http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7645059.stm
This is great news for the industry in my opinion.
Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7645059.stm
This is great news for the industry in my opinion.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Aethon',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129337#post1 29337
the implications for software licensing is very troubling, however
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.
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.)
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:
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
I know I made it sound like it, but for the record I don't believe in the slippery slope argument in this situation. I have more faith in justice than that. I simply don't think the US judicial system should in any way be involved with an EULA dispute. The absurdity of EULAs in online games has really turned into a mockery lately, and that's why this ruling ticks me off like it does. Mythic's recent decision to show the EULA every time you boot Warhammer and force users to "read" it is a demonstration of said absurdity. The idea that even one user out of a thousand actually reads that heap of legal flotsam is laughable, and Mythic has decided that "for legal reasons" the EULA document will continue to be displayed every time you log in.
How many of you have read (for comprehension, not for pleasure) a EULA in entirety. I consider myself fairly detail-oriented and legal-minded, but I have not found it in myself to read one in full.
The resources consumed are not gold or virtual mobs, but real world electricity, server capacity and bandwidth. Blizzard charges based on the fact that each account is going to consume a certain percentage of their bottom line in expenses, botting drives that up by being online 24/7. It also causes an increase in customer support incidences as they are reported, investigated, etc. Other resources consumed are the programmers working on Warden, anti-cheating code, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Tehtsuo',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129363#post 129363
There was a court injunction against glider going open source. This could mean that I write a program and I can't share this b/c some company says it might interfere with their product. Kind of a scary idea that you can't share YOUR creation for free with other people if someone has a problem with it.
I'm glad that they got nailed and it's nice to see a win for Blizzard. However, Looking at the big picture, i'm not entirely sure I agree with the ruling and payout aspect of it. Fact it's a bit scary if you really look in to it.
"Well, tough shit. Nobody added your business to the list of protected species, despite what your lobbyists and lawyers say."Quote:
Originally Posted by 'zanthor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129410#post 129410
Sorry, I love that line. If Blizzard wants to protect the integrity of their environment so be it, but Warden, anti-cheating code, etc are where they need to do so, Not in our legal system. Also, I argue that Blizzard's charges are not solely based on upkeep. Upkeep, customer support, and technical work such as design and programming are a factor in your monthly fee, but first and foremost they are charging for entertainment value. Even with a very massive upkeep pricetag it would be very difficult to justify 15$ per user per month - however, Blizzard is not a non-profit so they don't have to justify it, they just have to keep from claiming they only charge for upkeep.
Lets say I create a program that interfaces with Microsoft Outlook to help consumers manipulate their email for instance. Let's say it goes into Outlook's memory space to perform its function. Should Microsoft be able to take me to court?Quote:
There was a court injunction against [self-censored botting program] going open source. This could mean that I write a program and I can't share this b/c some company says it might interfere with their product. Kind of a scary idea that you can't share YOUR creation for free with other people if someone has a problem with it.
Bradster, I'm of the same mind. I played FFXI long enough to see how completely malicious users can ruin a game, so I'm glad to see a game company putting on a hard face. However it's tough to avoid that slippery slope argument when we're dealing with a legal precedent. :S
Yes, if they can prove a damage done to their company, especially if that damage resulted in another's profit. Blizzard will win this case because they can almost definitely prove a damage is caused to their product through people botting.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Tehtsuo',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129443#post 129443
How definitely though? Could you prove that Blizzard experienced damage to their product? I'm talking about conclusive evidence, keep in mind. If not, we're talking about a lawsuit over someone else making a profit - a copyright issue - which is where this lawsuit ended up. Did the defendant copy and distribute Blizzard-owned software? I doubt it, but in this case the Judge did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'TheBigBB',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129470#pos t129470
Disclaimer: I'm probably pressing a few people's buttons here, so I apologize in advance. I'm debating for fun, not because I want to hurt anyone's feelings. I can tell you conclusively where I'd stop arguing for fun: If Blizzard were to turn a hungry legal department towards Keyclone after changing their EULA to outlaw multiboxing, based on the precedence of this case. Keyclone does not violate copyright, but from my point of view neither did [unnamed botting program] according to my knowledge of computers, so I'm uneasy about the ruling. This is so unlikely to happen that it makes me laugh: unlike botting, Blizzard has never voiced any negativity about multiboxing. Blizzard is not the worry here, the power of a legal precedent and the threat it could mean to legitimate coders is.
