Addons free from now on, per Blizzard: KeyClone okay?

Psychologically speaking, we (boxers) are a group that thrives on our ability to pay for an advantage. In the market of what you can pay out of game to improve yourself ingame, watching the first step of the supply getting shut down is going to get people on edge. Today, its pay for use add-ons (which I would hope have a significant quality above free ones). Tomorrow, they start listing boxing software as a bannable application.

Is it likely to happen? Not in the slightest, but it's the reaction that the first event evokes that is riling everyone's feathers. There is a shift in policy at Blizzard, and such things naturally make people nervous, wondering if something they do or use is on the chopping block.

[quote='Inate',index.php?page=Thread&postID=188975# post188975]Half the time the addons in question are absolute garbage anyways and tend to automate things in a way that blizzard never intended or wanted. It's the SAME as asking for money for a botting program, or asking for money for gold in game, it is all on the same principle.[/quote]You demonstrate exactly how experienced you are with ForPay addons right here.

[b]Quality: [/b]I've been a subscriber to two paid mods, RDX and Carbonite, both are a step above any other addon I've ever used. Well written, low memory use for what they accomplish, well documented, well supported.

[b]Automation:[/b] No addon can automate more than blizzard allows it to - Blizzard has complete control over their API and as such complete control over how automated an Addon can be.

[b]Replaced by OSS:[/b] Not only will these mods be replaced by OSS - but they already have been - there ARE other solutions for both RDX and Carbonite as well as any other mod you can think of - however people pay for the quality, for the support, and for the confidence that the MOD will be there next patch and not just fade away into the history of MODS. RDX for example stopped development and released his code - OpenRDX was born - a great mod with a great team - and a horribly slow development cycle. I saw more innovation in 3 months than I have since OpenRDX went Open over a year ago... is it the fault of the guys at OpenRDX? Hell no, they rock. They just have jobs, school, lives, etc.

Oh, and if you look around, I'm not the only one saying this is bad news, unknows like [url='http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=15864749872&sid=1']Mikord, Venificus[/url] , Cogwheel and Zorba are on the same page as those who think this is a bad thing... only one of which was ever selling an addon subscription.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Fursphere',index.php?page=Thread&postID=188979#po st188979

HARDWARE 4 LIFE!

---

If it ever comes to that, we can and will.

Not that it will ever come to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Fursphere',index.php?page=Thread&postID=188986#po st188986

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'algol',index.php?page=Thread&postID=188982#post18 8982

If it ever comes to that, we can and will.

---

Some can, and some will.

Keyclone single handedly opened up multiboxing to the masses. Sure, other software is out there, but Keyclone did most of the work. If software boxing dies, most of the boxers will die with it.

---

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Fursphere',index.php?page=Thread&postID=188986#po st188986

Keyclone single handedly opened up multiboxing to the masses. Sure, other software is out there, but Keyclone did most of the work. If software boxing dies, most of the boxers will die with it.

---

Well, I know I will, if only because I'm a stubborn bastard. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'zanthor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=188849#post 188849

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Souca',index.php?page=Thread&postID=188697#post18 8697

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=188172#p ost188172

Maybe Microsoft / Intel should prohibit Blizzard from makeing a profit off of the use of their products.

Although "WoW" is a popular addon to Windows, seems that Microsoft has full control of what runs on THEIR software.

---

Blizzard paid for the right to develop their software. They paid for the compilers, which even if not written by MS, paid for the right to include runtime libraries to let them run on Windows. Anyway, the analogy is far from a good fit.

I write software for a living, I'm stating this upfront so my bias is clear.

I look at it this way, without WoW, the addons won't work. So someone pays for an addon, which requires WoW to work, what does the addon developer pay to Blizzard for making WoW? It's isn't your monthly subscription and it isn't the developers if they even have one. No where did the developer recieve rights to make profit off of a derivitaive work.

Keyclone and HotKeyNet and all the other MB programs work outside of WoW. This only affects programs that rely on WoW's internal APIs to even exist.

Edit: Replied before I saw this was 80 bazillion posts long. Still stand by my statement.

- Souca -

---

So you are saying it's OK for Microsoft to mandate no one can charge for .NET applications and that they all must be free and unobfuscated?

---

No, you are implying that's what I said. Please don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'zanthor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=188849#post 188849

.NET is a free API and tools are available to develop entirely for free... just like LUA and the interface UI.

---

I never mentioned .Net and neither did the post I replied to. Please provide a source for your claim that the Blizzard UI and it's APIs are free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'zanthor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=188849#post 188849

Windows is to .NET Applications as WoW is to WoW Addons.

---

(An Operating System) is to (An application framework) as (A game) is to (Said games adons)?

