I think in any multiplayer game world cheating should be illegal. By illegal, I mean the punishment doesn't get past that game world. Suspend their account or whatever, but don't fine someone or throw them in jail in real life.

CHeating in single player games shouldn't be illegal. You're not hurtning anyone by cheating against a computer.

That is not what I was saying, I am not saying people don't know about BOTS, I am strictly talking about Glider.  That is all I am saying, I would bet most people have no idea what specific BOT is in use.  I that is the case then I think individula users should be held accountable.

Exactly, I agree and have no issue with that at all.

Unless the player IS a bot!

I think some people may be in their role-playing games a little too much...and have a hazy understanding of where reality ends and fantasy begins.

The rules being broken are in REAL LIFE so the penalties will apply in real life....;p

So, the question that comes to my mind, is can you create antifarm bots - bots that automatically lead farmbots to their deaths.

Imagine explaining *that* to the WoW GM's - "Well, yeah, it is a bot, but it's an anti-bot bot - I thought I'd experiment with ways to kill off bots automatically so their profit margins were slimmer" - {G}

Jonnan

It just floors me to see that there are people who are defending this guy. He's making money off of something that he doesn't own, and is doing real financial damage to Blizzard in the process. There is a word for organisms like him- parasite.

I know for a fact that Blizzard has lost money because of him, and I can prove it. I offer into evidence...myself. I was a big fan of the Diablo series. I spent countless hours leveling up just about every build of every character type in the game. I could PvP with anyone, and know that even if I didn't win the battle, I would give them the fight of their lives. Then the bots started to creep in. Before long, there were swarms of god-like characters around.

I am an honest player. I believe that cheating the game is cheating myself. So there was just no way that I could compete anymore. It drove me away from the game. It was bad enough when there were relatively few bots around, but this guy has made it possible for anyone to have their own bot, and this has completely destroyed the integrity of the game.

I stopped playing D2 because of him and his ilk, I didn't buy/play WoW because of him, and I won't be buying D3 if his kind are still around. I'm sure that if Blizzard made the request on their site, that they would receive many thousands of stories like mine, so yes, they have suffered serious financial harm because of this putz.

There is a darker side to all this, though. If Blizzard prevails in their suit, and I have every reason to believe that they will, then other, less scrupulous companies could use this precedent for real abuses of the EULA system.

From an honest gamer's standpoint, what this guy has done is unforgivable, and I, for one, hope the judge sends him up a flagpole by his yarbles.

Yarbles?....he hasn't got any yarbles.....;)

[sounding almost like a quote from A Clockwork Orange]...;)

Knowing that you got the reference gives me a warm, vibratey feeling in me guttey-wuts.

And I adressed this quite some time ago. IMO blizzard should have known better than to even file that claim, it was obviously not going anywhere. What puzzles me is why you consider the technical reasoning behind this part of the ruling correct, and the technical reasoning behind the rest of the ruling invalid.



Thus my point about absolute proof versus legal proof. Legally proving my name is not a challenge.

And btw, if 400,000 people call you a name, that would easily qualify as an alias. Not quite a legal identity, but close.

Re: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/you-bought-it-you-dont-own-it

At least you were able to find a few lawyers that agree with your viewpoint. Too bad all she does is bemoan the decision, rather than attacking the legal reasoning behind it. I do agree with her that the whole issue needs to be kicked up to the Supreme Court eventually.

Oh my god - someone wrote an additional program, using features of an underlying system of operating system and application programs, and dared to *sell* that?

My God - to imagine, the shear chutzpah of writing a program that improves on or uses the features of another program. And making money off of it! You are right sir - there is no more immoral act than making money off of the backs of others in this way.

By the way - what exactly *are* you going to do when Microsoft puts something like this in their EULA and explains that you can only use software from an "Approved Microsoft partner" on your machine? No Opera, No Firefox, you can't use Gimp obviously, since only paint and photoshop will be approved for use, No more Galactic Civilizations II for you, OpenOffice, that's gone - you'll buy Microsoft Office, and you'll be happy about it dammit! You'll do your xml files in notepad and *like* it too. Nobody here uses Avant, right? Nobody will miss that.

