Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Software News Your Rights Online

Who Owns Software? 531

Posted by kdawson
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Who Owns Software?

Comments Filter:
  • by neokushan (932374) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:02PM (#23314588)
    I do the second uTorrent is finished with it.
    • Re:Obvious answer! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by neokushan (932374) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:04PM (#23314620)
      In case anyone's wondering, I'm being extremely sarcastic here.
      However, my absurdly ridiculous response is only half as ridiculous as what Blizzard is trying to say here.
    • Obvious Value ! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by wireloose (759042) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:34PM (#23315046)
      At $750 per copy, this software is apparently worth $50 more than RIAA values songs. ($700 / song)
  • How it's used? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CannonballHead (842625) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:05PM (#23314638)
    They want to keep the rights to how it is used? Hm. Does that mean they are responsible for how it is used, then? If someone uses it "wrong" and "hurts" me, does that mean I can sue the developer, since he is the one in charge of how it is used?
    • Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:10PM (#23314686)
      If someone uses it "wrong" and "hurts" me, does that mean I can sue the developer, since he is the one in charge of how it is used?

      More to the point. If someone uses it "right" and hurts someone...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        If someone uses it "wrong" and "hurts" me, does that mean I can sue the developer, since he is the one in charge of how it is used?

        More to the point. If someone uses it "right" and hurts someone...

        How about suing the developer for negligence by not using due diligence in the correct use of the software?

    • Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:12PM (#23314714)
      If we're to pay them for using it in ways we're not supposed to, then can we get payed every time their software does not work exactly the way its supposed to and crashes or messes up my system?
    • Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:23PM (#23314860) Homepage
      Any restrictions would be contractual obligations, which have nothing to do with legal obligations. The contract doesn't regulate illegal use since it's per definition already illegal. Besides, what kind of logic is that? The government dictates a maximum speed limit. So if I crash while under the speed limit, can I sue the government because they're responsible for how I drive?
      • Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by CannonballHead (842625) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:32PM (#23315012)

        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.

        • Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Informative)

          by cHALiTO (101461) <elchalo&gmail,com> on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @03:34PM (#23315864) Homepage
          You've both got it all wrong. The problem is not the government saying how we can drive our own cars. That is analogue to the government telling how we can use copyrighted stuff, which it does (i.e.: DON'T REDISTRIBUTE IT WITHOUT PERMISSION).

          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Aram Fingal (576822)
            ...But all modern cars have embedded computer systems which help run components of the vehicle. Some of them must contain software which is subject to copyright and I wouldn't be surprised if there is a EULA among all that paperwork about the warranty. That's something to watch out for next time you buy a car.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Black Art (3335)
        It is not a contract if one side can change the terms at a whim. With a non-free software license, they can change the terms at any time. Too many people try and claim that such things are covered by contracts when the terms do not resemble anything like a negotiated contract.

        Now they are saying that beyond just the right to use the product, they can tell you how and where you can use the product. They keep tightening the screws on the users until something breaks.

        The industry wants software treated like
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:25PM (#23314902)
      Am I still allowed to spin the CD on my finger when I'm bored?
    • by vimh42 (981236)
      Indeed. I like Blizzard (though I frequently curse their existence for doing stupid shit) and I really dislike cheaters in WOW. This is however something Bliz needs to lose. This is a cold dark path they are taking.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      That's normal.

      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 th
      • Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @03:45PM (#23316016) Homepage Journal

        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.

        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.

        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.

        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.

    • Broader effects (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Reziac (43301) * on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @03:57PM (#23316234) Homepage Journal
      After RTFAing, I'm wondering about broader effects, such as plugins and 3rd party helper apps for all sorts of software. Could we find ourselves restricted from installing any plugin not "approved" by the base-program's vendor??

  • Does this mean (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fredrated (639554)
    that if I open a paint can with a screwdriver, the screwdriver manufacturer can sue me?
    • by Klaus_1250 (987230) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:41PM (#23315142)

      Yep, and depending on:

      • the object you paint
      • the location of the object you paint
      • whether on not you use thinner
      • if the paint is used by more than one person and/or one brush
      • if the paint is used on more than one object
      • if the paint is used on an object that contains (residue of) paint from a competitive paint-manufacturer
      • if the paint is used on an object that is for non-personal use
      • if the paint is being used by a professional painter and/or if there is any financial compensation involved

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by oahazmatt (868057)

        Yep, and depending on:

        • the object you paint
        • the location of the object you paint
        • whether on not you use thinner
        • if the paint is used by more than one person and/or one brush
        • if the paint is used on more than one object
        • if the paint is used on an object that contains (residue of) paint from a competitive paint-manufacturer
        • if the paint is used on an object that is for non-personal use
        • if the paint is being used by a professional painter and/or if there is any financial compensation involved

        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.

        Sounds like my Homeowner's Association.