There is an open source project to provide a .Net enviornment, I'm pretty sure there isn't and can't be an open source implementation of Wow. It's a flawed analogy anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'zanthor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=188849#post 188849

Dangerous.
Slippery.

And while IANAL I would say dancing on non-compete laws.

---

You're welcome to your opinion, and I'm welcome to mine. Neither will have much effect on Blizzard though.

- Souca -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Fursphere',index.php?page=Thread&postID=188986#po st188986

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'algol',index.php?page=Thread&postID=188982#post18 8982

If it ever comes to that, we can and will.

---

Some can, and some will.

Keyclone single handedly opened up multiboxing to the masses. Sure, other software is out there, but Keyclone did most of the work. If software boxing dies, most of the boxers will die with it.

---

Which is why I was wondering if this could effect KeyClone - his work is crucial to so many people. I don't use KeyClone myself, as I'm a Mac user, but I'd buy it if he made a Mac version! :)

The only addon I could see paying for would be a quest helper type, the work behind those (if you don't rip off other addons) is immense! Worth the $20 or so that they charge, IMHO. But the advertising in game needs to be blocked, imagine if couple of addons spamming your chat box with donation requests or ads for other addons start fighting it out! Not good.

I'm hesitant to mention this but there is an easy way for addon developers to get around those rules.

If they develop the addon as a two part system where one part is an in-game addon and the other part is a 'data tool' that creates and updates the data used by the addon then it would be very easy to charge for data updates but not the addon. WoWEcon does something similar to this already.

There are clear business precedents for charging for the data that works with a free tool. It's the data that takes time and effort to create compared to the tool.

Thus Questhelper could charge to download the quest data, WoWEcon could charge for subscription access to their data, etc, while still falling just within the rules.

Edit: Just wanted to add that I'm very happy with the 'no ads in game' rule, I really like it that Blizzard actually try to enforce the RPG aspect of their MMO, as a long time roleplayer I really hate stuff that breaks immersion, and ads from addons would piss me off no end.

[quote='RobinGBrown',index.php?page=Thread&postID=1 89144#post189144]I'm hesitant to mention this but there is an easy way for addon developers to get around those rules.

If they develop the addon as a two part system where one part is an in-game addon and the other part is a 'data tool' that creates and updates the data used by the addon then it would be very easy to charge for data updates but not the addon. WoWEcon does something similar to this already.

There are clear business precedents for charging for the data that works with a free tool. It's the data that takes time and effort to create compared to the tool.

Thus Questhelper could charge to download the quest data, WoWEcon could charge for subscription access to their data, etc, while still falling just within the rules.

Edit: Just wanted to add that I'm very happy with the 'no ads in game' rule, I really like it that Blizzard actually try to enforce the RPG aspect of their MMO, as a long time roleplayer I really hate stuff that breaks immersion, and ads from addons would piss me off no end.[/quote] The data part was thought of by Blizzard ([i][b]emphasis mine[/b][/i]).
[quote][b]1) Add-ons must be free of charge.[/b]
All add-ons must be distributed free of charge. Developers may not create "premium" versions of add-ons with additional for-pay features, charge money to download an add-on,[i][b] charge for services related to the add-on[/b][/i], or otherwise require some form of monetary compensation to download or access an add-on. [/quote]While I whole heartedly agree with no ads in game - I also don't see any problem with an addon asking the user for donations to the author. If this offends you or breaks your immersion so much - simply don't use the addon - once again it is your choice as the consumer which products to use. Blizzard has taken that choice away.

[quote] Please provide a source for your claim that the Blizzard UI and it's APIs are free. [/quote][url='http://www.lua.org/about.html']Lua is free under the MIT license.[/url] It can be used for any purpose, including commercial purposes, at absolutely no cost.

The Blizzard API's are documented and published for the end users to utilize. I don't need to source this as if it were not true, no UI mods would work and this discussion would be completely moot. The Blizzard UI as it natively exists is copyrighted.

That said - the works created by authors are theirs - they may be written to leverage an outside tool - but the work belongs to the author and the author can do as he wishes with said work. The work isn't DERIVED from anything Blizzard has done - it may INTERACT with it, but it's not derived. For that matter an author could quite easily write a UI mod without ever running WoW.

To clarify what offends me -
Section 1 of the new policy is simply anti-competitive and well beyond the scope of what any company has power to dictate. It will hurt the community in the long run - fuck it's already hurt the community as members such as Cogwheel have already pulled up camp and left.

Section 5 goes overboard - if they wanted to stop advertisements such as what Carbonites free version was doing they should have specified - but there is no harm at all in asking for donations for your UI mod or having a link on your configurations page to take you to a donations page.

