[WOW] Glider author lawsuit

[xmod2]

If Blizzard simply rot13'd the variables that Glider needs to manipulate, wouldn't Glider's operation then be in violation of DMCA?

I can't imagine that Glider doesn't have to break or circumvent some kind of encryption on Blizzard's product in order to operate.

Seeing how the ONLY function of the Glider software is to perform this function, I can't imagine they have much of a defense, particularly since they made profit on it.

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Would be scary if they were able to get a copy of the customer list tho. :O

[Malakriss]

Blizzard wins lawsuit on video game hacking | Tech News on ZDNet

Blizzard already won a prior lawsuit that sets a precedent for this type of case. No reverse engineering, no unofficial private servers, and no security circumvention. In order for Glider to exist he had to (1) reverse engineer WoW, (2) devise a means to circumvent the Warden security, and (3) design his program for use on official servers against Blizzard's TOS/EULA/server policy/account agreements.

That's the infringement part that Blizzard will win, and what's worse is that he made a significant profit off of it. I guarantee he never offered Blizzard a single dime either. He will lose and he should lose, he's just making sure there's a precedent specifically set against it.

[Wilfan]

Glider does not facilitate help you "circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work", so DMCA is moot the way you interpret it. What Blizzard says is that Glider breaches copyright because it loads WoW on different memory address than WoW would by itself. Blizzard argues that a) runtime image of the program in memory is a copy protected by copyright laws and b) an image at different memory address is a different copy than the one they "sold" you.

bnetd very clearly facilitated copyright infringement (it allowed people who haven't owned a copy to play Warcraft/Starcraft online), so that is not a cut and dried precedent.

That's the copyright violation allegation, but there are two more.

[Horse]

Originally Posted by rangoth

how many people banned went out and bought a new copy thus making Blizzard money....

Stating this is a surefire way to sound retarded.

While you might pretend that the folks reaping the slow-burn, nickle and dime profits from botting light their cigars with cash and have no problems with just buying another copy, by and large the black market has no qualms about going into a store and opening a box or gamecard to grab the code out of it.

That said, even the mere concept that your game is plagued with squinty eyed peasants who'll do anything to feed their starving family is more damaging than the assertion that Blizz - or any company - sees it as acceptable loss.

About the only thing they gain from it is the publicity surrounding it, and obviously inflated subscription numbers.


Glider has nothing to do with encryption and asserting that it must or else it wouldn't be able to work is a hard sell. This smells like they're going to get cash drained to the point that every dime that was ever made from Glider will be lost to setting some obnoxious tech-law nonsense precedent where this is important because one day the children will want freedom to explore the hard, cold mass-consumerist netspace.


Hey guys, this is about using some fucking program to cheat at an online game. Of course it impacts business. The fact that it is somewhat nebulous as to what extent glider specifically caused lost revenues is irrelevant. I'm sure they'll come up with something that'll appease the powers that be... will this decision make online games worth dick when you consider the bogus meta-game of corruption that is always there? Nah, not 'til there's far more bandwidth available.

[Rayne]

Originally Posted by rangoth

Blizzard will not be able to prove he broke any copywrite laws(since he didn't) so that is dead in the water.

Actually, he did. If you read the link to thier summary judgement motion above, you'll see that:

specifically:

In this Circuit, the “copying” element may be proved in software cases by showing an unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted software program in the computer user’s Random Access Memory (“RAM”). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “the loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the Copyright Act.” MAI Sys. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 519 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. dismissed 510 U.S. 1033 (1994); Triad Sys. Corp. v. Se. Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330, 1334 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 478 F. Supp. 2d 607, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (agreeing with the “numerous courts [that] have held that the transmission of information through a computer’s random access memory or RAM . . . creates a ‘copy’ for purposes of the Copyright Act,” and citing cases.) When such a copy is made in excess of a license, the copier is liable for copyright infringement. Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Techs., Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (‘“When a licensee exceeds the scope of the license granted by the copyright holder, the licensee is liable for infringement.”’ (citation omitted)).

What that means is, Blizzard is saying that the glider launchpad is what is loading WoW into ram to avoid detection. And thats clearly not the "intended" usage of the software. A bit further it explains:

In order to avoid easy detection and blocking of Glider by Blizzard’s anti-cheat technology, Glider users rely on Glider’s “launch pad” to initiate the start up and loading of WoW into RAM. Clearly, Glider users’ loading of WoW into RAM creates a copy for purposes of the Copyright Act.

THAT is the cruxt of Blizzard's argument. And a very strong one at that. Personally, I think glider guy is fucked.

[gnomad]

Originally Posted by Punko

You can be sure he changed the name, so that the argument that Glider is only for WoW, which has a EULA not allowing such hence making it illegal, doesn't hold.

You can't spread software with only one use, when that use is forbidden in the only way the software can be used, that much I know. Selling it is illegal.

Doubt whether changing name will have much effect.

Another person that has no clue as to legality.

Lets make it quite simple for simple minds: VIOLATION OF A EULA IS NOT ILLEGAL SINCE CORPORATIONS DO NOT WRITE LAW. A EULA IS NOT A LAW, THEREFORE VIOLATION OF SAID EULA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CRIME, HENCE IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

As to whether it is even enforcable in contract law is arguable since it does not fulfill all the classic requirements of a contract (offer, acceptance, renumeration, etc).

[Horse]

Originally Posted by Rayne

What that means is, Blizzard is saying that the glider launchpad is what is loading WoW into ram to avoid detection. And thats clearly not the "intended" usage of the software. A bit further it explains:

I took it to mean that it has nothing to do with intended usage of the software, it is that a part of WoW goes into RAM so essentially glider contains a part of WoW at it's operational core.

I take it as similar to if I build a software called HorsePhotoShop and part of what it does is load photoshop for me to do whatever I want with.


So, he's doubly-super-duperly fucked because he is (1) using an illegal copy of WoW to (2) bypass WoW's anti-cheat system in order to (3) allow cocksuckers to cheat.

Good riddance.

[Punko]

Originally Posted by gnomad

Another person that has no clue as to legality.

Lets make it quite simple for simple minds: VIOLATION OF A EULA IS NOT ILLEGAL SINCE CORPORATIONS DO NOT WRITE LAW. A EULA IS NOT A LAW, THEREFORE VIOLATION OF SAID EULA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CRIME, HENCE IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

As to whether it is even enforcable in contract law is arguable since it does not fulfill all the classic requirements of a contract (offer, acceptance, renumeration, etc).

I'm sure you are much more knowledgeable then me in this field, that clearly shows from the size of your symbols.

Other then that, I do believe signing an agreement and then not respecting it would be illegal.

[Angerz]

Originally Posted by Punko

I'm sure you are much more knowledgeable then me in this field, that clearly shows from the size of your symbols.

Other then that, I do believe signing an agreement and then not respecting it would be illegal.

Breaking a contract and breaking the law are not equal.

[Itzena]

Originally Posted by gnomad

As to whether it is even enforcable in contract law is arguable since it does not fulfill all the classic requirements of a contract (offer, acceptance, renumeration, etc).

Except, you know, the case which Blizzard had previously won which set precedent that their EULA is a legally-binding contract?

Originally Posted by Angerz

Breaking a contract and breaking the law are not equal.

So breach of contract has no legal ramifications?

[Twobit Whore]

Legal is such a broad term. You could be sued for breaching a contract but it's not automatically a criminal offense unless you break an actual law.

[Jait]

Originally Posted by Itzena

Except, you know, the case which Blizzard had previously won which set precedent that their EULA is a legally-binding contract?

It applies to contracts that change and evolve over time? Wow. Kinda sucks to sign something that can, you know....change constantly. Like all EULA's do. Then again, maybe you're a lawyer while I'm definitely not. But I thought I knew what the word "precedent" meant. Maybe you just meant to say it applied in that one instance?


If not. Here sign this paper, I'll add the rest in later....

[Malakriss]

The Glider users are Eliot Spitzer, the creator is the whore. The particular sex acts aren't in the public domain and they were performed only in Blizzard hotels who made it clear they were not welcome. Normal WoW users are the people staying in adjoining rooms with extremely thin walls. Extra revenue generated would be from the degenerate perverts who rent a room next door to masturbate furiously when this is all going on.


