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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: (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
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?'
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's up to the developer and consumer (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it much easier and mor effecient to find software that meets my needs.
If the developer wants to make crippleware and then try to get me to buy it, that's his choice. I make it very clear that doing this will kill sales. It's then up to the developer to balance the anal retentive need to prevent any piracy with the need to meet market demands to make sales.
Some prime examples.. Microsoft Office. One license, one machine and maybe a la
Re:Obvious answer! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing that annoys me the most is that recently it started ignoring the "Pause Updating" option. I wanna play CS:S, so I pause the TF2 update. As soon as I launch CS:S Steam stealthily unpauses the update, causing ping times of 1000+ for me (crappy little DSL connection). And I say "stealthily" because when I alt-tab out, it still
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't really understand their motivation. WoW is the uncontested king of MMOs and there's no one in sight that can possibly undo their massive, massive lead in terms of subscribers and active accounts.
The only thing that can kill Blizzard's advantage is Blizzard itself, either by slowly alienating their player base, or releasing uninspired, rehashed content. My bet is on a mixture of both.
Obvious Value ! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:How it's used? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 th
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.
Broader effects (Score:4, Interesting)
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:
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You would open me up to theft of my material until I personally could publish why?
Re: (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 indivi
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
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.
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.
Does this mean (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Sounds like my Homeowner's Association.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you have purchased a copy of the program under a license that limits your rights, then you have purchased less than the entire interest in your copy. A court may find that you are not actually the "owner" of that copy.
Has a court actually ever found that a person who purchased a copy of software is not the "owner" under 17 USC 117, or is this just speculation?
Generally, when you buy something without having to agree to any contract first, you become the owner of that thing. Some courts have upheld that principle when applying the first sale doctrine to software, for example: the EULA can't stop you from reselling it, because you're the owner and selling it is your right.
Correct me if I'm wrong (with citations, please),
Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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:
WTF (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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 explicit
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's like saying that eating a burger is very
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
Its analogous to a car manufacturer suing a customer because they rebuilt the engine using aftermarket parts for greater performance. Absolutely absurd.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
They sure as hell better not make a rule like that...
I don't see an issue here. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The key I think is you have to prove in court that significant portions (that would probably be in air quotes and left to the determination of the judge) of your IP has been used in the creation of some other entity.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not 100% sure an idea should be anyone's "property".
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
RAM as a copy (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely copyright law should only deal with those aspects of copying that affect distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
GPL similarity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be interesting (Score:2)
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)
I Do (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically WoW takes your time, and converts it into in game coolness--level, weapons, outfits, items, etc. Your time is basically the only game currency--when you eliminate the ne
please no! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it is clearly spelled out in a binding contract, this idea shouldn't even come up! Even if it is spelled in a contract, it would still be questionable to legal pass. And the contract needs to be entirely up front, and completely rejectable. Not something that you need to break the seal upon just to read, and can't get your money back for breaking the seal.
Actually, the WoW EULA probably qualifies. Even if your local software store won't accept the return, Blizzard provides a means of returning the software directly to them for a refund as long as you don't use the account activation key.
This is sort of an extension of prior decisions on EULAs, though - the specific concept of providing a refund after the fact hasn't been tried in court, to my knowledge, but in general, EULAs have been ruled binding when the purchasing party was required to accept the terms
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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. That license, Blizzard argues, includes limitations, like not using bots like Glider. So using glider is a violation of the license, meaning that making that RAM copy is copyright infringement.
Their whole claim is based on the fact that since you are violating their EULA by running Glider that they are now going to sue you for these supposed infringing RAM copies of WoW. It has nothing to do with any notion of a derived work.
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I really tried very hard to persist and find interest in the game after lvl70. I got two toons to that level.
I got into a raiding guild and did some raiding... and it was boring as hell.
I went back to alts and thats actually interesting and exciting; there are still so many aspects of this game and areas that I have yet to explore. Its a huge world; see it from Horde and Alliance perspective.
Using a cheat to get a toon to 70 is just a huge waste of time an