Nah - you're right, that's a slippery slope argument, Microsoft would *never* abuse the power you're handing them to end an EULA at their whim to get more money or kill off a competitive threat to them.

That's just plain silly. That's why Netscape is the massive powerhouse it is today - I tell you, that's a company with too much power - {G}!

Oh - yeah, that's right, that's an alternative universe. In this one Microsoft crushed them like a bug. And since I can't see any way whatsoever to legally stop Microsoft (Or any other large amoral software corporation) from using the exact same logic in their EULA to crush anyone else they find inconvenient like a bug, as much as I may personally dislike the concept of Glider ruining your experience, I fear the capacity for this ruling to be abused far more than I fear Glider.

And *that* is why I can 'defend this guy' with absolutely no compunctions whatsoever.

Jonnan

Simple it is a much bigger reach and scarier reach to claim copyright infringment based on an ELUA than it is to claim DMCA breach by circumventing a protection scheme.  Seeing as that is pretty much what the DMCA is for.  That doesn't mean I agree with either.

Yep and I think absolute proof would go a long way in stopping companies/individuals from coming up with crazy lawsuits like this!

As for a few lawyers to support my view give me a break, it was more than a few, the EFF and Public knowledge (they actually wrote a brief for the court) have more than a few lawyers and others knowledgable in this area.  Maybe someday when I have unlimited time and actually care I will interview the bar association on this topic will that sufice for you!  Gimme a break.  Not to mention I will give them a little more credence than just your opinion which is all I have seen you show.  Apparently you see what you want to see, in fact other than the people directly invovled in the case you haven't seem to come up with anyone.  Also apparently the links in here blog to other cases and section 117 weren't enough for you to get the idea of why they are against this?  Well I see even discussing this with you may be an exercise in futility. 

Jonnan - You are correct, that sort of abuse is possible - but I also remember Microsoft being charged with anti-trust violations due to that situation. Microsoft didn't use EULA wording to kill Netscape, it bundled Explorer with its operating system, meaning if you wanted to buy a competing product, you had to buy Explorer as well.

There is a massive difference in this situation. Blizzard does not make a competing product, so killing off this company raises no anti-trust issues.

You're either a complete idiot, or a hopeless ivory-tower idealist. Requiring some sort of absolute proof of anything would stop ALL lawsuits. Since the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff and you set that burden unmeetably high, the defense could literally show up, say "the defense rests" and win. Every Single Case.



Well, of course the only people I need to quote to support my opinion are the ones involved in the case - they're the only ones that matter. Eventually, nine more peoples' opinion might matter. At least Public Knowledge cared enough to file a brief - the EFF people didn't, they'd rather stand around hand-wringing after the fact. In short, the judge examined PK's position and decided it was incorrect. I accept the judge's ruling for now, until and unless he is overturned on appeal.

As for Corynne McSherry, she is a public rights activist. If she didn't oppose the judge's ruling, she wouldn't be doing her job. Unfortunately, IMO she objected to the wrong part of the ruling. Specifically, Section 117 doesn't apply, and she knows it. Any defense under Section 117 presupposes actual ownership, not a liscense.

The Timothy Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. case is also non-substantive in that Mr Vernor did not ever agree to an EULA. The people he bought those copies from probably committed violations, but he did not.

UMG vs Augusto is another case where no EULA was entered into, thus not copyright infringement can be claimed due to violation of any such agreement. Simply slapping a "Not For Resale" sticker on something doesn not qualify as a liscensing agreement.

I can see why public rights activists are against this decision. I can see where this sets a powerful precedent. But having some public rights lawyers disagree with the desicion doesn't make it invalid or incorrect. Only one thing can do that.

Wow Crynne McSherry is not just a public rights activist, she just so happens to be and attorney that specialized in Intellectual property and contract issues.  Also PK doesn't go around disagreeing with judges just to disagree?  She and the rest of the PK staff only disagree when they see a valid reason!  I am sure Corynne and the rest of the PK staff would love to hear how you can tell them what they know.  That definition for self righteous is waiting for you. 