The rest is great, I think the clear text rule would certainly limit commercial mods - but RDX was cleartext and many users subscribed to it for months. Carbonite is obfuscated, I've unwrapped that package and it's not rocket science to work your way around the obfuscation (it is a royal pain in the ass, but not rocket science at all.)

Just a point of clarification for some people. You (the addon author) are still free to license your addon how ever you want ie. all rights reserved, BSD, freeware etc. Blizzard is in no way making you make your addon open source all they are is making you do is show your source code (think of a book you read, you are reading the "source" code but you can not copy the "source" code because the licensing say you can't without permission or referencing the work etc).

Quote:

---

Section 1 of the new policy is simply anti-competitive and well beyond the scope of what any company has power to dictate. It will hurt the community in the long run - fuck it's already hurt the community as members such as Cogwheel have already pulled up camp and left.

---

There is actually a very large precedence for exactly this, actually taken even a step further. Microsoft would sell Windows to a computer manufacturer to install on the computers they built and sold to the end users. As a computer manufacturer you could also purchase access to Windows APIs and developer kits. You could then make improvements to Windows as you saw fit. However, you were REQUIRED to provide those changes back to Microsoft at no cost. You were also not allowed to charge your customers extra for those improvements you made. In early versions of Windows, large portions of the core technology were not written by Microsoft at all. They were written by engineers at places like Compaq and HP who had to give them to Microsoft, who then gave them to their competitors like Dell and Gateway that did not have internal development teams.

So using Microsoft as an example for anything related to fair business practices or as a way licenses software is not really the best example.

Would it be considered an Advertisement to put a link to the developer's website for "the latest news updates" about their addon? Then put a big ass donation button on that page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Caspian',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189268#post 189268

Would it be considered an Advertisement to put a link to the developer's website for "the latest news updates" about their addon? Then put a big ass donation button on that page.

---

I would think not as the policy says no goods or donation ads in game nothing about checking out the dev site for news, update and support. And yes you can have as many flashy ads on your website as you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'BW~Merlin',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189272#po st189272

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Caspian',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189268#post 189268

Would it be considered an Advertisement to put a link to the developer's website for "the latest news updates" about their addon? Then put a big ass donation button on that page.

---

I would think not as the policy says no goods or donation ads in game nothing about checking out the dev site for news, update and support. And yes you can have as many flashy ads on your website as you like.

---

Well there we go, we just found a work around.

This reminds me of the video game crash of 83 and Nintendo. Atari allowed anyone to develop any game on their system and the garbage out there destroyed Atari (for various reasons). Nintendo came in, put the clamps on and said, you can only sell Nintendo lisenced games. If it doen't have our stamp of approval, then TS.

I think the best solution is to do what Nintendo did. Blizzard should require that all add-ons have the Blizzard approval or they cannot be used in game and they should offer them all on a Blizzard website. There you can access free addons or pay ones. Blizzard takes like 1 dollar out and the rest goes to the game developer. That way Blizzard has full control over the add-ons, the developers get their cut and the end users don't get screwed by messing around with broken add-ons and they can pay for the premium ones.

I have as much of a problem with big companies squeezing every last penny out as much as the next guy, but they do own the software and if it didn't exist, then add-ons wouldn't exist for it either. They should have absolute right to determine what add-ons are usable and not.

God I love the duplicity in this thread. People spout ZOMG OPEN-SOURCE FTW every day on these forums.

Once people pretty much mandate an open-source type methodolgy (Kinda, I mean the end effect is pretty much the same, free to everyone, non-obfuscated code, with the extension of not allowing people to charge for support or spam for donations). People go bat-shit crazy.

The addon market was interesting, albeit hard to impossible to enforce. (Carbonite probably could be easily cracked, the code is all in plaintext).

Blizzard owns a game, and has licensing rights for people to supply 3rd party additions to the game. It is their right, no matter what you asshats say, to dictate the licensing rights.

They made a stand that they want people to only have to pay for the game, and if anyone wants to go out of their way in their spare time to make an addon go ahead. People should NOT try to make a business off of addons.

Quote:

---

God I love the duplicity in this thread. People spout ZOMG OPEN-SOURCE FTW every day on these forums.

---

I don't see the duplicity, I for one support both OS and Commercial software - both have their place in the world and both drive the other to be better. An OS project will die if it sucks and a solid Commercial application exists - and a commercial app would go out of business if it didn't race to stay one ahead of the OS competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Suvega',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189305#post1 89305

(Carbonite probably could be easily cracked, the code is all in plaintext).

---

Yes it is all plain text - and it's all quite well obfuscated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Suvega',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189305#post1 89305

(Carbonite probably could be easily cracked, the code is all in plaintext).

