Who Owns Software? 531
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.
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!
Re:How it's used? (Score:3, Informative)
When you create a work, you also maintain and keep the moral rights to the work. That basically means that another person can't modify the work.
You can not assign the moral rights to another person. You can waive them or enforce them. If you don't act to enforce your rights, then you give them up by your actions.
There's an example where a sculptor created a flock of geese in a mall for decoration. For one Christmas season, the mall tied ribbons around the necks of the geese. The artist sued the mall and won, because it violated his moral rights to the work.
IANAL. I just know the difference between copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design, and trade secrets.
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.Re:How it's used? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Obvious Value ! (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:How it's used? (Score:2, Informative)
To put it in a simpler analogy. It's like they keep getting DDOSed (abuse of service), but they can't do anything about it. How would you like to be a company that has someone constantly trying to break your system (in this case finally succeeding). Don't say you can prevent everything, there's a reason why there's private networks.
What's the best solution? Sue anyone who uses bots? The only way to stop bad people online seems to be through physical/legal actions right? What other solutions can you think of?
All RPG online games are ruined by cheats/bots (name one that is popular and has no cheating/botting if you disagree), how can one possibly defend against it?
I'm not in favor of this bill especially calling it copyright infringement, but feel there should be something similar (but heavily modified and reviewed)
Re:How it's used? (Score:3, Informative)
You would open me up to theft of my material until I personally could publish why?"
No. You could not "sell" what is a statutory right. You could, however, LICENSE it. Authors do this all the time.
I don't necessarily agree with the GP about individual ownership - it totally blows the concept of "work for hire" out of the water. But the time limits for corporations are definitely out of hand - if anything, they should be LESS than those for an individual.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ... (Score:3, Informative)
Only thing that grants permission to what the copyrighted work?
Use the copyrighted work? As in run the program? No, you need no permission whatsoever to do that. The only types of "use" copyright covers are public performances.
Copy and distribute the copyrighted work? Yes, because that's something that copyright actually covers.
Copy into memory for purposes of using the copyrighted work? No, because copyright law explicitly exempts copies made as a necessary part of using the work from being infringement.
Using the generic "grants permission to the work" is completely wrong. Copyright law only prohibits certain things. It is not a blanket grant of rights to control every aspect of the copyrighted work. The copyright holder does not have to grant permission "to" the work; they have nothing to do with that. If you purchase a legally created copy of a book, you can give that book to me, and the copyright holder has no say. If I try to create a duplicate of the book and give it away without permission, that is a violation of copyright.
GPL only attempts to grant things that are otherwise prohibited by copyright. EULAs try to prohibit things that are, otherwise, completely legal. The difference is huge.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ... (Score:3, Informative)
GPL advocates all agree, and indeed take great pains to emphasize, that the GPL only applies to distribution. Nobody, not even RMS himself, would dream of asserting that the GPL has any power whatsoever over what you choose to do with GPL'd software in the privacy of your own computer, or even within your own company; it's only if you start making copies to give to other people that the GPL kicks in.
What Blizzard is claiming is completely different. They're claiming that their EULA means you aren't even allowed to run the program unless you comply with all their demands.
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.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ... (Score:3, Informative)
But the necessary copying from disk to RAM is the foundation of their whole argument!
And once again you say in generic terms that a copy is "subject to a license" but you don't say for what. If you still aren't getting it, copyright is not a blanket statement that you can't do anything at all with a legally obtained copy of a work without permission. It grants specific rights to the copyright owner, and only certain actions violate that right.
So until you start talking about performing an action that violates the copyright holders rights, then no the copy on the hard drive is not subject to needing a license to be in compliance with copyright law.
Furthermore, the game downloads code at run-time after connecting. So violating the license at run-time applies as well.
Is that a necessary step of using the software? Yes it is, and thus no it is not a copyright violation.
Re:GPL does pretty much the same thing ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:License vs Copy (Score:2, Informative)
this link [jonesday.com] cited in the wikipedia article also provides some interesting discussion.
See my additional post also, where I acknowledge a mistake in my above post. It is also important to note that this is still a bit of a nebulous area of the law, so the blizzard case could have far-reaching impacts.
Re:License vs Copy (Score:3, Informative)
Why would there be such a difference? The Uniform Commercial Code doesn't indicate there's any difference in the terms of the default contract of sale. I didn't sign any other terms at the time of sale, so according to the UCC the default terms apply at that point. This "license" you talk about wasn't mentioned until after I got the software out of the box and started to install it. Why should some contract I was never offered and never accepted have anything to do with the terms under which I own my copy?
I'd note in the case of WoW and the Glider software there's another catch. Whether or not there's any copyright infringement on the client side, to play WoW you have to connect to Blizzard's servers. To connect you have to accept the Terms of Service for those servers. Using Glider violates those terms. No need to bring copyright or ownership vs. licensing of the client software into it. Glider's sole purpose, known to and intended by it's author, is to induce Blizzard's customers to break the agreement they have to make every time they log in. That's tortious interference with contract, as I understand it.
Re:This is what comes... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Obvious answer! (Score:3, Informative)
A) It's a piece of garbage compared to Final Cut
B) Final Cut Express killed it with better features at a lower price point
C) Adobe screwed themselves over in the Mac market by killing it and the bringing it back when Apple went to Intel
D) Everyone was switching to Final Cut Pro anyway back in 2002 because even though it cost more, you could actually efficiently cut a feature length film in it
E) Final Cut Pro (v3 on) actually imported and dealt with Adobe file formats better than Premiere did!
Adobe would have been better off rolling the timeline editing aspects of Premiere into AfterEffects to create a true competitor to the Discreet (now Autodesk) line of applications rather than go toe to toe with Apple and Avid in straight up non-linear digital video editing.
For my editing students who insist on working in a Windows world, I urge them to learn Avid over Premiere as Avid is still the industry heavyweight on both platforms in Hollywood and a far more robust editing platform to boot.