Come now I know that you can't absolutly prove everything, but to say that you can't absolutly prove anything is just as over the top a statement and that is just what I was  doing making an over the top statement to make a point.  Sorry it didn't come across that way to you, sounds like you may want to relax.

You may also want to check out the definition of self righteousness, before you start throwing out names.  Man you would think this is something other than and internet forum, where it was actually something to get upset over.

Sorry I disagree again!  There have been plenty of legal desicions in the past that were just blatently wrong but agreed with by a large amount of people including the government and judges.  So my point is just because something is ruled legal and ok doesn't mean it actually is. 

Wrong the minute you buy a CD or accept a promo CD you have agreed to their terms.  You never have to click a button or sign a contract and that is what UMG also stated in that case.

I have to disagree again, it has been shown time and time again once you buy the software you are beholden to the license.  In fact you can't even give the damn thing back once you read the EULA.

Lest you forget, this is not your average, everyday productivity application. This is a game, and like any other game, there are rules. This is a game meant to be played by humans, and it is expected that an average human should be able to play competitively and not be at a significant disadvantage compared to other players.

Your game is not your average software, therefore it is rather silly to treat it the same as other software.

A ruling can be wrong, there is no question of that. My point is that EVEN IF the ruling is wrong, the only way to change it is by a higher court. Even changing the laws wouldn't help a case that has already been ruled on.



Please read the decision in question, or commentary about it, or something. UMG claimed that, and LOST. As in, that interpretation is NOT VALID. That's why McSherry referenced it in the first place.



Again patently false. The main reason Autodesk LOST that case is they didn't challenge the manner in which Vernor gained possession of the copies. They claimed non-transferable liscencing rights (a condition of the EULA, and legally enforcable), then tried to enforce those rights against someone who had never agreed to the EULA. IIRC part of the ruling questioned why Autodesk wasn't filing against the people who sold Vernor the used copies, as those were the people who had (presumably) broken the EULA.

And you CAN return software if you feel the EULA is too restrictive. One of the requirements of the EULA is the ability to seek a refund. To quote the first paragraph of the WoW EULA (as I had that one readily available):

"YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY READ THE FOLLOWING WORLD OF WARCRAFT TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT (THE "TERMS OF USE" OR "AGREEMENT"). IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU MUST CLICK "REJECT." IF YOU REJECT THIS AGREEMENT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER FIRST PURCHASING THE WORLD OF WARCRAFT SOFTWARE, YOU MAY CALL (800)757-7707 TO REQUEST A FULL REFUND OF THE PURCHASE PRICE. ONCE YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE AND THE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT (EULA), YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR A REFUND."

Is WoW an operating system?



Fail! The bot program neither improves nor uses the features or WoW.
The only thing it does is giving you virtual gold and items. That does not affect the program itself.



Haha, good joke. hahahahahahahaha....
Ok i stop laughing and start telling you that not even Microsoft could be that stupid. Those program are the only reason you are buying windows at all. There would be nothing that windows had to offer what linux did not.



Are you really blaming blizzard for microsoft booting netscape via marketing? (that case had nothing to do with eulas)
Else this one is pretty much off topic.

Bad choice.....Stardock IS an 'Approved Microsoft Partner'...so Gal Civ will be fine....;)

No again this was a case showing that even though it was licensed he had not broken copyright (autodesk was claiming copyright infringment) cause no matter what an EULA says you can not stomp on a consumers right to use the product as they see fit.  In this case again it was First Sale.  As for WOW I commend Blizzard for putting that in their EULA however that does not change the fact that most EULAs do not have that in them and as I said once I open the box no place will give me my money back.  Blizzard in this case would be an exception.

No again as soon as you buy a book, CD, movie, or software you have agreed to follow the terms of their copyright however what this case shows and why it is a good example is that you can't add terms to a copyright (which is essentially what all EULAs do) that stomp on a consumers rights and in this case it was the right of "First Sale".  It appears to me what EFF is saying with this example is that an EULA can't stomp on a software buyers rights.

Well I am glad you finally agree that I can disagree with something even though a court has ruled on it and not be an idiot.  It also doesn't make your point any less valuable it just means we disagree!  Just cause it takes the supreme court to over rule it doesn't make me and idiot or Ivory-tower idealist.

