World of Warcraft Bot Maker Suffers Crushing Defeat

[SecondPrize]

How dare that big meany Blizzard try and ensure people follow the rules when playing a multiplayer game. Those jerks.

Whether you like cheating or not (most people don't, obviously), this is still a rather controversial subject.

Consider that a judgement like this can be used as a basis for limiting/prohibiting ALL software development of third-party addons/plugins for games or other software (not talking the standard WoW addons here), and it's in fact a rather large limitation.

In Denmark, we actually have paragraph in our Copyright law that ensures us the right to develop software that works with other software, including the right to reverse engineer the parts of the software necessary for us to make our own software work. Over here, Blizzard would have lost that lawsuit

There are other issues though. Can you profit from the software that works with other software? Some things are okay if you give it away but when you start bringing in sales you've gone too far.

 

[Gameguy20100]

Im very much on Blizzards side here. If you get caught breaking the rules I have 0 sympathy for you.

 

[Zeren]

Third party software is one thing, but having a bot qualifies as "cheating" at WoW. While having an addon/mod is one thing, having one that damages the game for other players is quite another, and this clearly damages the game for others. It wrecks the economy and degrades the experience of other people trying to farm. It would be interesting to see how that case would play out in Denmark though.

I give it a week before the bot code is "leaked" and a spike of bots swarm WoW.

If it was, I would imagine that either Blizzard would see the people at the company utterly ruined or they would face criminal charges for failing to comply with a court order.

What makes you think that someone couldn't put the code out there anyway? The last time I checked, laws and legal threats don't stop people if they really want to share something.

 

[Balimaar]

i sense a sudden intrusion into computer systems formerly owned by the company and the code somehow being accessed and distributed.

but this brings up other questions. there are bots and hacks made for many multiplayer games. this judgement could very well set a precedent.

 

[Athinira]

There are other issues though. Can you profit from the software that works with other software? Some things are okay if you give it away but when you start bringing in sales you've gone too far.

And why is that going to far?

There are limitations stating that the software you develop cannot be similar in nature to the software you are making it operate with (meaning that it cannot, at the basic level, provide the same functionality). But beyond that, there is no reasonable argument for why it should be disallowed to make your own independent software and sell it (coded and developed by yourself), that works with some other unspecified software. Unless you copy code or similar, which is still illegal, it's still an original piece of work. The reverse engineering clause is to allow for study of the software to allow understanding of it's mechanics.

It's by the same model that Jailbreak-only apps for iOS are sold. They are also developed for iOS and sold on seperate app-stores, even though they aren't sanctioned or supported by Apple (who actively work against jailbreaking)

Edit: someone also provided the excellent example of FRAPS. FRAPS is a commercial software that works with most games, but if FRAPS happens to experience problems with some games, the developers would by danish law have the right to investigate what was causing the issue. By your argument, they would either be prohibited from fixing the problems (unless they could reach an agreement with the publisher/developer) or be forced to freeware/open-source their software. Not really a healthy model for the software-developing community to run on.

For start they did not sue for breach of copyright but for breach of contract. Ceiling fan accepted that contract when they bought their copies of wow. Blizzard have proved breach of contract and even under Danish Law you can't profit from an illegal act, any and all monies taken will go to Blizzard. I would suggest reading the article before going on about Danish copyright provisions because they are not pertinent to the case.

Except that part 3 of the paragraph in question specifically says that the rights this paragraph grants you CANNOT be waived by agreement. So the law trumps anything Blizzard writes in their EULA or ToS in that regard, which still makes it very pertinent to my original post.

I would suggest reading and understanding danish law (which i can hardly blame you for not doing, since they don't have official english translations - i assume you're from the United States - and are hardly that interesting given that we're a small country) before going on about what is or isn't relevant to my example.

Edit: also, even though I've already mentioned this in an earlier post, in Denmark you need to be able to prove actual damage in order to be able to make a financial claim in a civil suit in addition to proving that there has been a breach of copyright to begin with - which as already stated isn't the case. Simply pointing to breach of parts of the EULA/ToS (which the law in this case invalidates anyway) isn't going to award you anything.

 

[lordmardok]

In Denmark, we actually have paragraph in our Copyright law that ensures us the right to develop software that works with other software, including the right to reverse engineer the parts of the software necessary for us to make our own software work. Over here, Blizzard would have lost that lawsuit

That's not actually true. The key words there are "to make our own software work." Denmark's copyright clause is designed to prevent unethical obsolescence plans like Microsoft does, where the software breaks down and you're not allowed to modify it without breaking terms of use. It's not designed to prevent people from making programs which clearly compromise the integrity of a game that already works perfectly fine on its own.

You're talking about a clause instated to protect the customer from unethical software companies bleeding you for unnecessary 'new editions' of a program that don't appreciably change. Honestly, Blizzard would likely have still won the case in your country because that clause wouldn't even apply to bot makers. There is no logic in the world that would convince a sane judge that a company which creates bots that trail around a perfectly functional digital world soaking up xp is worthy of being protected under that law.

Not to say they wouldn't try, but I guarantee it wouldn't fly in court.

Your example would only work if the people getting fried in court by blizzard were making, for example, a patch that would make the game work for people that it didn't work for. That would be protected. Bots? Not even close.

 

[DugMachine]

Good, bots are god damn annoying. There was a time when I couldn't even compete with ore farming as there was bots seemingly on 24/7 just patrolling the area picking up everything in their path.

 

[lordmardok]

But, that's neither here nor there. My issue, is with the 7,000,000$. Is that in legal fees or is it a fine? If it's legal fees-Fine, that's fair, they need to be recompensed for the time and energy spent debating it in open court. If it's a fine-No, that's not cool. You cannot properly gauge how much or how little impact this one software groups "bots" did or did not do to the World of Warcraft as a whole.

The fine is the Punishment part of the deal. