Blizzard responds to amicus brief in MDY bot suit

by Brenda Holloway Jun 30th 2008 at 1:00PM

Last month, digital rights advocacy group Public Knowledge filed an amicus curaie -- "friend of the court" -- brief regarding Blizzard's argument that a user making a memory copy of the World of Warcraft software for purposed of using MDY's Glider program to bot violated their terms of use and their copyright. Public Knowledge noted that loading legally obtained software into the memory for purposes of running it is explicitly allowed by copyright law. The judge required Blizzard to respond to the argument last Friday, and Virtually Blind has Blizzard's response.

The basic argument that Blizzard makes is that the software is only rented and that they control and license every allowable use, and every non-allowed use (by their license) is copyright infringement. (Public Knowledge points out that this would mean using non-allowed names, or communicating in game with a member of the opposing alignment, is also copyright infringement).

Do you feel when you buy a game or other software that you are buying the software -- and can therefore do what you like with it, regardless what some EULA allows -- or do you feel the publisher of the software retains all rights to that box and the particular copy of the software you have licensed? This goes beyond WoW and beyond video games entirely.

Tags: blizzard, glider, legal, mdy, public-knowledge, world-of-warcraft, wow

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Brian! said on 1:33PM 6-30-2008

I understand software companies want to protect themselves, I get that.

The concept that my software I buy is "rented" makes me ill. If I am renting the software, then it should say "FOR RENT" in all the stores, not "FOR SALE".

And this goes for all software. These days term for nearly any software that requires any sort of activation seems to indicate that you are just renting their software for a limited time. Well, I wish there was more clarity in most consumer experiences. Warranties can be a load of crap too, especially extended ones. What the sales person tells you and what you get are often very different things.

Back on subject... I can see that Blizzard wants to protect their game, but I don't think they will win this bot war. With such a big game, there are too many people out there who can make their own bot software and likely there is probably a lot of open source bot software too flying around. The more Blizzard fights it, they more they inadvertently challenge programmers to best Blizzard. Then you end up with thousands of young, adventurous programmers looking to create the ultimate Bot program... Yea... Blizzard will win that fight, heh.

Of course, Blizzard can take up the sue everyone tactic. Isn't that working great to curtail the distribution of DVDs, TV shows and music? Right?

Kyane said on 1:53PM 6-30-2008

They won't take up the sue everyone tactic, but they will go after the big offenders as it only makes sense. It not only hurts their bottom line, but the players that have to deal with the botters.

As per the licensing, the only thing you're buying is the media and the license to run the game by the software companies rules. Anything beyond what they specifically allow you to do with their software is technically against the EULA.

I understand not liking the idea of "renting" software, but as a programmer I have to protect my livelyhood somehow. There will always be hackers, there will always be those that find a way around things or to get things easier or to get them for free, and I'm not going to dispute that. It's when that method makes a somewhat significant impact on the companies profits or possible profits ( ie what happened with Napster ) is when you will see companies take action. While I'm sure profit margins are somewhat behind the reasoning for Blizzard to go after this, I think it also has to do with problems that these botters cause the existing customer base, and that's where Blizzards real money is at.

John said on 1:53PM 6-30-2008

Yep. I do. When i buy a toaster i can add an internet connection to it. When I buy a PS3 I can take it apart and urinate on it. When I buy a car I can put a trash can muffler on it. Exatly the same thing with software. Screw Blizz.

Kyane said on 1:55PM 6-30-2008

Tony said on 2:35PM 6-30-2008

If it's being rented, I shouldn't even have to pay for the software at all. I should just be able to download the client and pay my monthly fee.

I don't know much about legal things here, but ethically speaking some of this seems a bit off to me.

Arkanaloth said on 2:41PM 6-30-2008

on the one hand.. the rights of the individual end when they infringe on the rights of the whole... so the intention of the action has to come into play. The act of making a memory copy is not that big a deal, the intent is what makes it a problem and potentially against the TOS.

~HOWEVER~ Tony does make a GOOD point, if the software is "just rented" then why is there an upfront cost AND a monthly fee?

Newton said on 3:34PM 6-30-2008

The Rental Argument is bogus and here's why:

Since the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990, it is illegal to rent computer software, unless you get strict permission from the publisher. Now because of this, it can safely be assumed that the consumer, when they go to a store to purchase said software, they are indeed purchasing it, because the availability to "rent" that software is extreamly rare.

Therefore, while they may own the code and the right to use such code, claiming that "software is only rented and that they control and license every allowable use," is at best distorting the rights granted upon purchase of software. If that was the case, couldn't they prevent users from uninstalling said software, claiming it is not within the user's rights to do that?

I suspect the court will side against Blizzard on this, if only that otherwise it could very well upset the basic meaning of copyright, and fair use in the software industry.