Keyclone is not botting or even close to it. Keyclone is affecting how your computer sends signals to the programs it has running, not actually affecting the programs themselves. If Keyclone could be sued then you couldn't even have computers anymore because everything would be outlawed.
I agree with you, my concern is that a judge faced with a case using this as a precedent might not.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'TheBigBB',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129501#pos t129501
I'm just going to add my two cents here:
The End User License Agreement (EULA) in itself is a legally binding explicit contract between you and Blizzard (I'll refer to them as the COMPANY). Although no signature is required, clicking the "I agree" button constitutes as acceptance of the contract. It is implied (during the time of acceptance), that you have read the contract and agree to the terms. This particular EULA, §. 12, 12.1 discusses Equitable Remedies. For those who are unfamiliar with the companys stance on equitable remedies, "You hereby agree that Blizzard would be irreparably damaged if the terms of this License Agreement were not specifically enforced, and therefore you agree that Blizzard shall be entitled, without bond, other security, or proof of damages, to appropriate equitable remedies with respect to breaches of this License Agreement (§ 12)".
Furthermore, §14.f discusses Governing Law.
Except as expressly provided otherwise, this License Agreement shall be is governed by, and will be construed under, the Laws of the United States of America and the law of the State of Delaware, without regard to choice of law principles.
These elements alone, expressly permit the company to sue anyone who violates the terms discussed within the EULA. It is the right of the company to handle any disputes related to their product, World of Warcraft, in a judicial court. The software manufaturer of the [botting] program, clearly violated several lucid terms of the EULA and therefore have failed to comply with the standards set forth by the company. The EULA would permit the company, for example, to sue you or I for using the Glider client, but instead, the Company has spent their money on their network infrastructure and personnel who help to ban accounts in question. Banning, is Blizzards policy on "policing" their game. The Company has taken the appropraite steps by employing personnel that can handle the "policing" process. The company has failed to react in whole, or in part, on behalf of independent corporations gleaning money off of their end product. This is Blizzards restitution, and on these premises, I believe that they'll continue to progress in the court system.
Ok, so where do multiboxers fit into your theory? People still report us constantly, which requires time and effort to investigate whether we're multiboxing or using some other program. Same with Warden, etc. Additionally, there are people that MB 10 characters. Most botters I've known (and this is previously being one myself and frequenting the glider forums) only bot at most 1-2 accounts. Even if they stayed on 24/7 (which they don't, believe me, it's a fast way to a ban) they would still take up less total bandwidth then a multiboxer. Also, while many botters will run BG's, no one bots arenas. Arenas take up a bit of resources themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'zanthor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129410#post 129410
And the fact that they base it on estimated usage is crap. Has my subscription price gone up when they reached 5 million players? 10 million? Will my subscription price go down when WoW declines to 1 million in the future? I don't think so.
Botters represent as small of a community as multiboxers (probably why some people ask if we're bots) the impact to the WoW economy is negligable, as noted after every single banwave. Primal prices didn't go up (as one would expect after a reduced supply) they stayed the same or reduced in some cases.
Try reading the arguements and testimonies for Blizzard, you'll laugh yourself into next Tuesday.
To compare botting and multi-boxing in their impact, you need to look at the online time vs subscription.
Take a 5boxer. Assume for simplicity that he plays all the time that he can, while not sleeping or working. Assume 7h sleep, 10h work including lunch and commuting. That leaves 24-17=7h playtime per day. Times 5, times 4.33 is 151h per month on weekdays. Add 20h playtime for weekends, allowing for shopping and other things you don't get around doing in the house. 20x4.33=86.6h. The total would be 237.6h. Scary, eh? However, when looking at the total amount of hours in the month, this is put into perspective: 24h per day, 7 days a week, 4.33 weeks per month equals 727.44h per month. That leaves our five boxer online 32% of the time.
