Slashdot Log In
Who Owns Software?
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue May 06, 2008 01:01 PM
from the can't-interoperate dept.
from the can't-interoperate dept.
SeeSp0tRun writes to remind us of Blizzard's lawsuit against MDY Industries over the Glider cheat. It seems that Blizzard is pushing it even further. They're trying out the legal theory that a software creator retains complete control over how a program is used, meaning that anyone who uses it in a different way could be found guilty of copyright infringement, at $750 a pop. The EFF and Public Knowledge are among the organizations trying to assure that the court doesn't set a really bad precedent here.
Related Stories
[+]
Games: Blizzard Sues Creator of WoW Bot 701 comments
Ponca City, We Love You writes "Blizzard, the makers of World of Warcraft, are suing Michael Donnelly, the creator of the MMO Glider program, which performs key tasks in the game automatically. Blizzard says the software bot infringes the company's copyright and potentially damages the game. 'Blizzard's designs expectations are frustrated, and resources are allocated unevenly, when bots are introduced into the WoW universe, because bots spend far more time in-game than an ordinary player would and consume resources the entire time,' Blizzard wrote in its legal submission to the court. More than 100,000 copies of the tool have been sold while more than 10 million people around the world play Warcraft. Donnelly says his tool does not infringe Blizzard's copyright because no 'copy' of the Warcraft game client software is ever made. The two parties are now awaiting a summary judgment in the case."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Obvious answer! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obvious answer! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, my absurdly ridiculous response is only half as ridiculous as what Blizzard is trying to say here.
Parent
Re:Obvious answer! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a surprising number of cases in my computing life where I've bought a legit license to software, but used the cracked version just because it doesn't fuck with me. In most cases, I don't have anything against the developer, so I don't want to steal from them, but I do not want to be fucked with and pay hundreds of dollars for the privilege.
Since I'm well aware that I'm not exceptional, I have to assume other people do the same thing.
Parent
Re:Obvious answer! (Score:5, Interesting)
After rummaging around, I managed to find the two previous upgrades, but not the original one. They wouldn't do it.
So now I use Final Cut.
You've just screwed yourself out of future upgrade money.
Strong work, Adobe.
Parent
Keygens for purchased software (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember one time with CA i had to actually photocopy all 6 sides of the box and the PO to get anew keycode ( previous IT guy lost them ). I gave up and got a keygen.
Same for windows, i had legit boxes for every workstation on NT4, but used one key for them all. It was just to much trouble to manage. If i ever got audited. 'oops, i i must have typed it wrong, but would you like to see the licenses i have here stored in the safe?'
Parent
Re:Obvious answer! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Obvious Value ! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
How it's used? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Interesting)
More to the point. If someone uses it "right" and hurts someone...
Parent
Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Interesting)
But this would be more akin to the government claiming the right to tell you exactly how you can (and, by implication, how you can't) drive in your car, anywhere, for any purpose.
So if someone drives the way they are told they can, and hits me, does this mean the government is responsible? They claimed the right to be the sole authority of how people can drive...
Basically, my point is that the right to authorize use is similar to responsibility for how it is used under that authorization.
Parent
Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem here is that blizzard sells you the product, *then* wants to tell you how to use it.
A more fitting analogy would be if Ford sold you a car, then told you "but you can't use it on highways, interstates or parking lots, and you must park it in a covered garage", which is BS, 'cause once you bought it it's YOUR car, and you can do whatever you want with it, as long as it doesn't break the law (over which Ford isn't supposed to have any say...).
The worst they can do is refuse to service you or void your warranty if it was explicitly specified before you bought the car, but they can't tell you what to do with your own stuff.
Now, if they're Renting you a car, or leasing it, that's another thing altogether, but then they should clearly advertise it as a rent, and not as a product you buy out of the shelf.
And even when renting, that implies a whole lot of responsibilities from the vendor..
This is all fucked up big time.