    • Re:Does this mean (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zordak (123132) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @03:16PM (#23315606) Homepage Journal

      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.
  • by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:09PM (#23314672)
    I'm no lawyer, but even I recognize that what they're talking about is simply a matter of contract law. You have your EULA, enforce it. It's not a matter of copyright law, no matter how convenient that would make things for them thanks to the insane penalties that accompany it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hyppy (74366)
      The thing is, software companies are trying to use copyright law to enforce their EULAs, since they're quite aware of how flimsy a contract the EULA really is.
      • by plague3106 (71849)
        Except AFAIK, this EULA discusses an online service for which you pay monthly, so I tend to think it would apply here. You're paying for the service (and the software). So feel free to use Glide as long as you're not onlne..
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by poetmatt (793785)
          Just because you pay for the service doesn't mean you can't use it any way you see fit. You absolutely can.

          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.
    • by Z00L00K (682162) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:25PM (#23314900) Homepage
      And most EULA:s aren't worth the paper they are written on anyway.

      "Use at your own risk" should be sufficient. Remaining wording is just a waste of time.

      But I like the following copyright note:

      COPYRIGHT
      The chat program is in public domain. This is not the GNU public license. If it breaks then you get to
      keep both pieces.
  • WTF (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Uncle Focker (1277658) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:10PM (#23314684)

    Here's the scary part: Blizzard also insists that because the license agreement forbids using Glider with WoW, Glider users are committing copyright infringement when they load copies of WoW into RAM in order to play the game.
    This has to be one of the stupidest attempts at trying to pin someone for copyright infringement ever.
    • This has to be one of the stupidest attempts at trying to pin someone for copyright infringement ever.
      Let's just hope the judges aren't that dumb now!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ai Olor-Wile (997427)
      Actually, it does that to bypass DRM, which is significantly less innocuous in the face of legislation like the DMCA. This was mentioned the last time Glider came up on Slashdot.
      • Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Uncle Focker (1277658) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:26PM (#23314912)
        I think you misread the quoted section. Blizzard is trying to claim that you are engaging in copyright infringement whenever portions of WoW get copied into RAM. Which is extremely ludicrous because of the fact that these portions of the program have to be copied into RAM to fucking run it. Here's from Public Knowledge:

        In this case, Blizzard is saying that any user who runs Glider while playing WoW is infringing Blizzard's copyrights. This is despite the fact that Glider doesn't make any copies of WoW. Instead, Blizzard claims that any time a user runs WoW, the copy of the game (or the portions of it) that are copied into RAM are infringements. Or, at least, they would be, but for the generosity of Blizzard, which grants users a license to make these RAM copies.
        Utter fucking lunacy.
        • Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)

          by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @04:06PM (#23316350) Homepage

          Instead, Blizzard claims that any time a user runs WoW, the copy of the game (or the portions of it) that are copied into RAM are infringements. Or, at least, they would be, but for the generosity of Blizzard, which grants users a license to make these RAM copies.
          Utter fucking lunacy.
          Indeed, that is lunacy, because copies made as a necessary step in using the program (i.e. copying it from disk to ram) are explicitly exempted [copyright.gov] from being possible infringements. This isn't even "fair use", it is as the section header says a limitation on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. They do not have the right to prevent such copies. Therefore they cannot grant permission to do this through their EULA, nor can performing this copy in violation of their EULA be a copyright violation.

          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.
  • by Dog-Cow (21281) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:11PM (#23314712)
    Retaining control of software usage is semantically identical to a book publisher claiming that using a book they published as a prop for an uneven table leg is violating copyright.

    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)

      by hey! (33014)
      A few years ago I rented an old vacation cottage, and found there were a number of old hardcover books in it dating from around the time it was built. One of the books, printed in 1903 had something on the front end-paper that was very familiar.

      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,
      • by Aranykai (1053846)
        Its amusing how many of the claims or stipulations in these modern EULA's are unenforceable because the waive the rights of the customer in many states.

        Its analogous to a car manufacturer suing a customer because they rebuilt the engine using aftermarket parts for greater performance. Absolutely absurd.
  • by GuyverDH (232921) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:14PM (#23314746)
    If Blizzard wins this, then they are in effect responsible for all the deaths of WoW players from marathon gaming sessions. They would then need to prevent anyone from playing over a reasonable number of hours straight without breaks.

    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.
    • by edraven (45764)
      Actually, it seems more likely that Blizzard would sue the estate of the deceased over misuse of the software in order to avoid the conclusion you draw.
    • by realmolo (574068)
      Oh, give me a fucking BREAK!

      Blizzard is trying to pully a shitty little legal stunt here, but can you SERIOUSLY think that Blizzard, or any company, should have to take *responsibility* for the way in which people abuse their products? If you want to play WoW until you literally drop dead, that is 100% YOUR problem.

      Surely you don't think that a chainsaw manufacturer should be sued when someone loses their are trying to juggle the damn thing.

      You're a retard.
      • by RingDev (879105)
        I don't think he personally holds that view. I think he, like many other people have already done, are questioning what the outcome would be if this case goes through and sets precedence.

