramifactions if circumvented. And the intent of the intent of the Glider creators was personal profit. Both with considered by the court when it made it's ruling, neither of which played into MDY's favor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wilcoxon
2) It could be done using clean-room techniques but that would be very time consuming and possibly expensive. It's highly unlikely Glider was written in this way. Decoding and interfacing is perfectly legal under Copyright (though often not under DMCA). MDY almost certainly violated EULA/TOS to write Glider (if it didn't, that was Blizzard's mistake).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And round and round we go....
Decoding and interfacing with a program is perfectly legal IF YOU DO NOT MODIFY THE FUNCTION OF THE PRODUCT IN A MANNER THAT REMOVES CONTROL OF THE PRODUCT FROM THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. If you do, it's copyright infringment. See above.
This was a decision that the court reached under Counts II and III of the Blizzard case involving Copyright Infringment, and not under Count IV which involved the DMCA violations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wilcoxon
However, claiming a copy in RAM is a Copyright violation is ludicrous. A silly example of why this ruling is wrong and dangerous is it would allow a company to claim that making a copy of the software in RAM (in order to run the program as intended) is a Copyright violation and you must pay for that right (if they use some pathetic "encryption" in RAM, it would be illegal under DMCA to circumvent this). This claim would probably be thrown out because you purchased the software and it could not function at all without being in RAM but it would be a valid Copyright claim based on this ruling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
False.
If a company were to sell you a product, any product, claiming that it could perform duties A, B and C, and you got that product home only to find that it didn't function at all unless you also paid for WidgetZ, both the product manufacturer and the party that sold it to you would be guilty of a Bait and Switch. Which is highly illegal.
That being said, this ruling doesn't apply to a scenario like that AT ALL anyway.
The only way THIS CASE applies, is that the program is forced into RAM specifically to evade it's ineherent security measures. There's no legitimate reason to purposefully force a program into RAM to evade it's security except for MAYBE troubleshooting permissions issues with the program's intended function. In a case like that if your measures actually uncovered a flaw in the program, I'd bet that most companies would be thankful if you pointed the flaw out to them!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by arcanna666
Well, hell, my operating system also copies World of Warcraft into my computer's memory so they'd better sue Microsoft as well. And Apple too. This is a ridiculously ignorant ruling that will have very dangerous consquences in future lawsuits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it doesn't. WoW runs processes normaly on your computer when you run it the way it was intended. Those process utilize your RAM, but they are not 'copied' to RAM in their entirety. Glider does.
What's ridiculous is all the people spouting off about this when it's abundantly clear they haven't bothered to actually READ THE RULING.
Look, none of this is really that complicated. Copyright Law is meant to protect the creators of intellectual property, and the intellectual property itself, from sabotuers, thieves and exploiters that damage that property. That is exactly why this case turned out the way it did. There were exploiters actively damaging Blizzard's intellectual property, and they got a stake driven right through there little vampiric hearts. There's no precident that's going to screw you over, unless you are one of these ****ing parasites that needs a stake through your heart too. There's no ruling here that removes protections from you, or your rights, or sets up Microsoft to finally complete its domination of the world that you're surely suffering cold sweats and ensomnia over nightly.
I'd encourage you all to actually read the court's judgment brief available here:
http://virtuallyblind.com/files/mdy/07-14-08_Order.pdf
You're likely to actually know what was argued, what was ruled in favor of Blizzard, and what was not. (Blizzard didn't actually win every single Count in it's arguments.) You're also less likely to completely confuse the issues with all this ignorant hysterical rhetoric.
-Feyshtey-
no one think he has too much money, no surprise that Blizzard would go after it through a bot.
The only question is teh marginal efficiency of the money, how they would do with the money for good.
Apparently the $6 million is ready for immediate payment - they've been farming a spawn on Wilshire Boulevard for the last 11 days.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It does not replace or directly amend the Copyright Act. In every legal case, Copyright violation is mentioned separate from DMCA violation. Therefore, DMCA violation does not equate to Copyright violation.
The purpose of the DMCA is to gut fair use out of the Copyright Act. It was pushed straight through from huge corporations (primarily RIAA and MPAA). Even some of the original sponsors in Congress have said they never would have brought the bill forward if they knew how it would be (ab)used.