Parent
Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Broader effects (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Interesting)
The only problem with the changing copyright law thing is that the corporate controlled Congress will change it the wrong fucking way like they almost always do.
How I would change copyright:
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My idea on how to have stuff fall into the public domain, while appeasing the Disney's of the world:
The initial copyright lasts 10 years and costs $100.
The next 5 years costs $1,000, the next 5 years $100,000, and the next 5 costs $10,000,000 and so on. Every extension costs 100x more than the last. If a product is really worth it to a company to keep in copyright, they can keep it for as long as they like, it's just going to reach a point of b
Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Preserving copyright but trimming it down just won't work. Young people today are used to getting the music, films or (in some cases, like chess resources or language courses) books at no cost through Bittorrent or other Internet resources. This is becoming normal in every country where children grow up with broadband. If you preserve the copyright system, you're going to have a law that you can't enforce until you want to consider the average man a criminal.
Some countries are already adjusting to new real
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, if Blizzard gets their way, then the recording and movie industries will want their way.
Something to the effect that playing a CD on a second CD player after I have already played it on the first CD player is illegal. Or, they'll get it in writing that there is no such thing as fair use, and the act of ripping a legally purchased CD to MP3s is now a Class A Felony.
Absolutely nothing about how governments have handled copyright over the last bunch of years tells me that they wouldn't make the situation even worse. The people who pay the bills have the deck stacked in their favor.
Thee and me? We don't count because we don't contribute enough to their campaigns -- and, they contribute to everyone's campaign.
Cheers
Parent
Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's a license, then where's my copy of the license? When did I sign a license agreement to play my CD?
I signed no agreement and clicked through no EULA. There is no license! With software, the license is debatable; I've been shown where under some circumstances EULAs can be enforceable (although I still doubt it), but when you buy a music CD you own the CD and are free to do anything you wish with it except distribute copies of it.
Downloaded tracks are another matter entirely. When you "buy" from iTunes or any other online "store" you do indeed click an agreement. Rent DRM-infested, lossy music from iTunes instead of buying a CD? Just a bad decicion. Once you have the physical CD you can legally do as you damned well please with it (save distributing copies), including making MP3s for your iPod and copies of it for your car.
Don't swallow the corporate bullshit. You still have a few rights, at least don't fight against them.
Parent
Re:How it's used? (Score:4, Interesting)
Before your change is even signed into law, every major copyright litigation firm will have a thick binder with all the loopholes, possible exploits and workarounds, and every conceivable trick to abuse it sitting in their library.
In some respects, lawyers are very much like hackers.
Parent
Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Interesting)
It really doesn't mean that at all, sorry. First Sale law says that once you buy something you can do whatever you want to it. That's basically the biggest conflict with IP law... which is, er, why we have IP law - specifically to force you to obey certain restrictions on use.
When you buy a piece of furniture, it can potentially be a copyrighted design. You actually don't have the right to reproduce it; if you want a similar product, you are free to design one from a clean room implementation provided that it is not also covered by a patent. You are not permitted to make use of a patented design for your own use. Practically speaking this is not much of a burden on end users. The copyright police are not going to come to your door to find out if you're knocking off counterfeit La-Z-Boys unless you are building a furniture empire on their designs.
That's a public exhibition, in a case in which the work was designed for the purpose. It is, arguably, different - though barring a contract specifying that the work shall not be tampered with, IMO he still should have been laughed out of court.
But the point is, creating a work doesn't automatically entitle you to protection, or the art form of collage would have disappeared entirely by now as all of its practitioners would be imprisoned.
Parent
Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Blizzard of course, can reject your business and has refund plans set up for that, but it's their responsibility to set and/or enforce whatever guidelines that they come up with; not the player's responsibilities.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Funny)
"Use at your own risk" should be sufficient. Remaining wording is just a waste of time.
But I like the following copyright note:
Parent
WTF (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
They're out on a limb here, and the wind is going to pick up shortly. Any EFF lawyer could argue this down in seconds.