---

That was the issue, it is not in plain text. It is complied LUA with some extra stuff done to it. None of the standard decompilers could decompile it, I know I tried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Caspian',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189357#post 189357

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Suvega',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189305#post1 89305

(Carbonite probably could be easily cracked, the code is all in plaintext).

---

That was the issue, it is not in plain text. It is complied LUA with some extra stuff done to it. None of the standard decompilers could decompile it, I know I tried.

---

Not compiled - that is why no decompilers could touch it. [Edit: sounded insulting, wasn't meaning to be.] The entire thing was a string rolled into an xor function that garbaged it up quite nicely, the code for said xor function is at the end of the horrendous block of text...

Once you get past that you have obfuscated functions like fornextforwtf() and forfor() and shit like that.

Such as...

Code:

---

t={}
s,u,x=strbyte,strchar,bit.bxor
for n=1,(#z-1)/8 do
local a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i=s(z,n*8-7,n*8+1)
t[n]=u(x(a,b),x(b,c),x(c,d),x(d,e),x(e,f),x(f,g),x(g,h),x(h,i))
end

---

Anyways off that lil tangent... Requoting myself to emphasize the important bit...

Quote:

---

Blizzard owns a game, and has licensing rights for people to supply 3rd party additions to the game. It is their right, no matter what you asshats say, to dictate the licensing rights.

They made a stand that they want people to only have to pay for the game, and if anyone wants to go out of their way in their spare time to make an addon go ahead. People should NOT try to make a business off of addons.

---

Just because the method for creating the 3rd party additions is using a public language (LUA), doesn't mean that it isn't a licensed 3rd party addition to a proprietary game.
Guess what, C / C++ / Java / Etc are all public domain languages, but that doesn't mean anything against the legal implications of licensing.

Not taken as being insulting, no worries :D. Now I have to dig more.

Quote:

---

t={} s,u,x=strbyte,strchar,bit.bxor for n=1,(#z-1)/8 do local a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i=s(z,n*8-7,n*8+1)t[n]=u(x(a,b),x(b,c),x(c,d),x(d,e),x(e,f),x(f,g)
,x(g,h),x(h,i))end loadstring(table.concat(t))()z='

---

was just about the only things I pulled out with a unix strings

let me take a peek now, thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Caspian',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189376#post 189376

Not taken as being insulting, no worries :D. Now I have to dig more.

Quote:

---

t={} s,u,x=strbyte,strchar,bit.bxor for n=1,(#z-1)/8 do local a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i=s(z,n*8-7,n*8+1)t[n]=u(x(a,b),x(b,c),x(c,d),x(d,e),x(e,f),x(f,g)
,x(g,h),x(h,i))end loadstring(table.concat(t))()z='

---

was just about the only things I pulled out with a unix strings

let me take a peek now, thanks

---

If you take a look the whole thing starts with z='{garbage for miles}' then one of these xor functions to decode and a loadstring to make the new code.

If you crank down into that another level you'll find the highly obfuscated code with the forforifthen type functions and even more xor encoded crap later on... after finding the 3rd layer to the onion I quit hacking at it.

Oh, and they did something that really fucks with my editor unless I put word wrap on, then it behaves ok... If I recall correctly there are also some non-printable characters encoded (like backspaces and such) to make it even more fun to unwrap by hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'zanthor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189380#post 189380

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Caspian',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189376#post 189376

Not taken as being insulting, no worries :D. Now I have to dig more.

Quote:

---

t={} s,u,x=strbyte,strchar,bit.bxor for n=1,(#z-1)/8 do local a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i=s(z,n*8-7,n*8+1)t[n]=u(x(a,b),x(b,c),x(c,d),x(d,e),x(e,f),x(f,g)
,x(g,h),x(h,i))end loadstring(table.concat(t))()z='

---

was just about the only things I pulled out with a unix strings

let me take a peek now, thanks

---

If you take a look the whole thing starts with z='{garbage for miles}' then one of these xor functions to decode and a loadstring to make the new code.

If you crank down into that another level you'll find the highly obfuscated code with the forforifthen type functions and even more xor encoded crap later on... after finding the 3rd layer to the onion I quit hacking at it.

Oh, and they did something that really fucks with my editor unless I put word wrap on, then it behaves ok... If I recall correctly there are also some non-printable characters encoded (like backspaces and such) to make it even more fun to unwrap by hand.

---

that is control characters so if you cat or more or less (unix of course) it wacks your terminal. echo ^v^o saves me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'zanthor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189193#post 189193

Quoted
Please provide a source for your claim that the Blizzard UI and it's APIs are free.