To summarize: 5boxer. 32% online. Paying 5 accounts.
Take a botter. Assume for simplicity that the botter will run his character 24/7 when he does not need the account to play himself.
To summarize: 1botter. 100% online. Paying 1 account.
Certainly you can see how automation in this example consumes more bandwidth and creates more server load per subscription?
I quite agree that the 5boxer consumes 160% of the resources that the botter uses, but that is across five separately paid accounts and would be the same if five people would be paying and playing just like regular single-boxer players.
Price for upkeep of the game scales with amount of people playing. More servers, more bandwidth, more customer support.
I think we have all seen bots run 24/7 until the next ban wave comes. I wouldn't care if it would be the case, but I think that even clear botting is not insta-banned. Instead Blizzard puts these accounts on the list for the next 500.000 cheaters to be thrown out of the game. But that can be months later. Now, if I should be wrong about this assumption and bots running 12/7 to simulate a school kid's usage are not getting banned while the 24/7s are, that just validates the point I made above about the online time being the key concern.
Ok so what if blizzard changed there thinking about multiboxing. They change their EULA saying that keyclone/autohotkey/etc can not be used in game. They then go on to sue keyclone and he has to pay $10 million. Would you feel the same way?
If the terms of the contract had changed, we would be forced to agree to a new EULA. Pursuant to the new sections in the Blizzard EULA (specifically, if a new section were added explicitly stating that programs like AutoHotKey and Keyclone could not be used), Blizzard would have the right to collect on damages AFTER the change in contract. The most likely outcome would be that Blizzard would send a cease and decist letter to the makers of the products that violate the EULA. If the product manufacturers decided to ignore the letter, then Blizzard would have a right to collect on damages (again, citing breach of the said EULA).Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Schwarz',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129814#post 129814
You're assuming Blizzard would not litigate based on the current incarnation of the EULA, which it could do based on this precedent. It would be a slightly more shaky case, but certainly workable, and very likely enough to cause Keyclone considerable hardship regardless of the outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Rin',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129818#post1298 18
For that matter, if Blizzard did change their EULA, would you notice? It's going to pop up with the next patch like it always does - is anyone here planning to read it through from top to bottom? It would seem that it might be a good idea now, if they change policy Keyclone could find himself looking down the gun barrel because his users didn't read the fine print.
@Tehtsuo -
Yes, I would notice if the EULA had changed. Pursuant to my Juris Doctorates degree, and having a background in Computer Engineering and Mathematics, I've read (skimmed to the important parts; they're usually always in the same spot) it a couple of times.
In the past, I've also been involved in writing documents similar to Blizzard's stated EULA for a couple of different independent software vendors. From a business perspective, I would argue that Blizzard is simply trying to pursue this lawsuit to eliminate a corproation which thrives off of undermining their game. The integrity of Blizzard's World of Warcraft is an intangible thing that Blizzard truly cares about (hence why Blizzard bans and suspends people for simply cussing in their public channels). I would argue that a program like Glider ends up costing Blizzard money in the long run, as Blizzard employs people to keep track of accounts in question. Blizzard has a department for handling account closures as well as suspensions. As you are well aware, people don't work for free, and this lawsuit marks the beginning of a new era for gaming corporations. This lawsuit gives Blizzard the right to collect on damages to their game (again, all Blizzard has to do is show salaries being paid to N-employees, along with their specific job function, as a result of the Glider program). Programs like Keyclone, on the other hand, don't reap their profits solely off of Blizzard's game; as Keyclone can be used for a myriad of other purposes. While you may make the argument that Glider can be used for other purposes, its primary function is for the World of Warcraft game.
Guys, keep in mind, keyclone operates via an internet verification system on startup, so all he'd have to do to completely disable all but hacked copies of keyclone is turn off the key server. No way Blizz could sue him for the same sort of damages they did that other guy, especially since that other hack program was always illegal, whereas keyclone is specifically not against the ToS according to Blizzard today.