By the way, the next paragraph (b) also directly addresses the notion of selling a legally obtained copy of a copyrighted work. It directly and explicitly puts to pasture the idea that you need a company's (like MSFT's) permission to re-sell a singular copy of their software. At least from the standpoint of copyright.
Parent
Retaining control of the usage (Score:3, Insightful)
If a precedent is set to this effect, I would gladly advocate violating the "rights" of everyone involved in this decision. I really cannot understand why people like this are tolerated. Deport them. Imprison them. Kill them. But get rid of them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It had a EULA.
The first sale doctrine was recognized by the Supreme Court five years after the book was printed.
The thing is that for whatever reason, the law has chosen to take a more complicated, nuanced/inconsistent stance on software EULAs. Be that as it may,
Watch for criminal manslaughter charges.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone dies playing it, then it's how they intended the game to function, with manslaughter charges to follow...
Granted, this is an extremist point of view, but if they are going to take charge of how the game is played, then they must take responsibility to all effects the game has on the gamer.
You cannot take the right without the responsibility.
Wow! (Score:5, Interesting)
At what point, does their assertion they can control "how it is used" completely break down and be outside of the realm of copyright law, beyond what you can do in an EULA, and just plain silly.
I would say they've basically gone into the plain silly category. But, who knows. Courts have upheld the damnedest things.
Cheers
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
That would be sheer lunacy! They'd cut out nearly their entire customer base!
Parent
IAAAL (I am almost a lawyer) but... (Score:3, Interesting)
In the case of Blizzard's WOW servers, I wouldn't even necessarily call what glider does "damage" to the server, but that will be up to the courts. If the judge has a head on his shoulder the most he'll hold contract violators responsible for is the cost to remove glider-users from the database split between all of the known glider users.
Also tortious contract interference (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem for Blizzard is that this claim is far more nebulous in terms of damages. Copyright law includes statutory damages, meaning that they don't actually have to prove that they were damaged, or by how much, if they win on the copyright claim.
Either way, getting injunctive relief against MDY is the most important thing, but if Blizzard can also get a monetary award, then it puts all the other cheat developers on notice that they could end up in very hot water if they don't close up shop. If all Blizzard manages to get is an injunction, however, cheat developers will likely just wait until they actually get sued before they bother to decide whether or not they will shut down their business.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is MDY, really, for serious, interfering with that relationship? Or are they making materials available to the user that interferes with that relationship?
Let's use the only contract example analogy I can think of right now: Take a professional football player who has signed a contract that says "you can't ride a motorcycle" (see: Kellen Winslow, Ben Roethlisberger, etc). If I sell a motorcycle to either of them, how, exactly, am I interfering with the contract? Either o
Limit (Score:5, Interesting)
"bots spend far more time in-game than an ordinary player would and consume resources the entire time."
So? You control the game. Limit the effectiveness, or boot people off (like they ALREADY DO in parts of SE Asia), when they've been on too long.
Or, you know, if your servers are accepting bogus input that lets people cheat, maybe you could validate the input first? (Or heck, if people a willing to pay to replace your "gameplay" with the use of a script, maybe that speaks to just how engaging your "gameplay" really is.)
Terms of Service (Score:3, Funny)
Why Blizzard is so Pissed! (Score:4, Informative)
They also hate it when you complete the game sooner rather than later because all that grinding earns them additional months of revenue from you, sucker!
Blizzard may be my favorite company, but please (Score:3, Interesting)
Buy vs. Rent (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the same problem with MPAA and movies. If they don't want me to watch the movie on my choice of player - and maybe even cut out scenes I don't like - they should make it available for rental only.
Online gaming sacrificed for greater good (Score:3, Insightful)
So, unfortunately, online gamers, but, gaming has to the needs of humanity for a free market. So, there's always going to be cheaters and you'll never really have an honest online game experience with strangers. About the best that Blizzard could do would be to try and have a secure link of some sort to dissuade developers from writing cheat-bots.
