http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7645059.stm
This comes after the first set of claims were resolved in July 2008. The amount of damages to be paid may change subject to the outcome of an appeal against some charges that were resolved in MDY's favour.
The case is due to go to court in January 2009, when the remaining issues should be settled.
·Theme
- Forums
- World of Warcraft
- General Discussion
- Blizzard awarded $6m damages from MDY
Blizzard awarded $6m damages from MDYFollow
Wow...I completely forgot about this case.
Go Blizz! Though 6 Million is pocket change for them at this point...
Go Blizz! Though 6 Million is pocket change for them at this point...
More money for Blizzard means better games for us!
GodOfMoo wrote:
Wow...I completely forgot about this case.
Go Blizz! Though 6 Million is pocket change for them at this point...
Go Blizz! Though 6 Million is pocket change for them at this point...
Simply due to the fact that you cant ever get $6 million in cash in your pocket ;)
And I think it's more the $6 million in damage to MDY than the profit for Blizzard that matters to them.
Wowzr's Batman!
That's like.....well lets see:
10,000,000 Active account for Warcraft
$14.95 per account monthly
10,000,000
X 14.95
________________
$149,500,000
And they received 6,000,000 in damages. lol
That's like.....well lets see:
10,000,000 Active account for Warcraft
$14.95 per account monthly
10,000,000
X 14.95
________________
$149,500,000
And they received 6,000,000 in damages. lol
dbernor wrote:
Wowzr's Batman!
That's like.....well lets see:
10,000,000 Active account for Warcraft
$14.95 per account monthly
10,000,000
X 14.95
________________
$149,500,000
And they received 6,000,000 in damages. lol
That's like.....well lets see:
10,000,000 Active account for Warcraft
$14.95 per account monthly
10,000,000
X 14.95
________________
$149,500,000
And they received 6,000,000 in damages. lol
Except Blizz licenses the game out in China and other regions and the actual cost to play is not 14.95 there, but yeah kind of like that if you have an elementary understanding of accounting.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
And I think it's more the $6 million in damage to MDY than the profit for Blizzard that matters to them.
The pleasure is all in the pain I think. Per the article, MDY made somewhere in the vicinity of $2.5 million from their bot, so yeah, if you were thinking of getting into the botting business, you might think twice about doing so.
Six million is a lot of money, but the biggest benefit for all of us may be from the deterrent effect this case will have on botters, goldsellers, and other cheats.
Three cheers for the U.S. judicial system!!
Blizzard probably is barely breaking even with the legal fees and time spent dealing with this matter. And as stated above, it is most certainly a bigger hit to the Glider folks than it is lining the pockets of the stockholders.
Interesting Bodh, I just always assumed the price to play WoW was standard for everyone. Never really thought about it......
Anyone know what the pricing differences are for the various regions?
Anyone know what the pricing differences are for the various regions?
In the UK, the cheapest option is to pay on a 6-monthly basis and the cost is £46.14 (roughly $15 per month). I'd assume that most people aren't taking advantage of this rate but paying monthly for gamecards or subscription, which is more expensive.
dbernor wrote:
Interesting Bodh, I just always assumed the price to play WoW was standard for everyone. Never really thought about it......
Anyone know what the pricing differences are for the various regions?
Anyone know what the pricing differences are for the various regions?
Last I heard, pricing on the Asia servers was on a per-time basis, so you pay for XX number of hours online.
(personal theory: that's one part of why the chinese raid progression always goes so fast, because if you go afk, you're paying extra for the time you're afk)
Even within the US, though, the price is different. I.E. Game Cards, Blizzard sure doesn't get the full face value of those, the distributors and retailers want some cut of that. There's also the 3-month and 6-month recurring billing plans that have lower per-month costs.
They're still making a lot, though.
Considering how Blizz caters to their legitimate playerbase they're probally in their offices cheering and slapping each other's backs. Fewer bots = less gold farmers = happier players = more money for Blizz in the long run.
Excellent news. I hope Glider's author enjoys washing windscreens for pennies.
Except this win is still terrible news because it sets a frightening precedent for what does and does not constitute copyright infringement.
There are some things more important than "ZOMG BOTTERZ" and intellectual property laws are one of them.
There are some things more important than "ZOMG BOTTERZ" and intellectual property laws are one of them.
Placeholder wrote:
Except this win is still terrible news because it sets a frightening precedent for what does and does not constitute copyright infringement.
There are some things more important than "ZOMG BOTTERZ" and intellectual property laws are one of them.
There are some things more important than "ZOMG BOTTERZ" and intellectual property laws are one of them.
Could you elaborate, please? How does this judgment threaten intellectual property laws? This judgment is for MDY (essentially) encouraging players to break the ToU and the EULA.