[quote]Is WoW an operating system?
[quote]
No - Neither is Microsoft Outlook, Internet Explorer, Word, Photoshop, or any of the other dozens of applications programs with third party extensions written for them.

That's purely aside from the fact that there is no real *legal* distinction between an OS and an application program.

Oh - wow - you mean this program is being sold to people who put it on their computers and gain nothing by doing so? Oh, no, that's right - they use it to gain an (unfair) advantage in WoW.

That is what we're talking about, he sold a program that created features these people wanted, they installed it on their computer - *their* personal property (Not on Blizzards Server), made use of those features in the game (in a way I believe we both consider unethical), and they paid him for this program.

Well, for them, they obviously got something they wanted out of this. If they had to hack into the server to do this, that's illegal. But enforcing an EULA that restricts my installing a program *on* *my* *computer*, that works in *my* Ram, utilizes instructions that run through *my* CPU, and is stored on *my* hard drive, is granting a little more power to Blizzard than I think is safe.


Ah - your argument is that companies would never be so foolish as to use a legal advantage that you believe they have a right to use in an unethical way that might, or might not, blow up in their face afterwards.

You remind me of the Ayn Rand Institute at the Microsoft Trial - They had this hilarious "Friend of the court" brief where they argued that Microsoft could not be exercising monopoly power, because it is impossible for a monopoly to exist without government fiat.

Microsoft cannot exercise Monopoly power because monopolies can't exist, therefore Microsoft can't be a Monopoly - QED

Not believing that a company would abuse this interpretation of contract law to achieve market dominance is like arguing that since assaulting someone would result in their hitting back, no one would ever assault someone. Obviously it's foolish to have laws against assault. No sense having any safeguards against someone doing something that no one with any sense would do.

You have such a wonderful faith in humanity that I feel so very certain you can forgive my cynicism. Also, sarcasm.


Blaming Blizzard for Microsoft? No. Drawing a parallel between
A) handing off to a large software company a right to prevent you from running software on your personal property when they consider it to be a threat to their profit margins,
and a large, drawn out case where a large software company attempted to use their market dominance to prevent you from running software on your personal property because they considered it to be a threat to their profit margins.

Yeah - that I will do.

Bluntly - I think you're a bit naive not to consider the possibility that, having handed software companies a very large hammer, it's just feasible what you think a nail looks like might not be what they think a nail looks like.

Jonnan

Regarding Vernor v Autodesk:



In this case the court addressed, then chose to ignore three previous rulings, in favor of citing the Wise decision. The original transaction was ruled a "sale with contractual restrictions on use and transfer of the software." Thus the software was sold, not licensed, so all following actions were allowed under 117.

Compare this ruling with the MDY case. The transaction was ruled a license, not a purchase, while citing all four of the same cases the Vernor decision adressed. The operative difference is that this decision actually incorporated the three cases the Vernor decision considered hopelessly at odds with Wise.



Software is a separate copyright issue from more traditional materials. Previous cases have ruled the loading of a program into RAM constitutes copying. Thus the very use of the software requires a form of copying which must be adressed, while films, books, CDs, etc do not necessarily require such copying.

If the acquisition of the software is legally a sale, section 117 covers this copying as necessary to the function of the product. If the transaction is a license, specific permission from the copyright holder is necessary. The EULA provides this permission, but imposes limitations on that permission. If you see that as "stomping on the consumers' rights", so be it. No one is forcing them to use the product, nor are they prevented from creating their own competing product. This, also, was addressed in the MDY decision.

The essential difference is that MS was attacking a competitor, not a parasite. If MS had had an EULA provision banning ALL web browsers (including their own!) from use with the Windows operating system, the cases would be comparable.

You are mistakenly assuming this case encourages monopolistic practices. I have no doubts whatsoever that someone will attempt to use it that way, but I also have no doubt that such usage will be stricken down.

What doesnt make since to me is that the guy dint have a plan B or a proper excape route for when Blizzer came looking for him. I mean if i was him. The monent i caught a wiff of blizzerd getting near i would of closed shop and cut my losses, but this guy didnt. He baicaly let himself get caught from what i hear.