Re:This is what comes... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll lay out the really pertinent facts. You're welcome to find out more on your own.
The woman was severely burned. Initially, she asked McD's for $20k to cover medical expenses for her medical treatments. McD's refused to even talk to her.
Here's the kicker: the coffee at McD's (not just that one, but every single one, as they all operate under the guidance of the corporate office, and had the same coffee makers) was found to be keeping coffee *FAR* above a reasonably hot temperature. This was corporate policy. McDonalds had a policy to keep coffee between 180 and 190 degrees, which is not too terribly far from boiling.
She had 3rd Degree burns, as well as severe 2nd degree burns, and spent over a week in the hospital and required skin grafts.
There was also over 700 reports of burns due to the temperature of McDonalds coffee in the decade preceeding this incident. McDonalds had actually settled with many of these, to the tune of over $500k paid.
It was also testified that drinking McD's coffee at the time given to the customer at that temperature would burn *ANYONE'S* mouth. I find this to be true today, although its rumored that in the time since the lawsuit, McD's has again jacked temperatures.
So, lets see: serving a substance you know can cause 3rd degree burns, where you have a decade of claims arising from the practice, refusing a request (which you had granted to *MANY* others) for covering of legitimate medical expenses.
If you actually read the facts of the case, you'll see that the media coverage has omitted most of the pertinent facts on this case. McD's deserved what they got. They should have choked up the $20k and been done with it.
I don't know about you, but I don't like to drink coffee that can give me 3rd degree burns.
Parent
Re:Does this mean (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, and depending on:
the paint manufacturer can sue you as well.
They might even sue you for not closing the lid, leaving the paint in plain sight without any protective measures, lending the paint to a friend, improper use of the paint, etc.
Parent
Re:Does this mean (Score:5, Informative)
That's a poor analogy. The screwdriver isn't copyrighted. The manufacturer isn't selling a "license" to the screwdriver or a "copy" of the screwdriver. He's selling you a screwdriver. The screwdriver has intrinsic value as an object. It's a chattel.
In contrast, the physical media the game comes on has little intrinsic value. And to the extent that it does, nobody can complain about you using the install disc as a coaster. The real value is in the copy of the software, and many courts allow parties to contract around copyright (even things like fair use, or not copying things that are in the public domain). Lookup the ProCD case out of the Seventh Circuit. Not everybody agrees with it, but many courts have followed it. The question is tougher when it's a "click-wrap," but many courts will even uphold those. The fact pattern is not unique: A sells a copy of a work to B under a contractual license. B breaches the contract. A sues for copyright infringement, because B only received a copy under the terms of the license. When B breached, his license was invalid, so his rights to the copy are lost. A wins. If it didn't work like this, you could never license anything to anybody except under the existing copyright language. Meaning, for example, that the GPL would not be valid, nor would any software license. So based on precedent, this is not an absurd case.
I'm not saying it has to be that way. Nimmer on Copyright is very critical of ProCD, and some courts have declined to follow it. Nimmer would prevent parties from contracting around some fundamental copyright policy. The problem with that approach is "fundamental policy" is very dependent on who's defining it. So many courts (probably a majority) just don't go there. They uphold the contract, period. If you don't like the result, really the only way to change it is to encourage Congress to pass a version of 17 U.S.C. 301 that expressly preempts some contractual provisions, but leaves the rest undisturbed.
Disclaimer: I don't represent anybody here. This post is not legal advice. Don't rely on it for any reason.Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Note on the wiki for EULA software licenses [wikipedia.org], that post-purchase licenses are have been ruled both ways before. I think this example applies to Blizzard, however:
"In Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., however, the licensee was able to download and install the software without first being required to review and positively assent to the terms of the agreement, and so the license was held to be unenforceable."
You have the software before you agre