BBC News article wrote:
The case is due to go to court again in January 2009 when the remaining issues in the legal conflict look likely to be settled.
At issue will be whether MDY broke the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act and whether Mr Donnelly will have to pay the damages from his own pocket.
At issue will be whether MDY broke the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act and whether Mr Donnelly will have to pay the damages from his own pocket.
The really big stuff still to come, it seems to me...
Rykhorne wrote:
Could you elaborate, please? How does this judgment threaten intellectual property laws? This judgment is for MDY (essentially) encouraging players to break the ToU and the EULA.
The way that Blizzard won the case was through some scary slippery-slopish interpretations of the law.
Basically the way it went is this: Blizzard argues that since in order to play World of Warcraft, you need to load the program (or at least portions of it) into RAM - and this constitutes copyright infringement. However you are exempt from this copyright infringement if you adhere to Blizzard's EULA - therefore if you use a bot you not only break the EULA, you are now guilty of criminal copyright infringement.
The essence of the concern here is that Blizzard is saying that but for the existence of a EULA, simply copying a program into RAM is copyright infringement.
I could see where you're coming from in that this isn't a persecution of the botters themselves but for MDY encouraging (or providing the means for) players to violate the EULA. But the fact remains that this is only a valid case in light of the ruling that breaking the EULA violates a copyright and is criminal in nature (whereas I believe that while breaching the EULA should certainly be grounds for a ban and perhaps a swift kick in the balls, it shouldn't cross over into the realm of criminality)
Edited, Oct 1st 2008 3:39pm by Placeholder
It's not worth the effort to find out how much Blizzard makes (by yourself using basic and rounded numbers) unless you look up their ledger. I'm not entirely sure how to look it up though.
I posted this information on the main news page with credit to Leodis for the find, as well as a link to this thread. http://wow.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=15230
Admiral Placeholder wrote:
Rykhorne wrote:
Could you elaborate, please? How does this judgment threaten intellectual property laws? This judgment is for MDY (essentially) encouraging players to break the ToU and the EULA.
The way that Blizzard won the case was through some scary slippery-slopish interpretations of the law.
Basically the way it went is this: Blizzard argues that since in order to play World of Warcraft, you need to load the program (or at least portions of it) into RAM - and this constitutes copyright infringement. However you are exempt from this copyright infringement if you adhere to Blizzard's EULA - therefore if you use a bot you not only break the EULA, you are now guilty of criminal copyright infringement.
The essence of the concern here is that Blizzard is saying that but for the existence of a EULA, simply copying a program into RAM is copyright infringement.
Edited, Oct 1st 2008 9:20pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Admiral Placeholder wrote:
Rykhorne wrote:
Could you elaborate, please? How does this judgment threaten intellectual property laws? This judgment is for MDY (essentially) encouraging players to break the ToU and the EULA.
The way that Blizzard won the case was through some scary slippery-slopish interpretations of the law.
Basically the way it went is this: Blizzard argues that since in order to play World of Warcraft, you need to load the program (or at least portions of it) into RAM - and this constitutes copyright infringement. However you are exempt from this copyright infringement if you adhere to Blizzard's EULA - therefore if you use a bot you not only break the EULA, you are now guilty of criminal copyright infringement.
The essence of the concern here is that Blizzard is saying that but for the existence of a EULA, simply copying a program into RAM is copyright infringement.
So basically Blizz had better lawyers than the other guys?
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Almost completely wrong, this is actually not what the ruling says at all. It's not the copying into RAM that constitutes the copyright problem. After all this is after all the definition of running a program. The copyright stuff is involved with changing and manipulating what goes into the ram,
Incorrect.
You can check out the court documents yourself.
In particular here are points of interest:
page 5 wrote:
Ninth Circuit law holds that the copying of software to RAM constitutes “copyingâ€
for purposes of section 106 of the Copyright Act. MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.,
991 F.2d 511, 518-19 (9th Cir. 1993). Thus, if a person is not authorized by the copyright
holder (through a license) or by law (through section117, which will be discussed below) to
copy the software to RAM, the person is guilty of copyright infringement because the person
has exercised a right (copying) that belongs exclusively to the copyright holder.
for purposes of section 106 of the Copyright Act. MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.,
991 F.2d 511, 518-19 (9th Cir. 1993). Thus, if a person is not authorized by the copyright
holder (through a license) or by law (through section117, which will be discussed below) to
copy the software to RAM, the person is guilty of copyright infringement because the person
has exercised a right (copying) that belongs exclusively to the copyright holder.