        The selection of posts dealing with morbid crimes related to Blizzard's software is for exaggerated samples of possible fall out. The larger the exaggerations, the more inflamed the topic becomes and the more justifiable the stance that the opposition to the ruling becomes, even though that justification is now based on the
  • Wow! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:16PM (#23314768) Homepage
    So, could they say no fat people not wearing pants can use their software? How about nobody under the age of 30? Black people? White people? Brown people?

    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
  • Build it into the licencing agreement. If people find your licence too restrictive, well they are welcome to go elsewhere.

    This is not a software issue, this is a licencing issue.

    I know licences are used all the time to say you can use this a certain way, but not this way, or that way, etc. So long as both the Licencee and Licencor both have their eyes open as to the agreement, I fail to see much of an issue here. ...and remember kids a licence is just the right to use, not ownership, so this has nothing to
  • by CaptainPatent (1087643) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:21PM (#23314828) Journal
    It seems the article has a good point. Blizzard is trying to sue for what is a contract violation instead of a copyright violation. A copyright violation has a minimum penalty of $750 dollars because it usually deals with distribution of media and has real damage. Contract violation has no minimum because the damage dealt can vary so much.

    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by astrotek (132325)
      It doesn't really damage the server but it probably damages the value of the game in the eyes of their customers.
  • by Dachannien (617929) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:22PM (#23314856)
    Blizzard is also alleging the somewhat more sane claim of tortious contract interference, by saying that Blizzard is engaged in a contractual relationship with its customers, and MDY is willfully interfering, for profit, with that relationship.

    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)

      by Skye16 (685048)
      I honestly don't know this, but...

      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
  • RAM as a copy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 91degrees (207121)
    I really don't like the idea that a copy of software in memory could be considered a copy for purposes of copyright law. Given that the copy only lasts as long as the software is in use, and cannot be readily separated from the copy on disk, and also that it is absolutely necessary to create to actually use the software, this should be considered purely part of the technological process of viewing the software.

    Surely copyright law should only deal with those aspects of copying that affect distribution.
    • by Locklin (1074657)
      Sure, copyright should just deal with copying for distribution, not use. But that way, the music labels won't be able to force you to buy a separate copy of your favorite song for each of your computer, car cd player, mp3 player, cell phone, and your other computer. You, sir, just robbed the music industry billions... expect an invoice in the mail.
  • Perhaps Blizzard thinks that they can have a license somewhat like the GPL (but even more viral) --- a "work based upon or that makes use of" their product falls under their license and ownership?
    • That's not what they are arguing. They are trying to claim that you are infringing their copyrights whenever portions of WoW are copied into memory (which is a fucking requirement to running the program) but that they normally let it slide. Now the crux of their case is that since these people are running Glider that they are now waiving their grace of not suing you over these copyright infringing RAM copies.
  • Would a ruling on this have a bearing on whether restrictions on other software are valid? You know, stupid stuff like database vendors trying to tell you that you cannot publish benchmarks of their software. If Blizzard looses, this could really hurt other companies -- which would be really nice.
  • Limit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Relic of the Future (118669) <dales@NOsPaM.digitalfreaks.org> on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:41PM (#23315134)
    This is more appropriate under the last discussion (but since it was under the consistently lackluster "Games" topic, I didn't read it) but part of their complaint was:

    "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.)

  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:44PM (#23315188)
    By using this product (Microsoft Word, hereafter referred to as Word) you agree to never never ever write anything critical about The Microsoft Corporation, Mr. Bill Gates, Mr. Steve Ballmer's chair throwing...
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:48PM (#23315238)
    Blizzard is just pissed (American definition, not British pissed) because Glyder gets around The Warden. They hate it when that happens.

    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!

  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @02:49PM (#23315264) Journal
    I was one of the first people using bots and macros in Asheron's Call 1 then I was one of the most advanced bot makers in it. If your game is so simple that a bot can play it, maybe your game isn't really fun to play to begin with. If you have zones that a bot can play, maybe you should tool your game so bots can't play them. If your game is failing, it isn't because people are playing your game with bots.
  • by Shamanin (561998)
    ... no really, I do.
  • Buy vs. Rent (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CustomDesigned (250089) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @03:02PM (#23315436) Homepage Journal
    I would agree with their theory in the case of rented software. Instead of selling the client, they should rent it to players. Then the players don't really own their copy, and Blizzard can rightly get mad when they screw around with it.


    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.

  • Basically, if Blizzard loses, then, they can't effectively stop cheating on their systems. That pretty much hoses their business. On the other hand, if Blizzard wins, then, software companies essentially get the right to decide who inter operates with them, and that's just a worldwide disaster.

    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.
  • please no! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tom (822) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @04:58PM (#23317106) Homepage Journal
    Oh please, pretty please, let them win this one and set a precedent.

    I'm just dying for writing interesting EULAs that disallow you from using my software during full moon on thursdays if there is a cat in the house, or to write any letters that are stupid, or to access any website that contains the word "republican".

    Please. The more idiotic, stupid and obvious the rules get, the better our chances that they're reworked altogether, instead of simply being patched onto indefinitely.

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." --Matt Groening

Working...