| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (11)

Posted: Jul 15th 2008 8:41AM Arkanaloth said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't really play WoW anymore, but this is good news for it and future games.. hopefully this will open the door to potential litigation directly against sites that "broker" for gold-sellers or advertise their services. IGE may not hire people but they do "enable" in a way... so the possibility exists and I'm hopeful they and companies like them get sued into oblivion.

Posted: Jul 15th 2008 12:41PM Nadril said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Good for blizzard. I really hate the RMT state that so many games are getting into, even new games. In Age of Conan already the gold farmers are en-masse and sending tons of tells to everyone (and spamming the ingame mail system).


While we can never fully stop gold farming I'd love to see a decline, somehow.

Posted: Jul 15th 2008 11:32AM Ravious said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't understand how it is copyright infringement. From the official ruling it seems they hang their hat on the limitation that "third party software designed to modify the WoW experience" is prohibited under the copyright license.

So does that mean that anybody can put any limitation in the copyright license? "You cannot listen to this while drunk?" "You can only read this upside down?" "You cannot listen to iTunes and play Team Fortress 2?"

Now if Glider modifies the RAM functions of WoW (derivative work), that is one thing, but that is not what the court pegs its ruling on.

Posted: Jul 15th 2008 10:46AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
fingers crossed this will enable blizzard and other game companys to stop these activities a lot quicker from now on. a lot of people moan about blizzard & wow but wow's success might just have made all mmo's a nicer place to play in the future.

good on ya blizzard :)

Posted: Jul 15th 2008 11:09AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Surprised to hear they're gaining ground. If all the glider users get kicked, it's going to be a boom for live farmers in China. Many studios that used to farm have left the industry because the prices of technology. Unfortunately, bots will always exist. However, paid botting services might be next to impossible if the right legal maneuvers occur. This case decision could set a precedent for more than just World of Warcraft. Although I profit from video games and the secondary industry, I do not support full on automation. If automation ever becomes too common, the damage to gaming will be drastically higher than live farming or live power leveling could ever cause. The single greatest threat to the quality of a the MMO gaming experience is (actually poor MMO design) closely followed by botting.

Posted: Jul 15th 2008 11:58AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am no fan of bots in game and uphold Bliz the decision to ban users. However, This is bad IMO. This opens a precedent that will give the RIAA more ammo on deciding what constitutes copyright material. Against game poly YES .. Against the law NO.

Posted: Jul 15th 2008 3:10PM Heraclea said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
About all the copyright portion of the decision means is that Blizzard only allows you to play WoW if you also agree to play by Blizzard's rules.

The actual copying that is done is not done through loading the WoW program - even someone without a WoW account can do that - but in accessing the data stream that comes from Blizzard's server. That data is also copyrighted by Blizzard, and needed to actually play the game. AFAICT the ruling doesn't hold that it's a copyright issue just to load Glider, or to load it with WoW: only that it's a copyright issue to use Glider while you access Blizzard's servers.

It would have been nicer for the judge to focus more on Blizzard's proprietary interest in the game experience expressed in the data stream than in the mechanics of software loading. But the common law process can straighten itself out if the specific language proves to be a problem. The right decision was made.

Posted: Jul 17th 2008 2:38AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Blizzard Wins vs. Glider: What it means for the virtual currency market

http://www.gamerates.com/posts/show/blizzard_wins_legal_case_v_bot_maker_glider">

We posted over on our blog on GameRates.com on what this means for some other ToS/EULA violators such as virtual currency sellers.

"What does this mean for the gold industry however?

First off it may embolden Blizzard to actually take on major gold sellers in the courtroom. However, this could be a very dangerous move as if they lost or perhaps a U.S court found that virtual currency has real worth it could awake the sleeping giant of legal problems. For example if Blizzard bans someone accidently, or it’s servers crash, or they nerf an item all which destroy virtual goods (with real legal value) in the process one may be able to sue Blizzard for these “real” damages caused. For this and many other reasons we doubt that such a case will arise although the reverse may be true (a gold farmer suing blizzard for preventing them from selling its legally acquired in-game goods for cash outside the game). For those of you that have been around for a while you may remember the BlackSnow Case against Mythic where such a thing happened.

Still the scary thing is the wide ruling that violating a Terms of Service (ToS) or End User License Agreement (EULA) that you haphazardly click every time you play the game can be counted as copyright infringement. An EULA can say virtually anything it wishes. Does violating any part of it really count as copyright infringement? If you choose to farm items by hand using normal game mechanics without interfering with anyone else and then you mail the items you acquire to another person that is fine (it would be considered “twinking” a friend or new character), yet if you do the same action and the person sends you $10 through PayPal for the gift is it then considered a copyright violation because it violates Blizzards ToS?

That’s ridiculous and as such we don’t see the case ever being applied to the virtual currency market.

In fact we think that if the case is appealed it has a very good chance of being reversed. It’s simply too broad in its scope"

Remember, that roughly 1/4 of the player population engages in RMT at some point and that the average combined lifetime purchase is about $135
(http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001469.php)

If you really want to create a game without RMT, than create a game where "farming" is fun or unnecessary to have fun in the game.

Posted: Jul 16th 2008 5:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't think you people who are happy about this see how bad this is for the consumers. It basically takes away all consumer rights when purchasing a product, and allows companies to sell a product and then take it away, without a refund.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20080716/1046271700.shtml

This is a horrible decision. While people may not like gold farmers, which I hate too, the court decision is a bad one and in the long term, it screws over every gamer who buys their games.

Very bad decision, horrible long-term effects.
Once again, copyright law being misused and abused.

Posted: Aug 6th 2008 4:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How about making a game that is enjoyable to play so people don't bot? If you want to enjoy arena with your friends you first have to grind the appropriate gear and cash/materials to enchant or gem it. At least give the option as some people do enjoy grinding but a great deal do not but still wish to play with friends.

Posted: Aug 18th 2008 6:52AM Graill440 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its a win for consumers in the long run. The basic premise folks fail to take into consideration is if you dont like the rules, simply dont play.

:)

Featured Stories

Make My MMO: November 16 - 22, 2014

Posted on Nov 22nd 2014 8:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW