[Unnamed botting program] PWNT

[Tehtsuo]

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.

[zanthor]

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.

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.

[Schwarz]

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.

[Bradster]

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.

[Tehtsuo]

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.

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.

"Well, tough shit. Nobody added your business to the list of protected species, despite what your lobbyists and lawyers say."

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.

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.

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?

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

[TheBigBB]

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?

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.

[Tehtsuo]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[TheBigBB]

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.

[Tehtsuo]

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.

[Rin]

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.