Lua is free under the MIT license. It can be used for any purpose, including commercial purposes, at absolutely no cost.

The Blizzard API's are documented and published for the end users to utilize. I don't need to source this as if it were not true, no UI mods would work and this discussion would be completely moot. The Blizzard UI as it natively exists is copyrighted.

---

I never disputed the status of Lua. It's not relevant to my point. If you want to argue my points, you need to stop dragging unrelated things into your argument in an attempt to prove me wrong.

Documentation and publication do not grant any license to the API within the game. The reason there are addons in the game is that Blizzard currently allows them but you don't have any right beyond what they allow you to do. Unless you have a contract or a license stating you have anything more than that, you are confusing lack of prevention with permission. Not locking a door may let someone into your house, but it doesn't give them a right to enter.

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html

Here is the first two lines of the of the EULA (emphasis mine)

Quote:

---

THIS SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD. BY INSTALLING, COPYING OR OTHERWISE USING THE GAME (DEFINED BELOW), YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO INSTALL, COPY OR USE THE GAME.

---

Section 2.c (emphasis mine)

Quote:

---

You agree that you will not, under any circumstances:

C. exploit the Game or any of its parts, including without limitation the Game Client, for any commercial purpose, including without limitation (a) use at a cyber cafe, computer gaming center or any other location-based site without the express written consent of Blizzard; (b) for gathering in-game currency, items or resources for sale outside the Game; or (c) performing in-game services in exchange for payment outside the Game, e.g., power-leveling;

---

You've never been allowed to charge for addons, they're just making their stance clear now.

Section 4.a (emphasis mine)

Quote:

---

All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Game and all copies thereof (including without limitation any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, character inventories, structural or landscape designs, animations, sounds, musical compositions and recordings, audio-visual effects, storylines, character likenesses, methods of operation, moral rights, and any related documentation) are owned or licensed by Blizzard.

---

The API is not free. It never has been. It is owned and licensed by Blizzard. End of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Suvega',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189305#post1 89305

Blizzard owns a game, and has licensing rights for people to supply 3rd party additions to the game. It is their right, no matter what you asshats say, to dictate the licensing rights.

They made a stand that they want people to only have to pay for the game, and if anyone wants to go out of their way in their spare time to make an addon go ahead. People should NOT try to make a business off of addons.

---

Amen! There are a good deal of people that think the Addon APIs are "free as in beer", but don't realize that there are licensing terms. Yes, you own your addon code, but that doesn't mean you have any rights to run it inside WoW beyond the ones Blizzard grants you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Suvega',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189305#post1 89305

Just because the method for creating the 3rd party additions is using a public language (LUA), doesn't mean that it isn't a licensed 3rd party addition to a proprietary game.
Guess what, C / C++ / Java / Etc are all public domain languages, but that doesn't mean anything against the legal implications of licensing.

---

Requoting you since you have it right and people need to read this.

Now if you want to discuss whether Blizzard should have the legal rights they do, then you want to discuss IP law, but it doesn't change the current situation.


- Souca -

Take an addon such as Quest Helper.

Let's assume the author decides to quit his day job and solely develop this addon as his source of livelihood.
Assume he values his time to be worth "xx/hr" and his living expenses to be "Y".
He adds the "xx/hr" value to the "Y" value and comes up with his cost per month to live and develop the addon "Z".

Now he creates a link on his website for download of the addon.
The link opens a window, where you can choose to donate to paypal, but are not obligated to do so at all.
It also has a window for email notification.

Once optional donations total "Z" or more, everyone who chose to receive notification is given the download link.
At which point you can download the addon.
Until the amount agreed to be donated reaches "Z" no one is actually charged.

I'm not arguing this would work, but asking if this was the model used, what would Blizzard's response be?
Basically, its free and not charged for, but if completely optional donations are not sufficient, it is not offered.
Still not charged for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ualaa',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189438#post18 9438

Let's assume the author decides to quit his day job and solely develop this addon as his source of livelihood.

---

Then he has made a huge mistake. I know you are trying to provide a method to allow people to get past the whole "no charging for addons", but the belief that you can legally make money by developing addons for WoW is a fallacy. The EULA prohibits profiting from WoW , so unless you negotiate something with Blizzard beyond the standard terms of the EULA, you have no right to sell your addon for use in the game.

You have never been able to profit from addons. While everyone is bemoaning how developers like Carbonite have lost a revenue stream, you should really be thinking how lucky they are that they haven't faced legal action from Blizzard for any sales. Blizzard could have sued them and been well within their rights, but instead they stopped it before things grew. Feel free to think I'm apologizing for Blizzard, but Carbonite never had any legal right to charge for their addon.