If blizzard gave Rob a cease and dissist notice and he ignored it...Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Schwarz',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129814#post 129814
If blizzard made regular changes to detect and stop keyclone and rob went out of his way to circumvent these and mask the use...
etc...
Yes. I'd feel the exact same way.
On the other hand, if Blizzard told Rob to stop, I'd be pretty confident that he would make KeyClone not work with WoW.
It hasn't always been agianst the EULA, they added that many months after release when they institued Warden. But that's beside the point I wanted to make: Blizzard has said Keyclone, etc is okay to use, it's not specifically in their EULA and all it requires is a reversal of opinion to get it to stop. And, of course, it shouldn't be an issue unless, as someone else said, he continued to develop the program and ways to circumvent Blizzard/detection.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID=12983 2#post129832
Yes, it's good for now, but keep in mind that anything is subject to change. Just because one thing is ok now doesn't mean it'll always be that way. I wouldn't worry about anybody getting sued if they disallowed Keyclone, but there would still be a lot of upset multiboxers.
The "other program" also uses a verification system on startup, pretty much all bot software does since by its very nature it attracts hackers and pirates, and so they have to develop anti-pirating measures themselves (kind of ironic, the cheaters having to worry about getting cheated!)Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID=12983 2#post129832
Two salient points: 1) EULAs are tricky, there was no EULA when you purchased the Blizzard box at the store, only after you installed the software and ran it. Its been argued successfully before in court (Softman vs Adobe) that the whole purchase software vs license thing is not fully valid when the EULA is not on the actual physical box.
2) People always forget that your character, account, etc are all the property of Blizzard. At any moment in time they could decide they no longer want you as a customer, and suspend/ban your account. Countless people have been banned for things like "economy manipulation" (playing the auction house), playing too much, having too much gold, and of course more valid reasons like botting, letting asian companies level them, sharing accounts, racial slurs, etc.
Tomorrow Blizzard could decide that keyclone is against the EULA and ban all of us for using it/Octopus/etc, and we would have little recourse. Hopefully it won't ever happen, but people need to remember that Blizzard is always 100% control who can play and how, and all our conjectures and opinions on what is allowed and what isn't, doesn't amount to much.
Heh, my point was that the guy that developed that hack program continued to circumvent WoW code designed to prevent that, whereas Rob would just turn it off if Blizzard declared it illegal. Really less an issue of mechanics as much as my saying that Rob, being an upstanding guy, has the means to disable his product as soon as it became Officially Bad(tm) so they'd never have grounds to pursue him the way they did the other guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'puppychow',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129889#po st129889
Sounds like glider needed a better EULA maybe then they wouldn't of been on the hook. I am not a law expert and I think that is the problem with most EULA's they require an education in law to fully understand.
I go back to my orginal point. It is a scary thing that I can write a piece of software and possibly not even give it away. Pretty sure this falls under the freedom of speech rights.
Not exactly a standard among WoW players, you know :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 'Rin',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129831#post1298 31
Lol, that'd be a rough argument to win, honestly. Can't think of what other functions [botprog] could have. (Can I just call it [botprog]? I'm getting tired of censoring myself, everyone knows what we're talking about, and I believe it's shut down but I might be wrong?)Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Rin',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129831#post1298 31
I just checked, still selling the program for $25 and a monthly sub for "more features" for $5/month...Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Tehtsuo',index.php?page=Thread&postID=129917#post 129917
Bleh, talk about poking the dragon. Editing posts for censorship....
If Blizzard decided, for example, to go after keyclone and outlaw multiboxing, wouldn't they have to ask him to stop first? Wouldn't taking him to court based on what his program has been used for prior to Blizzard deciding they don't want it be the same as a law taking effect ex post facto, which can't happen?
However, if Blizzard decide to start banning accounts instead of taking legal action, they have every right to do this. According to the EULA, your account and characters are the property of Blizzard, and you can be banned at any time for any reason, at Blizzard's discretion.