Blizzard Abuses Copyright Law

[GameBanshee News]

The Inquirer takes a look at the Blizzard-vs-Glider case and mistrusts some of the developer's argumentations.

The World of Warcraft licence agreement explicitly forbids the use of programs like Glider. Blizzard claims that Donnelly's enabling users to breach its licence.

However, Blizzard is also claiming that, because its licence prohibits the use of programs like Glider, Glider users are also committing copyright infringement every time they load their copy of the WoW client software into RAM to play it.

If the court accepts Blizzard's position, Glider users could find themselves liable for statutory damages which might start at $750 for every time they use Glider.

Blizzard's argument would also give software vendors the right to prohibit the use of any and all third-party software that interoperates with their products.

But WoW players each own their copy of the client software, and Section 117 of the Copyright Act says they all have the right to copy it -- that is, load it into RAM -- if that's necessary to use the software, which it is.

Blizzard argues that its WoW players don't own their copies of the WoW client software, but merely licence them. But courts have held that whether or not a user is an owner under Section 117 depends on the substance of a transaction, not just how one party describes it.

If you buy a copy of piece of software, install and use it on your own computer, and don't have to return it to the vendor when you're finished with it, that likely means you own it.

Spotted on MMOWatch.

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by GameBanshee News

Blizzard argues that its WoW players don't own their copies of the WoW client software, but merely licence them. But courts have held that whether or not a user is an owner under Section 117 depends on the substance of a transaction, not just how one party describes it.

If you buy a copy of piece of software, install and use it on your own computer, and don't have to return it to the vendor when you're finished with it, that likely means you own

's exactly what we were talking about, Xandax.

Funny coincidence.

Blizzard has a fairly good case here, too, but the Inquirer might be right in thinking it sets a bad precedent.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Brother None

's exactly what we were talking about, Xandax.

Funny coincidence.

Indeed

I seriously hope Blizzard is able to nail Glider bad, but the logic that users only licensee the software I doubt is a an agreement which many punters (or myself) agreed too up front. And as mentioned in the other thread, it would amongst others conflict with danish business law in terms of contracts.

[Brother None]

Well, if they win this it would only set precedent for US law, which would no doubt be overturned upon review by a higher court (does anyone know what court is handling this case anyway? State court?), but it doesn't affect us Euries directly either way.

Still, bad precedent. I have no problem with Blizzard hunting down the bots on their servers, but we still should be careful around such legal arguments.

Good editorial from the Inquirer, really.