- Souca -

Quote:

---

Blizzard could have sued them and been well within their rights

---

Thats far from settled, we have to see how the Courts deal with the situation.

Blizzard has the right to profit from their work.

Don't you also have the right to profit from YOUR work?

I notice WoW has Orcs. There were no Orcs before JRRT....

Quote:

---

Which book was cited "greatest of the century" in several British polls? Which first two films of a trilogy grossed more than $1.8 billion worldwide? What author sold at least 100 million books -- 11 million in the United States alone last year -- and also wrote what has been called "the world's most popular work of fiction"?


If you're thinking Ulysses, Star Wars, or J. K. Rowling, think again. The answer to all three is John Ronald Reuel Tolkien and his much beloved, misunderstood, and now massively marketed The Lord of the Rings.

---

Blizzard themselves are profiting from the work of others, legal or not, by tapping a 100 million person potential market.

[quote='Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189505#p ost189505]
[quote]Blizzard could have sued them and been well within their rights[/quote]

Thats far from settled, we have to see how the Courts deal with the situation.
[/quote]

The court case you are likely referring to is not relevant to this. Read the EULA I referenced. That's enough to prevent this. Next.

[quote='Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189505#p ost189505]
Blizzard has the right to profit from their work.

Don't you also have the right to profit from YOUR work?
[/quote]

I don't have the right to violate Blizzards rights. I was never given the right to profit from addons, in fact the licensing terms expressly prohibit it. Being ignorant of the license doesn't let me ignore the terms of the license. By creating my work in violation of the terms of the license I've left myself at the mercy of Blizzard. So no, in this case I have no right to profit from my work.

[quote='Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189505#p ost189505]
I notice WoW has Orcs. There were no Orcs before JRRT....
[/quote]

Check your sources. You are wrong. By Tolkien's admission Orc's derived from Beowulf.

From [url='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(Middle-earth)#Tolkien.27s_influences']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(Middle-earth)#Tolkien.27s_influences[/url]:

Quote:

---

Orc is from Old English orcneas, which appears in the epic poem Beowulf and refers to one of the races who are called the offspring of Cain during the initial description of Grendel ("Þanon untydras ealle onwocon,/eotenas ond ylfe, ond orcneas," ll. 111-112). In a letter of 1954 Tolkien gave orc as "demon" and claimed he used the word because of its "phonetic suitability" - its similarity to various equivalent terms in his Middle-earth languages.[1] In an essay on Elven languages, written in 1954, Tolkien gives meaning of 'orc' as "evil spirit or bogey" and goes on to state that the origin of the Old English word is the Latin name Orcus — god of the underworld.[2]

---

Next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189505#p ost189505

Quote:

---

Which book was cited "greatest of the century" in several British polls? Which first two films of a trilogy grossed more than $1.8 billion worldwide? What author sold at least 100 million books -- 11 million in the United States alone last year -- and also wrote what has been called "the world's most popular work of fiction"?


If you're thinking Ulysses, Star Wars, or J. K. Rowling, think again. The answer to all three is John Ronald Reuel Tolkien and his much beloved, misunderstood, and now massively marketed The Lord of the Rings.

---

Blizzard themselves are profiting from the work of others, legal or not, by tapping a 100 million person potential market.

---

The fact that Tolkien derived fiction makes lots of money isn't relevant; it has no bearing on license terms. Furthermore your attempt to imply that Blizzard is in violation of copyright laws from "profiting from the works of others" shows your lack of understanding how copyright laws work. Should I provide you with the legal tests used to determine if a work is considered derived, or merely inspired?

The "100 million person potential market", what's that about? People like fantasy so the rules are different? Would it matter if it was a market 100 billion or just 10? It's irrelevant either way; stop attempting to sway people with emotion and "big numbers". Please use facts.

- Souca -

As your above quote verifies the word "orc" did not exist before tolkien. WoW uses the word "orc" not "orcneas". I understand that Blizzard is not in legal violation of copyright laws, yet they are stealing from Tolkiens work (legally). Blizzard added work to Tolkiens work, as well as 1000's of others, purposly taking advantage of a large built in audience. They really have little moral standing as to claiming others are ripping off their "original" work. You are not going to suggest that WoW does not use ideas first seen in EQ or fantasy characters used extensivly in other works for years before Blizzard was even a company.


There has been no real test of the EULA. Ya some have been upheld by Courts in the past, but not to a stright up challenge to their legality. There is no signature nor even a digital signature involved. Plus there are other avenues of attack as well.

Quote:

---

licensing terms expressly prohibit it

---

As a Landlord I could make a contract stating that you cannot complain about poor conditions. Such contract would be tossed out by the Courts as unenforceable. Merely putting words on a peice of paper dosn't make it law. As I say the whole issue is far far from settled.