Real life analogies own.

[Rayne]

Originally Posted by Jait

It applies to contracts that change and evolve over time? Wow. Kinda sucks to sign something that can, you know....change constantly. Like all EULA's do. Then again, maybe you're a lawyer while I'm definitely not. But I thought I knew what the word "precedent" meant. Maybe you just meant to say it applied in that one instance?


If not. Here sign this paper, I'll add the rest in later....

It's like this:

The EULA/TOU, while not a "criminally" binding contract, is a "civilly" binding contract. Meaning that once you agree to it, you agree to certain civil recourse should you violate the terms of that agreement. It CANNOT ask you to waive your own rights, but it CAN change to allow for additional agreements deemed necessary by the contract writer.

If i'm not mistaken, each time its changed you have to click through it again to make a new agreement.

[TKarrde]

Originally Posted by Zorlac

Jon Lech Johansen moved to the US a few years ago for a job (he moved back to Norway since). He was one of the DeCSS developers. AFAIK he was never arrested in the US but in Norway, and freed and cleared of charges of course. He reverse engineered a bunch of other DRM stuff since then like Fairplay, Play4Sure and other stuff.

I think you are thinking about the Dmitry Sklyarov who was arrested in the US at some conference for reverse engineering some Adobe shit.

Whoops. Got the two cases mixed up. My bad.

Originally Posted by Punko

How could blizzard lose this ?

Do you really believe they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that they suffered losses due to Glider ?

That Glider has no other function then an illegal one ?

If its proven that the guy sold 100k licenses, he is going to lose the money from that, then some extra for the unaccounted ones, and then some for the act of setting up this activity itself.

To bad your courts don't work faster

Them suffering losses due to glider doesn't mean anything. They could demonstrably prove that they've suffered losses due to Counter Strike and Call of Duty. That doesn't mean it's illegal.

And the Glider author does not have to accept the EULA to have created the bot. He is not bound by the EULA. The people using the bot are. I can write a program for windows without ever having used a windows operating system. The documentation required exists.

If he buys the game, takes out the DVD, extracts the files onto his computer, etc, he can then look at them without ever installing the game - without the EULA ever coming up.

Originally Posted by xmod2

If Blizzard simply rot13'd the variables that Glider needs to manipulate, wouldn't Glider's operation then be in violation of DMCA?

I can't imagine that Glider doesn't have to break or circumvent some kind of encryption on Blizzard's product in order to operate.

Seeing how the ONLY function of the Glider software is to perform this function, I can't imagine they have much of a defense, particularly since they made profit on it.



Would be scary if they were able to get a copy of the customer list tho. :O

No, for a very specific reason: that effectively controls access to a work

Glider does not allow people who would otherwise be unable to access WoW use WoW. You have to be able to use WoW previously for it to work. That part of the DMCA is meant for cracks, etc, to make programs work that you would otherwise be unable to access.

Originally Posted by Rayne

Actually, he did. If you read the link to thier summary judgement motion above, you'll see that:

specifically:



What that means is, Blizzard is saying that the glider launchpad is what is loading WoW into ram to avoid detection. And thats clearly not the "intended" usage of the software. A bit further it explains:



THAT is the cruxt of Blizzard's argument. And a very strong one at that. Personally, I think glider guy is fucked.

The LaunchPad, however, launches WoW. It doesn;t just simply load the program into the RAM. The reason WoW gets loaded into the RAM is because WoW is being run - LaunchPad itself did not load it. The WoW process did.

Blizzard is banking on the judge being unable to distinguish the difference. If he can, then Blizzard will have won a victory that they shouldn't have, and properly fucked the computer development community. If the judge can, however, they will lose, just like they should.



And again, guys, the EULA is irrelevant. The glider author did not ever, at any point in time, HAVE to sign a EULA to create the program. Only the users have to agree. There is no proof at all that the glider author ever accepted Blizzard's EULA. All he would have to do to bypass having to accept the EULA is having other people test the work, give him offsets, etc.

The Glider users have to have agreed to the EULA. There is nothing saying the Glider author did.