Blizzard v MDY - Pwnd!
Posted by Stropp on July 18, 2008You’ve probably heard by now, the legal battle between Blizzard and MDY over WoWGlider is over with the judgement falling to Blizzard
For those of us who are sick and tired of getting gold spam tells, or seeing bot’s grinding away in our favorite leveling places, this does appear to be good news. It does however set a legal precedent about how I can use my computer, and that does make me somewhat uneasy.
While I don’t condone cheating, and that includes using bot’s to either make it easier to level or harvest gold, there are a couple of things I don’t like about this judgement.
- It’s my computer and I’ll use it as I want to. If Blizzard want to install a Warden or other monitoring software and cancel accounts if I cheat, fine I have no problem with that. (Well, maybe I would if I were a cheater.) But I do have a problem if they sue me for it. Remember that Warden supposedly checks for certain websites too. Would you like to be sued for visiting MDY’s website just because you were curious?
- A big part of Blizzards argument wasn’t about copyright or EULA infringement, but about facilitating that infringement. They complained that WoWGlider was making it faster for players to level and thus reducing the possible subscriptions. Does that mean websites that provide information to help players level faster will be next on the lawyer hit list; how about the leveling guides?
- Some of the argument went along the lines that the copyright infringement occurred when the client program was copied into memory. Of course it was. Every program, since they started storing software on media (paper tape, punch cards, core memory) is copied into memory — that’s the only way it can work. Do we really want to give companies the power to sue us for copyright infringement if we are simply using the program as designed, perhaps because we offended them in some way?
I believe that legal precedents that remove consumer rights are not necessarily a good thing. While some of the situations I mentioned above are fairly unlikely to happen… at this time, the erosion of rights nearly always happens slowly and with good reason.
Today we applaud the decision by a court to punish cheaters. Will the same court tomorrow punish guide makers or bloggers who happen to criticize a game against the terms of the EULA?
Popularity: 11%
Stropp,
I wrote a summary and explanation of MDY v. Blizzard over at AoC Stratics. http://ageofconan.stratics.com/php-bin/show_content.php?content=28285
You might be interested in what it has to say.
Hmm, my previous post didn’t go through. Stropp, I published a review of the MDY decision over at Age of Conan Stratics, you can check it out at http://ageofconan.stratics.com/php-bin/show_content.php?content=28285
My concern is the abuse and misuse of copyright that MDY unfortunately did not try hard enough in prosecuting. It’s shameful to see a situation where ANY action against the EULA is deemed copyright infringement. Naming your character Snarls McPoopyPants is copyright infringement if Blizzard deems it against the TOU/EULA. That’s an abuse of the Copyright Act’s grants of power; certainly it is not what the intent was. Such abuses were obviously intended to be prosecuted under breach of contract and contract law, as they literally have nothing to do with copyright.
As for WoW Glider, I think MDY just had bad attorneys, as I still feel they could have won on the necessary use defense. As well, I think the court abused its discretion in holding MAI as being on point, when it clearly involved a negotiated license rather than a non-negotiable EULA.
The whole “licensee” argument is sketchy to me. Say I buy WoW and expansions, for what, 90 bucks now? Then I choose not to agree to the EULA. I’m now out $90, but I’m in physical possession of a disc with game code on it. How can any court, in applying common sense, deem that to be anything other than ownership? What’s the legal definition of ownership of property: Possession (tangible possession, and intent to further possess) and nobody having a higher right in the chain of title. Clearly that’s the case there.
Hi Dan, sorry about that, both posts got caught in Akismet’s spam filter. I’ve ‘despammed’ both now.
Thanks for the link, it was interesting reading, and I definitely agree with the conclusions you’ve made. The point about MDYs attorneys is probably true, but I suspect that it’s a case of “you get what you pay for” here. MDY wasn’t a big company that could afford high powered lawyers in the same way Blizzard could and it’s an unfortunate fact that big companies have an easier time winning lawsuits because they can spend more on them.
In fact I think copyright law has the doctrine of fair use, which allows a consumer to do things like make copies for their own personal use. As you say, a EULA is a contract and is not related to copyright in anyway.
I actually hope that MDY appeals and that the lawyers get their acts together and get this overturned. I guess it depends on wether they just want to cut their losses or keep on going.
I can’t imagine MDY not appealing this. The judge all but smacked them on the face and called them Nancy by saying “We can’t do anything but the Ninth Circuit can”.
Add A Comment