So your point is that people don't actually own their characters, regardless of the work they put into creating them?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc, the usage of "orc" was observed before Token popularized it.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that orcs in warcraft were apparently derived from the ones in warhammmer, (noting the green skin and oversized, fanged mandible) which were derived from Gary Gigax's use of them in Chainmail/DnD, which were inspired from Lord of the Rings, which was taken from various old fairy tales and legends, etc.

Of course, my only concern is why Orcs in game are always hunched over when they are previously depicted as standing straight. Did the whole population suddenly get Scoliosis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189657#p ost189657

As your above quote verifies the word "orc" did not exist before tolkien. WoW uses the word "orc" not "orcneas". I understand that Blizzard is not in legal violation of copyright laws, yet they are stealing from Tolkiens work (legally). Blizzard added work to Tolkiens work, as well as 1000's of others, purposly taking advantage of a large built in audience. They really have little moral standing as to claiming others are ripping off their "original" work. You are not going to suggest that WoW does not use ideas first seen in EQ or fantasy characters used extensivly in other works for years before Blizzard was even a company.

---

We don't say "thee" anymore either. Tolkien was a linguist, he advanced the language. Words can be trademarked, not copyrighted. Using words like "stealing" is an attempt make an emotional point, please stick to law and logic. You disputed Blizzard's legal rights based on Tolkien work having precident, yet now you admit they did nothing illegal; what are you trying to prove here?

They aren't taking a "moral stand" on other ripping their work off. You are implying that is the basis for what they are doing. I stated they had the legal right to do so. Once again you turn to morals in an attempt to make an emotional argument. I'm making a legal argument which you challenged, not an ethical or moral one.

Additionally you continue to argue based on the content in terms of story. The heart of the issue is the API. Did Tolkien invent the Blizzard UI and API? How are Orcs relevant to people violating a licensing agreement by charging for use of a work based on said API?

I'm suggesting nothing about the source or inspiration of Blizzard story or fantasy world. You brought it up. I merely pointed out a factual error you made regarding the origin of Orcs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189657#p ost189657

There has been no real test of the EULA. Ya some have been upheld by Courts in the past, but not to a stright up challenge to their legality. There is no signature nor even a digital signature involved. Plus there are other avenues of attack as well.

---

There doesn't have to be a challenge for a EULA to be enforceable. Just because something hasn't been tested in court doesn't give you the right to ignore it. Until law is overturned or interpreted by the courts it's still law. Even if you don't like it.

What are you referring to with signatures? Other avenues of attack? I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Would you mind clarifying for me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189657#p ost189657

Quote:

---

licensing terms expressly prohibit it

---

As a Landlord I could make a contract stating that you cannot complain about poor conditions. Such contract would be tossed out by the Courts as unenforceable. Merely putting words on a peice of paper dosn't make it law. As I say the whole issue is far far from settled.

---

No, you can't. There are laws that dictate tenant rights. There are also laws that dictate contract law. There is no court decision that invalidates the EULA so it stands. Your insistence that a contract or law must be tested by the courts before it is valid is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189657#p ost189657

So your point is that people don't actuall own their characters, regardless of the work they put into creating them?

---

I never stated that. However, according to the terms of the license you agreed to when you install the game and the license you agree to when you log on to the online service, you are correct. You do not own your characters. Period. You accepted those terms voluntarily; there was no duress. It's a valid contract.

- Souca -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189657#p ost189657

so your point is that people don't actually own their characters, regardless of the work they put into creating them?

---

You do NOT own your character. You're paying for access to Blizzard's services, not to purchase a toon. I think that's crap but that's the way it is.

Quote:

---

There doesn't have to be a challenge for a EULA to be enforceable. Just because something hasn't been tested in court doesn't give you the right to ignore it. Until law is overturned or interpreted by the courts it's still law. Even if you don't like it.

---

The only place you can "enfoce" it is in Court. ....

Look up "contract of adhesion", thats one possible way to attack the EULA.

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

And general contract law requires a signature. If I state that if you reply to this post you owe me $1,000,000 and that your act of replying to this post constitutes a legal contratual obligation would that hold up in Court. Doubtfull as you never signed a contract to prove you agreed to its terms. Makeing actions into contratual agreements well lol ....

Notice adult web sites are now required digital signatures to veryify age. If simply agreeing that "I am over 18" by clicking on the web site access button was a legal contratual obligation then there would be no need for digital signatures then would there?

http://www.abanet.org/scitech/ec/isc/dsg-tutorial.html

See, e.g., U.C.C. § 3-401 (1990) (a person is not liable on an instrument unless the person signed it); see generally U.C.C. § 3-104 (1990) (requirements for negotiability).