And here's the ruling:
page 16 section D wrote:
The Court reaches the following conclusions on the basis of undisputed facts,
construction of the EULA and TOU, and controlling Ninth Circuit law: Blizzard owns a
valid copyright in the game client software, Blizzard has granted a limited license for WoW
players to use the software, use of the software with Glider falls outside the scope of the
license established in section 4 of the TOU, use of Glider includes copying to RAM within
the meaning of section 106 of the Copyright Act, users of WoW and Glider are not entitled
to a section 117 defense, and Glider users therefore infringe Blizzard’s copyright.
construction of the EULA and TOU, and controlling Ninth Circuit law: Blizzard owns a
valid copyright in the game client software, Blizzard has granted a limited license for WoW
players to use the software, use of the software with Glider falls outside the scope of the
license established in section 4 of the TOU, use of Glider includes copying to RAM within
the meaning of section 106 of the Copyright Act, users of WoW and Glider are not entitled
to a section 117 defense, and Glider users therefore infringe Blizzard’s copyright.
Edited, Oct 1st 2008 9:41pm by Placeholder
Sorry, I wasn't really clear. You post made it seem (to me) as if the game files being transferred into RAM when you ran the program was being termed as copyright infringement. This is not the case in this situation, although I can see how it could be confusing. If this is not your position I apologize. Yes the copying of the program by glider, as well as the manipulation of it once it's in RAM is being considered copyright infringement. I can't remember for sure at this point, but I think that actually glider did all it's copying once the program was in ram, but I could be wrong about that, it's been a while since I read into this.
I suppose precedent is dangerous and if people interpret this in different ways it could have unintended consequences.
Edited, Oct 2nd 2008 12:45am by Xsarus
I suppose precedent is dangerous and if people interpret this in different ways it could have unintended consequences.
Edited, Oct 2nd 2008 12:45am by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Sir Xsarus wrote:
You post made it seem (to me) as if the game files being transferred into RAM when you ran the program was being termed as copyright infringement. This is not the case in this situation, although I can see how it could be confusing.
Well this is exactly the argument Blizzard is making:
page 10 sec 4B(ii) wrote:
When WoW users employ Glider, therefore, they act outside the scope of the
license delineated in section 4 of the TOU. Copying the game client software to RAM while
engaged in this unauthorized activity constitutes copyright infringement.
license delineated in section 4 of the TOU. Copying the game client software to RAM while
engaged in this unauthorized activity constitutes copyright infringement.
According to them, since we only have permission to load WoW into RAM while engaged in the contract outlined in WoW's EULA and ToU, and by using a botting program one voids one's agreement with Blizzard and nullifies this contract, any copying of the game files (including loading it into RAM to play) constitutes copyright infringement.
Exactly. As Placeholder described earlier in the thread, breaking the terms of the EULA crosses over into illegality rather than just rule-breaking as having game files loaded onto RAM at that point has now been classified as copyright infringement. It's still good news for Blizzard i guess. But cases which explore new territory of legislation like this often set precedent.
Just to note that Blizzard havent bee awarded any damages at all. 6 million is the figure that will be payable should it be determined that damages are liable. That is, both parties have agreed that if there are to be any damages, they will be $6M exactly. Issues of liability can still be appealed. But, issues of what the damages should be are no longer in dispute. This means that Blizzard and MDY can both keep their legal costs down. Instead of sniping about damages (spending $10 to prove $1 in damages), they can keep their lawyers arguing a handful of core legal issues.
In Loving Memory of SatanWantsMe 2006-2008
SWM Wiki | Journal | What I am listening to right now
SWM Wiki | Journal | What I am listening to right now
Admiral Placeholder wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
You post made it seem (to me) as if the game files being transferred into RAM when you ran the program was being termed as copyright infringement. This is not the case in this situation, although I can see how it could be confusing.
Well this is exactly the argument Blizzard is making:
page 10 sec 4B(ii) wrote:
When WoW users employ Glider, therefore, they act outside the scope of the
license delineated in section 4 of the TOU. Copying the game client software to RAM while
engaged in this unauthorized activity constitutes copyright infringement.
license delineated in section 4 of the TOU. Copying the game client software to RAM while
engaged in this unauthorized activity constitutes copyright infringement.
According to them, since we only have permission to load WoW into RAM while engaged in the contract outlined in WoW's EULA and ToU, and by using a botting program one voids one's agreement with Blizzard and nullifies this contract, any copying of the game files (including loading it into RAM to play) constitutes copyright infringement.
It's not the copying into ram that violates the millenium act. It's the reverse engineering/disassembly/decompilation of the program that does. Without having broken the millenium copyright act through those illegal acts, MDY would not know what locations to get the information necessary to have the bots act like they do. If Blizz wins on that count, then MDY can be shut down for good.
Recent Visitors: 22
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (22)
- Forums
- World of Warcraft
- General Discussion
- Blizzard awarded $6m damages from MDY
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC