Blizzard Sues Starcraft II Cheat Creators Under Dubious Copyright Theory
from the fleeting-copies dept
Video game company Blizzard often appears to be a study in contrasts. At times, it seems to recognize the changing nature of the technology landscape, embracing scarcities, giving people reasons to buy and even coming out against DRM. But, at the same time, it tried to retroactively ban anonymity in its forums, and has been notoriously litigious, even going after organizations who promote its games.However, perhaps the most troubling (and highest profile) issue involving Blizzard is its lawsuit against a guy who made a bot for doing things within World of Warcraft. While we recognize that such things can be used to "cheat," the problem was Blizzard's attempt (successful so far) to drastically stretch the meaning and intent of copyright law, to suggest that making such a bot infringes on its copyright. Beyond the basic questions of how the decision in the case was at odds with the basic concepts of the First Sale doctrine, the real problem was that nothing the bot does actually violates copyright law. The judge had to seriously twist both the letter and spirit of copyright law to come to that conclusion (and if you don't want my analysis on it, try copyright expert William Patry's, who noted):
The critical point is that WoWGilder did not contributorily or vicariously lead to violating any rights granted under the Copyright Act. Unlike speed-up kits, there was no creation of an unauthorized derivative work, nor was a copy made even under the Ninth Circuit's misinterpretation of RAM copying in the MAI v. Peak case. How one might ask can there be a violation of the Copyright Act if no rights granted under the Act have been violated? Good question.While the appeal in that case is still ongoing, it appears that Blizzard is using that precedent to go after more folks who have made tools for "cheating." The company recently banned thousands of players from Starcraft II for allegedly using such cheat codes, but reader Jay was the first of a bunch of you to point out that it's also suing three creators of cheat codes using the same dubious claims of copyright infringement.
To get to its result, the court had to first find that WoW, even though sold over the counter, was licensed not sold. In so finding, the court declined to follow the recent Vernor opinion in the Western District of Washington, believing it had to follow other Ninth Circuit precedent. I agree with the Vernor court that the other precedent (MAI, Triad, Wall Data) do not hold that over the counter software is licensed, not sold. (WoW may be purchased online too, but I don't think this changes the analysis.). Having found there was license not a sale, there still had to be a breach of the license in order to permit an infringement action to lie, and recall here that the claim is not one for direct infringement, but rather secondary liability; there was no privity between the parties. There was in fact no provision in the license that barred use of WoWGlider. The court took the extraordinary step of stitching together two unrelated provisions to create one. You have to read it to believe it, but it took the court 8 pages to go through this hard work, and why? Was the court offended by what it regarded to be cheating? If so, God help us if law is being reduced to such subjective, non-statutory grounds.
Now, let me make it quite clear: I completely understand why Blizzard and many players of Blizzard games hate cheat codes and find them unfair and damaging to the overall gameplay. However, even if you think such cheats and hacks are the most evil thing out there, you have to admit that it's no excuse to misuse copyright law to punish the makers of those cheats, knowing that the end result could be precedent that negatively impacts all sorts of other things online. So what is Blizzard claiming specifically? Well, to make this a "copyright" issue, they're claiming that:
When users of the Hacks download, install, and use the Hacks, they copy StarCraft II copyrighted content into their computer's RAM in excess of the scope of their limited license, as set forth in the EULA and ToU, and create derivative works of StarCraft II.Pick apart that sentence carefully. In order to make this a copyright issue, Blizzard is claiming that (1) running a cheat code violates the EULA and the ToU (the fine print no one read) and (2) once you've violated the EULA and the terms of service, you no longer have a license for the game ("excess of the scope of their limited license") and, because of that (3) when you copy aspects of the game in a fleeting manner into the computer's RAM, it violates the copyright.
Hopefully, you can see how problematic this is. Thankfully, for now, other cases (in a different circuit, I believe, so non-binding on the Blizzard cases) have found that fleeting copies in RAM are not considered infringing, and hopefully the courts here agree, and toss out this kind of tortured logic that could lead to all sorts of other ridiculous rulings. If Blizzard is allowed to make these claims, then any software/content company that offers you a long license, where you don't obey each and every claim, can say you've infringed on their copyright and owe huge statutory damages.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: abuse, copyright, eula, starcraft ii, tou
Companies: activision, blizzard
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A little more to add.
2 Canadians
1 Peruvian
So we, Americans, have a foreign libel counter. But how is it that we can expect these three to actually show up for the CA lawsuit that Blizzard has put forth?
Source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah Judges,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah Judges,
Those who stick to the strict and LITERAL meaning of the law: good on ya!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fleeting Copies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fleeting Copies
And if you stream those videos in certain operating systems, the video is actually downloaded to the '/tmp' folder. it's not even a fleeting copy, its a download (one that is erased when you leave the page). Copying that file to a another folder, where it will not disappear when you leave the page, is trivial.
So, is watching a video in linux infringement?
