Court Confirms, you don't own your copy of WoW

[Svpernova09]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/mixed-ninth-circuit-ruling-mdy-v-blizzard-wow
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/12/court-you-do-not-own-that-copy-of-wow-you-bought.ars

From TFA (Ars):


The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a previous ruling that those who bought and played World of Warcraft did not actually own the software, but were merely licensing the game, per the included End User Licensing Agreement.
The case in question deals with a third-party program that allowed gamers to play World of Warcraft without being at their computer. Certain tasks were automated, allowing players to level up and gain currency without having to actually play the game. In a previous ruling it was claimed that by using this program the EULA was broken, thus the player was violating copyright (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/01/judges-ruling-that-wow-bot-violates-dmca-is-troubling.ars) by accessing the game. The Ninth Circuit Court did not uphold that aspect of the case.


"The license term that forbade WoW players from using Glider was a covenant—a promise not to do something—rather than a condition—limiting the scope of the copyright license," the EFF explained in its commentary about the ruling. It may seem like hairs are being split, but this limits this ability of copyright holders to punish those who break the licensing agreements with copyright infringement lawsuits.



This isn't helpful for the defendants, as they're still liable for the program that broke the EULA in the first place, but it's a small victory for everyone else. The larger problem is that the courts can't seem to agree on what constitutes copyright infringement in cases such as this, which may indicate this issue will need to be resolved by the Supreme Court.


Notes of interest from MDY:


From my initial unfrozen caveman lawyering I believe:

- Blizzard lost on the copyright claim, despite Vernor losing before us. I'm amazed at this, but I think it's great for the free market. The court pretty much says you can't use terms in a contract to force behavior under threat of copyright infringement. That is a huge loss for Blizzard.

- MDY lost on part of the DMCA claim regarding the "non-literal" elements of the game and Warden. The court didn't want to adopt the Federal Circuit's standard on circumvention + infringement. Ironically, we probably would have that claim if we sold out of Washington DC. Seems like something the highest court should iron out, given the differences in circuits...

[BrothelMeister]

interesting since I knew that MDY (Glider) had lost in the earlier trial, and was ordered to pay X million dollars.

[blast3r]

This made me think of something. Anyone else see some toons just standing in the same spot for hours casting a single spell? I saw a Pally doing that in one of the new zones. He was there for hours. I whispered him with no response so I submitted a ticket on him. Saw another at an auction house doing the same thing. Is there some kind of new guild bonus for saying online a gazillion hours?

[Maxion]

Is there some kind of new guild bonus for saying online a gazillion hours?

Nope.

[Svpernova09]

Probably people trying to stay active and not get booted out to sit in a 3 hour que at prime time.

[Mokoi]

so they are not AFK and dont get disconnected and dont have to wait in queue again for playing when they get back, probably.

[doommachine]

So we have to deal with glider bots again? If so we should at least be able to attack them at any time.

[Starbuck_Jones]

I am not surprised that blizzard lost on the EULA bit. EULA are hardly enforceable by anyone other than the creator and even then its sketchy. The cops are never going to raid your basement because you are using software in a way that was not intended by the creator.

Example in Microsoft's case the EULA says that you cant use windows to help build bombs or weapons.

"SOFTWARE PRODUCT or portion thereof in the design, development or production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons"

So, there is no law (that I am aware of) that says if I violate a EULA it is punishable by XXX. Why is there no law? Because EULA can be absurd. I can make an EULA that says by reading this post you have agreed to the terms of my EULA that states if you flame me for inaccuracies, I can in turn burn down your house. Thus the agreement that you wont flame me for reading my post.

So, Microsoft and Blizzard do have in their power to enforce their own EULA's with the customers. Blizzard can ban your account, Microsoft can deactivate your copy of windows etc. Anyone that sells software with EULA's and no way monitor or enforce them are pretty much SOL. However like above in the original post, an EULA doesn't grant damages or spell out enforceable law. Just like it doesn't magically grant me the legal use of arson if you break my EULA.


Absurd boat is absurd.

[blast3r]

Probably people trying to stay active and not get booted out to sit in a 3 hour que at prime time.

That makes total sense!

[Ughmahedhurtz]

So we have to deal with glider bots again? If so we should at least be able to attack them at any time.

No. It just means that Blizzard's "copyright infringement" angle failed, which is one portion of the case.