I've worked in the software industry (one of the supposed "helped" industries) for almost 20 years and the DMCA is a horrible piece of legislation. Even worse is software patents but that's a separate issue.
Security researchers have (on multiple occasions) disclosed flaws to the producer so that they could fix the issue prior to any public disclosure and been slapped with DMCA lawsuits to keep them from ever disclosing the flaws. Fortunately, the corporations have lost the majority of these type lawsuits.
Actually, Copyright (and Patent) law is supposed to strike a balance between the rights of the creators and the good of the public. In recent years, courts have destroyed the balance and sided way too often with the creators (aided massively by the hideous DMCA).
Fine. I'm now going through the brief and I'll argue things directly from there if it will make you happy...
Page 5, line 14: MDY's argument is spot on.
Page 5, footnote 3: What? Since when is a court not allowed to go against previous precedent? This happens all the time. It's the job of the appeals court to rule on which to uphold (if an appeal is filed based on the decision going against precedent). The judge copped out in a massive way.
Page 6, line 6: Fine. Given the above, he "had" to rule this way. MAI Sys Corp v Peak Computer, Inc was a terrible decision. Either that case or this one should be (have been) appealed.
Page 6, line 12-#1: Does the user have to agree to the EULA before installing WoW or only before playing? I don't rememember. If it is when installing, Blizzard's claims seem valid. If it is only when playing, the EULA at least partially invalidates itself (since software has already been installed) and MDY's claims are valid.
However, I believe it has been previously established that bulk retail software does not meet the terms of licensed product (not having to return/destroy the product if not licensed, etc) so it would fall under first sale doctrine (you bought it, you can do what you want with it (except see DMCA)) and not licensed software (which invalidates Blizzard's claims). However, the connections to Blizzard's servers would almost certainly be seen as limited by contract (or license).
Page 9, line 11: Copying and modifying of works are allowed under fair use. Distributing software that allows users to conduct fair use are not a violation of Copyright.
Page 11, line 1: It's normal but I hate those clauses that stipulate a EULA/TOU are bound by some other state's laws. I can see why the corporations do it but it should be a burden on the corporation to make sure they follow all state laws (or can't sell their product there) rather than a burden on the consumer to make sure they know what license and contract laws are in the stated state (DE in this case). It's irrelevant for this specific case though...
Page 11, line 7: And here is why I hate lawyers - "whether the loading of software
into RAM constitutes "copying" for purposes of copyright law is a legal, not a factual,
question". So, the court admits there is (at least possible) factual flaws in the MAI decision but still uses it as a basis for this case.
Page 13, line 12: *sigh* Remind me to make sure I never end up with a lawsuit in the 9th circuit. The conditions specified for licensee vs owner in Wall Data are much too broad and contradict other legal precedent (can't find the case right now - presumably it's not 9th circuit). I believe the case I'm thinking of involved Sun Microsystems but I can't find it with a quick search (and it's been quite a while since I read it). Based on page 15, line 21, it sounds like the case I'm thinking of was an extension of US v Wise and/or Vernor (that was one of the conditions but there were a few others and it involved software rather than movies).
I skipped the DMCA and other claims as they are probably valid.
Given the highly flawed (but legal) logic used by the court to determine ownership vs licensee and if copying something to RAM constitutes a "copy" (in the Copyright sense), it's hard to refute their decision. I can only hope this case gets appealed (to the Supreme Court if needed). While MDY should probably lose the case, the Copyright precedent set in this case (and referenced cases) in the 9th circuit need to be shot down in flames. Unfortunately, the possible relevant parties (EFF, ACLU, etc) will probably wait for a better case to appeal on (unfortunately, that piles up even more bad legal precedent).
Active: D&D Online (alpha,beta,&unlimited)
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft
Pretty obvious that the courts need help understanding how to apply existing law when it comes to the added complexity of computer software. Of course the legislature had not helped with their confusing laws they wrote.
Only have time for one quick reply. I'll try to get to the rest tomorrow.
The purpose of the DMCA is not to 'gut out' anything, the least of which being fair use. It's purpose is to suppliment the existing Copyright law that is inadaquate in regard to digital media. Digital media didn't exist when the copyright laws were written, and there are too many grey areas about digital media that are not clearly addressed without the DMCA.