Or are the powers that be going to admit that computers need to copy things to function, and treating bits as if they were atoms is just stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fleeting Copies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fleeting Copies
So that, of course, raised the question of if it's okay to download a file and immediately transfer it to CD - which currently is considered legal here. But since the file is first on your hard drive, it creates a grey area where you are infringing and then no longer infringing. Of course that leads to your question: what about media that is streamed and only exists in RAM or a temporary file? At the moment, we don't have a clear answer on that one...
(it's possible - nay, likely - that I've gotten some details wrong. I'm trying to find the sources I originally had on this to no avail, so if anyone can correct or clarify what I've said please do...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It just means the court has a WoW account and he's had enough with the cheaters using WoWGlider to beat him in everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a bot can play your game, does that make you/players mental level down to a bot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BOT-swana!
Maybe some games were made for bots to play and enjoy! Just because a bot doesn't enjoy mentally challenging activity doesn't mean there is anything wrong with its processor--er, I mean, brain!! Please try to show some species sensitivity (to set a good example--for the children).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if the fun leisurely thing you like to do is programming bots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Object: http://www.techdirt.com/techdirt.js?v=1855-c248
Infection: HTML:Iframe-inf
Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/9qddj.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Object: http://www.techdirt.com/techdirt.js?v=1855-c248
Infection: HTML:Iframe-inf
Thanks, we're well aware of this.
For future reference, please do not use comment threads to report off-topic things like this. The contact us link up top, or Twitter are the best ways to communicate such issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Checkers, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*here a significant number is defined as enough people that the botting creates issues with the rest of the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When lawyers meet tech...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When lawyers meet tech...
yeah that's kind of the point of this. They couldn't LEGALLY combat cheating software, so they found a loophole to make it look like they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Treating bits as if they were atoms is just stupid
I think i would need several storage units if this were the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HEY BLIZZARD
.....and i'll add i bought 2 and im not gonna buy 3 if you require a net connection to play....suing for cheats is retarded PERIOD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't blame blizzard.
If you want to blame somebody, the fault lies solely on the judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't blame blizzard.
No.
Should they even bother ruling in such an apparently frivolously constructed case? No they shouldn't, but that doesn't place blame SOLELY on their shoulders.
For example, when I was a kid and my brother hit me, I hit him back, and he went and cried to Mom, who subsequently punished me, was my mom SOLELY to blame? Or should my brother have been taught some manners as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't blame blizzard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't blame blizzard.
Honestly would you really want to play another game from the same company if you played a previous game, and it went to crap? All because the developer wouldn't listen to the player base when they were unhappy. When it comes to video game the ones that listen to its customers, and make the changes are they ones who keeps making games people want to play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't blame blizzard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(the fine print no one read)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (the fine print no one read)
I know this has also been hotly contested in the past, but I still equate a mouse click with a verbal agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (the fine print no one read)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (the fine print no one read)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (the fine print no one read)
Yes they are. Verbal agreements may be tougher to enforce, and there are some issues related to them, but if you can substantiate the agreement, and the verbal agreement has the elements of a contract, it's absolutely legally binding in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (the fine print no one read)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond that, it is high time that the courts stop siding with companies and these "shrink-wrap EULAs and ToS". It is time to start realizing that the customers OWN the software that we purchase(which we do) and not that companies are "licensing" the software we pay for, to us. Companies are taking too many liberties today, and the U.S. Government, as well as state governments, are letting them do this.
I really enjoy Blizzard games, but I am to the point that I will never give Blizzard another dime. Until everyone else that is against their actions does this, then nothing will change. Everyone that continues to give them money has no right to complain, until they stop giving them support.
No one ever listens, until their pocketbooks are hit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another point of contention - Bobby Kotick
Observe
Thing is, if you look up Kotick, you'll notice that he is demonized for quite a few reasons. 1) He finds ways to monetize everything he gets his hands on. 2) How he runs the video game business is basically sequel upon sequel upon sequel. 3) The infamous "taking fun out of games" speech (September 15, 2009)
Rather than demonize Kotick further, I just leave it to you all to read about him yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its madness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright should protect those guys, not hurt them.
That's the real scary part. Blizzard doesn't need to show that Glider or the SC2 radar or any of those products hurt them. Amend the EULA, file paperwork, seek huge statutory damages.
It's particularly obvious in the SC2 radar because the tools are all open source: Blizzard is using the Copyright Act to *prevent* the free flow of perfectly legal (sans EULA, authored by Blizzard) creative work. It doesn't get any more disgusting than that.
Disclaimer: I am very biased in this case, as easily noted by my name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vernor has a huge effect on MDY v Blizzard, actually.
However, Vernor's precedent will probably mean that WoW customers do not own their copies of the game and thus are not protected by section 117. This is deeply troubling for any integration with shrink-wrap software, as it means the developers of the software can turn add-on developers into copyright infringers with the stroke of a pen.
Just, you know, saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dictate Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]