Since you mention it, though, they really should have some flag that when a bot gets identified as a bot, it permanently flags them like they were in one of the world arenas, so anyone (even their own faction) could attack them.

[Sam DeathWalker]

Well, after reading the whole actual opinion it seems that Glider really came out way on top compared to their position at the trial level.

They got more then they probably even hoped for.

Basically use of Glider has nothing to do with copyright violation, but it does violate the contractual provision of the EULA.


Ya, no one owns WoW it does seem. On the other hand why should Blizzard be forced to produce a product under terms that they feel are unfavoable to them. They tell you what the deal is and you take it or not ..... yur choice.

I really have to wonder though with our putting in a zillion hours of our time and labor that we can't sell the fruits of our labor, thats like microsoft saying you can't sell a C++ program that you wrote with their software, can Home Depot claim they own a house you built with their hammer?

I still think that is an open question but uphill battle as its clear enough from the decision that we don't own the software.

[Tonuss]

I think that software licenses, software copyrights, and similar issues have a long way to go before we get to a point where you know where you stand. Gaming contracts and terms-of-use agreements are close to the bottom of the list, IMO. Liability for losses due to software issues (particularly when the software developer disclaims liability as a term of use) is probably much higher on the list. If you put too much of the onus on the developer, software development may slowly grind to a halt. If you push too far the other way the damages to business, particularly small and medium businesses, could be devastating.

I'm more interested to see how, over the long term, decisions like this one affect those issues instead of games. Much as I don't like botting, I'm kinda glad to see that Blizzard isn't getting handed everything on a platter, either.

[kadaan]

I really have to wonder though with our putting in a zillion hours of our time and labor that we can't sell the fruits of our labor, thats like microsoft saying you can't sell a C++ program that you wrote with their software, can Home Depot claim they own a house you built with their hammer?

I still think that is an open question but uphill battle as its clear enough from the decision that we don't own the software

There's a pretty big difference there. With a program you write, there's no way around it. With a WoW char, it's just a few bytes in a database. All your "work" is just changing a few numbers in the database. You can't be a MS employee and run a command to make a program, but Blizzard can click a button and generate a level 85 with best in slot raid gear.

The other big issue I see with letting players sell accounts/items/gold is that as soon as someone feels cheated, Blizzard has to deal with it. I'm sure they already spend millions hiring customer service people to deal with compromised accounts and retarded player questions. If someone calls with a problem because they bought/sold an account, at least it's a simple "we can't do anything, that's against our ToS." Not to mention there's no monetary incentive for them to let you sell your account, unless they charged a fee to do it, which would cause even more issues.

[Sam DeathWalker]

Seems to me it would be a money maker for them if they were to take 10percent of the sale and make it ligit. It provides a way for those with more money then time to enter the game fast, and it provides a way for those with more time then money to be rembursed for their play time ..... and cash is a good incentive to get people to play more. And they eliminate all the sites that sell the characters under the table.

I don't see how players can complain in general if a ligit leveled character is sold, as it makes no different to you or me if level 85 character X is owned by player Z or player Y.

Well I am sure at some point there will be some litigation on the grounds that someone put in 200 hours of their time and they expect that they have ownership of what was created by the fruits of their labor.

Ya in theory Blizzard could create a level 85 in seconds but if they did they will lose a lot of their players.

Can you think of any other example where person A owns the non paid labor of person B?

Actually there is a possible legal theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment

[daviddoran]

Probably people trying to stay active and not get booted out to sit in a 3 hour que at prime time.

I've been known to randomly AFK in a zone, and come by the computer every 10 minutes to hit the spacebar just so I don't have to type in 5 Auth codes again.... Now with the high que times its even more necessary.

[Gibbin]

yes I agree ughmahedhurtz ;however, there would be a lot of 13 year old's trying to get others flagged as bots just to mess with them, not that they would necessarily succeed, but they would try cry and whine lol

[Tonuss]

Can you think of any other example where person A owns the non paid labor of person B?
If a person can be compensated for his "labor" while playing a game, then game developers and even amusement park operators could be liable for enough damages to pretty much wipe them out of existence. "I worked hard for that high score, I deserve compensation" when a video game console has its memory wiped won't sound any less silly than "I worked hard for that sword, I deserve compensation" when player A has his account stolen or his character deleted.