The DMCA is also meant to criminalize the purposeful circumvention of protective measures within digital media. Anyone who has worked in the software industry for 20 years would know that... There's really a very very very limited few legitimate reasons to ever circumvent the inherent security measures in a piece of digital media. If you're doing it, chances are pretty good you're doing it in order to break the software, illegally copy the software, or use the software without a valid license. Or modify it's use to make it do something it was never intended to do at all. Any of these things should be illegal (and are). There's no moral dilema about it. The only one which even approaches being boarderline ok, is the modification to make the software do something it wasnt intended to do. If you need something that does that badly enough, make it yourself and dont ride on the coat tails of someone who spent what was probably millions of dollars developing it. And if you try to get rich in the process you should burn.
What exactly do you categorize fair use as? In copyright terms 'fair use' would be something like displaying a copyrighted image in order to discuss that image, but not specifically to profit from it. Or to use the image in satire. But you can't take an image someone else created, and use it to, say, market a product or use it in a logo for a business or something like that.
Now in software terms, what exactly do you call 'fair use'? The only thing I can think of that would be a legitimate break would be something like making copies of a song for your IPod when you own the cd, and the cd has copy protections on it. But I've never heard of a prosecution of an individual with copies of songs or movies anywhere when they could prove that they had legitimate originals that they had purchased. Not unless the prosecutor could prove that the copies were in use in multiple places at the same time by multiple individuals.
You also mentioned somewhere in your post that Copyright is also meant to protect 'good of the public'. I'd love to hear your elaboration on that, because frankly I don't get it. The entire purpose of Copyright legislation is to prevent one person from profiting from the work of another, or preventing the original creator from profiting on his creation.
Please outline a scenario where the owner of a piece of intellectual property is harming the public by not allowing copies of that property or by making money on that property. Unless you're suggesting that the public would just find things a hell of a lot more convenient if they didn't have to compensate that creator for his creation...
-Feyshtey-
Where to even begin...
The stated purpose of the DMCA is to update the Copyright Act for the digital age. The actual purpose (or, at least, the effect) of the DMCA is to gut fair use and put almost all control in the hands of the creator (well, usually not even the actual creator - the rights holder). There have been many articles about this since the passing of the DMCA.
What aspect of Copyright was inadequate with regard to digital media? I can't think of any.
Anyone who's worked in the software industry for even 10 years knows the DMCA does not do what it's stated purpose is. Fair use that can be illegal under the DMCA (and have had lawsuits filed over it):
Then there's the DMCA take-down notice provisions which have been constantly abused by copyright owners to order takedowns of things that fall under Fair Use (video and song excepts on YouTube being the most often abused).
Then there's also the DMCA categorization of pretty much anything as a security measure. CSS (used on DVDs), for instance, is not a security measure - it's a joke. If the DMCA restricted the limit to things that were actually remotely secure, I would have less of an issue. It's been discussed that Rot-13 would probably be considered a security measure under the DMCA.
Fair use also allows you to do almost anything you want with something for personal use. Distribution is prohibited by most of the allowances under fair use.
You weren't paying attention then. The RIAA and/or MPAA did threaten to file suit against people for having fair use copies of CDs/DVDs with protection. I'm not sure if they ever did file suit as their standard tactic is to extort settlements from people by threatening them with a DMCA lawsuit (P2P is a different issue).
Nope. The entire point of Copyright and Patent is to strike a balance. They are supposed to spur innovation (by protecting creator rights for a set amount of time) and benefit society by giving it the innovations once expired and to allow reasonable uses (Fair Use for Copyright) in the mean-time.
In the last decade or so, this balance has been pretty well destroyed in regards to Copyright. The DMCA outlaws many Fair Uses and the "Disney extensions" (and previous extensions) mean that society has to wait generations before Copyright expires.
To summarize ones scattered above...
As I've said several time, I think MDY should lose but not on Copyright grounds (on DMCA and EULA/TOU grounds).
