[Unnamed botting program] PWNT

[zanthor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7645059.stm

This is great news for the industry in my opinion.

[Aethon]

Appeals.

It'll be so tied up in litigation, WoW will most likely have already died before Blizzard sees anything.

[zanthor]

Appeals.

It'll be so tied up in litigation, WoW will most likely have already died before Blizzard sees anything.

Agreed, but I guarantee that Blizzards war chest is deeper than their opponents in this case. They WILL take this as far as it goes.

[mmcookies]

the implications for software licensing is very troubling, however

[Knytestorme]

Actually it's not great news at all given the ruling that was laid down.

If any court uses that ruling as a precedent it means that all software companies maintain copyright over the code in memory as it runs on your machine so things like trainers, kernel level debuggers are straight away grounds for civil action if the company wants to pursue it and it opens up every software company wanting to run a program similar to warden and dictate what can be running on your machine at the same time as their product.

This sort of thing is already annoying when I find games not wanting to run while I have daemon tools installed for mounting iso's from msdn or test images of my code on my main dev machine (yay for having the most powerful machine available to me have to be my gaming pc) but if it gets to the stage it can by companies pushing this ruling far beyond what it was intended to mean (yes, the judge gave too broad an interpretation when coming down on Blizzards side) then it could actually cause irreperable harm to the industry of PC gaming, if not all PC software.

[Aethon]

Which is why I hope for appeals. And, to be honest, botting got me into multiboxing. I was bored of even botting characters, so I tried multiboxing. Hell, I still don't think botting is all that bad, just like anything else, a couple bad eggs ruin the whole experience for everyone else (like the botters that farm and farm and farm one spot continually.)

[Tehtsuo]

My .02

I agree with Blizzard protecting and defending their game, however I disagree that the place to do so is in court. If the guy were using a CD duplicator to make copies of the game and hand them out on the street (although that wouldn't do much good at all with an online game) that's one thing. However, this was an enterprising programmer out to create a useful program - a hacker, in the literal definition of the word, not in Hollywood's definition. There's no way his program was too difficult for a reasonably intelligent team of paid professionals to keep out of order. It's Blizzard's responsibility to police their game's economy, not the US judicial system. When I read about Blizzard's complaints that botters "spend far more time in-game than an ordinary player would and consume resources the entire time" I was pretty angered. Are we talking coal or barrels of oil here? No, we're talking about electronic gold. Now I won't deny that MMO currency is beginning to gain a reasonable amount of real-world value, but real-world litigation is a very clear statement that Blizzard considers their gold to be a real-world commodity - thus legitimizing gold sellers.

It really worries me to see that even a single legal case was even brought to court over the EULA. I never thought I'd see that, I took the document to be a statement that Blizzard owns the game, and that they have the right to discontinue service. I'm not going to call "Slippery slope" like a scared bunny rabbit, but the thought strikes me that other legitimate apps like Magelo and even Xfire might have reason for concern. Magelo reads Wow.exe's memory space, just like [self-censored botting program] must have done to accomplish its function.

Well, what's done is done, but my word to Blizzard: Congratulations, I'm glad you are preserving the integrity of your game - don't take it too far.

Here's a short essay from Daniel James (CEO of Three Rings) that is relevant, and one that really took my breath away:

The business model of putting bits in a box and charging to experience said tasty bits is forever broken. Furthermore, to prevent the copying of bits is futile and ultimately destructive to the goal of any modern digital business, which is to conscript enthusiastic 'users', and from them, customers.

Our mission at Three Rings is to create an emotional connection with players. We want to become one of the ten places you go on the interwebs. We want to be on your Chrome start page. We want you to dream of puzzley pieces and Pirates (or Zombies). If some folks would like to give us some money, that'd be great too.

Money can't buy you love, but love can bring you money. In software the only sustainable way to earn money is by first creating love, and then hoping that some folks want to demonstrate that love with their dollars.

The cheddary 'Free to Play' is not just a cheesy marketing slogan, but a shift in assumptions; it costs approaching nothing to give away some bits, or let people play Puzzle Pirates for free. Every player, free or paid, adds value to the community and excitement for other players. Free players are the content, context and society that encourages a small fraction of the audience to willingly pay more than enough to subsidize the rest.

It's perhaps easy to stand in the server-side tower, printing coin of the realm and lording it over a bit-mountain. One of online games' many business model advantages is sidestepping DRM questions by maintaining the canonical database that is highly valued by members of the community.

'Not fair', the vendor of music or packaged software cries. Well, tough shit. Nobody added your business to the list of protected species, despite what your lobbyists and lawyers say. Find a business model that's actually appropriate to the 21st century, and perhaps scale back your expectations of vast profits accordingly (oh, and fire some lawyers and lobbyists, too, please). For example, as some musicians have done by returning to live performance as their main source of revenue.

We all know folks who collect music, movies or software, thrilled by all the notional value acquired, but rarely look at any of it. To me, it seems worthless. I assume that any bits are commonplace and easy to come by, and the value is in their use. Everything should be shareware to be tried and tested until its value is proven and the love-meter swings open the wallet. If I were to pass on some music or a piece of code I become a vector of word of mouth viral marketing, the best kind, the kind that money can't buy. To fight this inexorable trend seems as counter-productive as the cellular operators practice of not distributing game demos in order to fleece people with marketing and crappy games. Way to kill a platform, guys.

DRM takes a big poo on your best customers -- the ones who've given you money -- whilst doing nothing practical to prevent others from 'stealing' your precious content juices. Worse, it makes these renegades feel nice and righteous about sticking it to 'the man'. Stop trying to persuade people to love you more by hitting them a rusty pipe. Put down the pipe, and give up on DRM.

[TheBigBB]

Having had my gameplay experience completely ruined before by hacking and botting in this and other games, I don't feel the least bit sorry for this ruling, nor do I come close to believing slippery-slope arguments that this precedent will somehow bring out the doom for all PC gaming. If the wording of the ruling is so broad that it causes an absurd case to go to trial in the future, the law will be adjusted accordingly.

[eqjoe]

The judge in this case is a techno retard. I am sure that he has no clue how a computer works. It is no wonder why his discisions are among the most appealed and reveresed in the country.

[Fleecy]

I have to agree with Knytestorme & Tehtsuo, I think this sets a precedent that has the potential to spiral out f control in the future of gaming. We each have our opinions on botting and the effect it has in-game, and Blizzard (as does everyone) has the right to protect its intellectual property but in my personal opinion its not the best possible outcome.