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

[Svpernova09]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12...v-blizzard-wow
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...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 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.