Active: D&D Online (alpha,beta,&unlimited)
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft
A little bit more on the responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wilcoxon
Page 5, footnote 3: What? Since when is a court not allowed to go against previous precedent? This happens all the time. It's the job of the appeals court to rule on which to uphold (if an appeal is filed based on the decision going against precedent). The judge copped out in a massive way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll need to research this sometime when I have the time to, to see what the court's actual authority is, but here are my thoughts on the matter:
The footnote to which you're refering is pretty clear. A lower court should not have the ability to rewrite law in order to determine the outcome of a case. A judge in the 9th district is not a lawmaker. His duty is to UPHOLD the law, not write it. His judgments and reasoning behind them can help set a precedent for interpretation. But he can't just decide that a law is wrong and not uphold it. That would undermine the lawmaking process of the country. The judge also did not mention precedent. He said -law-. This is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of black and white legislation.
This is at least partly why there is an appeal process. If the outcome of a trial is deemed to have been a demonstration of a flaw in the law, the appeals process can bring that to a state or federal supreme court which has the authority to rule that a law is unconstitutional as applied in that particular case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wilcoxon
Page 6, line 6: Fine. Given the above, he "had" to rule this way. MAI Sys Corp v Peak Computer, Inc was a terrible decision. Either that case or this one should be (have been) appealed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright law stipulates that you are not allowed to copy anything unless specifically authorized to do so by the copyright holder. Fair use is the only exception, and those cases must involved education, discussion of, parody on, or other use that does not negatively impact the ability of the copyright holder to make money on that property. Copyright law states that if your copies negatively impact the commercial value of a property you are in violation of Copyright law (not DMCA law). Additionaly, he DMCA states that you may not make copies of software except in order to make that software function as it was intended to function. A very clear, important and -fair- distinction. If the software itself creates copies in RAM, no foul, no argument.
If you force a copy to RAM, because you are trying to circumvent the normal function of that software, you fail for three reasons:
1) You have produced a copy that is not explicitely allowed by the copyright holder. The law is clear. If the author/owner didn't say it was ok to make a copy, it's not. Period. (barring Fair Use)
2) You have allowed a copy of the software that directly and negatively impacts the gameplay experience of other people from whom Blizzard recieves monthly income based on their copyrighted material. You have, in effect, produced a situation where customer's of Blizzard can (and verfiably have) quit specifically because of botters. The fact that the copy of the software is specifically in RAM is only marginally relevant. If you were able to copy the software to another computer in order to allow Glider to function the result would be indentical, and the ruling would be as well. The end result is that the commercial value of the property is reduced because fewer people are paying Blizzard because of the copy.
3) You have produced a copy in order to make the software run in a way it was never intended to run. A clear violation of the DMCA.
All of these factors contribute to both the Glider case and the one refered to on Page6 Line6 for purposes of copying to RAM. If nothing else, the DMCA covers this clearly and undeniably, and the reason behind it is perfectly legitimate and reasonable. It should , in my opinion, be law and be upheld. Can you state a specific reason why it should not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wilcoxon
Page 6, line 12-#1: Does the user ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of that argument, it's not relevant when the user sees the EULA or TOU. That argument is a matter of copyright law, not contract law. The statement by MDY asserts that the users aquire a license to copy to RAM when the purchase the software. That is not true. By Copyright law they aquire a license to make copies of the software that allow it to run under its normal operating parameters. Copying to RAM is not one of those ordinary parameters unless the software does it itself. Regardless, we're back to the DMCA which states everything listed above that is again a violation.
But just to throw a wrench in your plan, you do have to agree to TOU in order to install WoW and again with an EULA to play it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wilcoxon
Page 9, line 11: Copying and modifying of works are allowed under fair use. Distributing software that allows users to conduct fair use are not a violation of Copyright.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. But Glider does not apply in any manner to Fair Use.
Fair Use is only for purposes of education, discussion parody or satire, or purposes that do not impact the commercial value of the property. Glider modifies the gameplay experience of players, players have (verifiably) quit because their gameplay experience was diminished, Blizzard earns less money on it's product, ergo the commercial value of the product is diminished. That means, A) it is not fair use, and
it is copyright infringement.
You may be thinking instead of Copyright Missuse by Blizzard, stipulating that Blizzard is squashing the ability for another party to create a product that earns money. That legislation only governs competing products. Glider is not a competing product. It is a product wholly reliant on WoW. The judge ruled in this brief somewhere (not digging for it right now) that anyone was free to make a game like WoW and choose to allow Glider to run with it. So there was no monopoly on Blizzard's product, and so no Copyright Missuse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wilcoxon
Page 11, line 7: And here is why I hate lawyers - "whether the loading of software...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you're actually refering to Page12, line7. Regardless, the court never even suggested that there could be a potential flaw in either the law or the MAI decision. It is clarifying that it doesn't really matter if the -fact- is that the copy was to RAM or not in the MAI case and that this case is 100% equivelant. The -fact- is that there was a copy, and that the copy is infringing, which is a matter of -law-.