If MDY wins in the Court of Appeals its going to make it a lot harder for Blizzard to make claims against addon providers who sell their product. Lets not forget its Blizzard that allows the end users to use the API calls used in the add ons.

The bigger issue is a legal system still in the stone age on the nuances of technology, digital rights and online media. The case against [the application that shall not be named] only proves it with the whole "it copies the game into RAM and therefore it's illegal" argument.

Shrink wrap contracts
Courts in the United States have faced the issue of shrink wrap contracts in two ways. One line of cases follows ProCD v. Zeidenberg which held such contracts enforceable (eg. Brower v Gateway [4]) and the other follows Klocek v. Gateway, Inc which found them unenforceable (eg. Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. [5]). These decisions are split on the question of consent, with the former holding that only objective manifestation of consent is required while the latter require at least the possibility of subjective consent.

As you can see courts are split as to whether shrink wrap contracts are enforceable. EULA is the same thing basically.

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

Except for the 2nd and 7th Circuit all these cases upholding the clickwrap (thats what the EULA is) are low courts with no value. Thus only the 2nd and 7th Circuit is where it is law that ELUA is enfoceable, its a open question everwhere else in the United States.

The OP was about Blizards new policy of prohibiting addon makers from charging for their work.

Please notice the title of the Thread: "Addons free from now on, per Blizzard"

The OP wondered if it was also applicable to 3rd Party Products, such as Keyclone.

To determine if Blizzard has the right to prohibit addon makers (and thus possibly 3rd party software people like Keyclone) from charging for their work one has to look at the EULA.

To determine if the EULA is a legal contract one has to look at contract law.

Gotta love arm chair lawyers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Fursphere',index.php?page=Thread&postID=189732#po st189732

Seriously? Do you not realize this?

---

Sadly... probably not.

Obviously that is the case.

Are you saying that Blizzard cannot legally prohibit users from using Keyclone because it can be used for other purposes because

Quote:

---

Keyclone is a stand alone product that is in no way related to WoW or Blizzard or ANY game

---

?

THAT has NOTHING to do with the OP...

Blizzard has no right to NOT ALLOW Keyclone to charge for his service.

D-B.com could make some serious money off Blood Pressure Pill adverts on the site. Coming here and reading utter stupidity is enough to put my blood pressure through the roof.

Can we fastforward 2 weeks when this whole topic is forgotten about by generally everyone?

This is just Blizzard's lawyers re-writing their CYA paperwork. The poster above was correct in saying that it's been technically against the Eula/ToS even before this ruling. This is just rewording it to make it more clear and explicit.

Do I agree with it? Not in the slightest. It's just making Blizzard look more elitist.
Do I think that anything much will come out of it? Probably not.

To say that it's wrong to make money off of WoW is just ignorant. Keyclone makes money off of WoW. This website and many others make money off of WoW (to varying amounts through advertisements or donations). WoWhead and other websites make money off of WoW (go figure).

None of this change "currently" effects me and depending on how much they enforce it, may never affect me or the majority of the population. Especially if Blizzard only uses it as a trump card sometime down the road when some addon or specific 3rd party program comes out that starts making decent profits off it (ala WoWGlider reporting 1.5 million in revenue).

Who cares about obfuscated code? Seriously, if you are digging through the code for fun, then good for you but that's your perogative. If you are searching for big bad viruses or naughty code trying to be the e-police, then WHY ARE YOU DOWNLOADING CODE FROM UNTRUSTED SITES!? (Caps lock used for emphasis, not cool factor) If you don't trust the site enough that you have to investigate the code, then your probably getting into something you shouldn't. Again, I don't bother wasting my time looking at the code behind the programs that I download from trusted sites and I don't download addons from untrusted sites. If I want to stare at code, I'll stare at my MB scripts.

And stop bringing up who invented Orcs as an argument. Everyone knows that Jesus invented Orcs way before anyone. He also invented Gnomes too, when he was drunk of course. :)

Edit:

Quote:

---

Are you saying that Blizzard cannot legally prohibit users from using Keyclone because it can be used for other purposes because

Quoted
Keyclone is a stand alone product that is in no way related to WoW or Blizzard or ANY game

?

---

The way things are right now, no they cannot. If you want to get into the "Sky is falling" thought process, the only way that Blizzard could go after KeyClone Legally would be if Blizzard revised their Eula/ToS to make using key replicating software against the rules, changed warden to detect KeyClone and other key replication programs, and THEN having KeyClone modify the program specifically to evade detection by Warden. THEN, blizzard MIGHT have a case against KeyClone. Even then, it's only breaking one of the many arguments that went against MDY in that case.