Here is that entire statement to be interpreted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From MDY v Blizzard 9th Court rulling:
Finally, MDY claims that a dispute exists as to whether the RAM copying Blizzard
alleges here is the same as the RAM copying in MAI. But whether the loading of software
into RAM constitutes “copying” for purposes of copyright law is a legal, not a factual,
question, and has been answered by MAI: “[T]he loading of software into RAM creates a
copy under the Copyright Act.” 991 F.2d at 519. MDY cites no case to the contrary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to address the court case you think you remember something about that might have relevence. But I do find it pretty damn funny that you have chosen to skip all the DMCA stuff because it's 'probably valid' when the DMCA stuff is the stuff that you threw your arms up about to begin with.
You continue to state that the logic is flawed, and that the DMCA is bad, and that it's all going to screw us in the end. But you have given not a single logical statement or defense of why you believe so. You have cited no situation in which the arguments are just not right that can't be clearly and undeniably refuted, and you haven't even come up with a reason why the DMCA is wrong.
What EXACTLY is it that you think the DMCA or Copyright law for that matter can do that it should not be able to do? I'm tired of hearing the doomsday rhetoric without hearing a logical reason for why it could be abused. Change my mind. Challenge my thinking. But dont just scream about how this is all so horrible without explaining how.
-Feyshtey-
Except that they must be talking about precedent in parts of the footnote - "established 9th circuit law" pretty clearly says it's really talking about precedent. No circuit has any laws unto itself - laws are either Federal, State, or Municipal.
I'd forgotten (prior to reading the brief and some of your replies) that Copyright covered some more vague areas such as negative impact on profitability and vicarious infringement. MDY is definitely guilty of vicarious infringement if you allow that WoW is licensed and not purchased.
Glider probably actually increases income for Blizzard (directly by attracting a small number of players who wouldn't otherwise play and indirectly by causing Glider users to have to rebuy WoW once they are banned) but it definitely interferes with Blizzard's control of their online gameplay (I would expect this to fall under contract law due to EULA/TOU but it's likely again under Copyright if you accept that WoW is licensed (and not purchased)).
However, speaking strictly of Copyright (not DMCA), a copy in RAM is a valid Fair Use so Glider simply assists users in making a Fair Use copy. If users have verifiably quit due to botters, that definitely gets into interference with profits of the rights holder (and the law doesn't care if there are other players who play because of Glider so that aspect is irrelevant).
You're right. I was referring to page 12, line 7. The passage could be read with either interpretation. I would argue that MAI fails factual and common sense tests as a copy into RAM is perfectly valid Fair Use under Copyright (but often violates DMCA).
I don't blame you as I wasn't able to find it and I'm the one that remembers reading it in the past.
Nope, my argument has always been against Copyright applying in this case. Here is an excerpt from my original message...
Reading that now, I see that I was writing only half-thinking as I should have mentioned Fair Use (for copying to RAM) and should have said Glider probably violated the DMCA.
I detest the DMCA but was not going to argue that it did not apply in this case as I'm pretty sure MDY did violate the DMCA.
Just a few examples of why the DMCA is wrong...
Can you name one thing good in the DMCA?
Copyright itself is a great idea. The only major problem is the multiple extensions in recent years to the duration of Copyright (often prompted by Disney not wanting to give up Mickey Mouse and other characters and willing to pay lots for it (lobbyists, bribes (err...campaign contributions), etc)).
I can't think of a single good thing about the DMCA. There may be some aspect of it that is beneficial but it is vastly overshadowed by the truly horrid parts.
Back to Blizzard vs MDY...
As I've said all along, I don't have any issues with MDY losing - I just don't think it should be under Copyright (DMCA and/or contract (EULA/TOU) but not Copyright). However, Copyright may be valid for some claims (interference with profits of the rights holder).
I have two major issues with the brief which I really hope are overturned (but don't expect to be until there is a better case to appeal on):
Active: D&D Online (alpha,beta,&unlimited)
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft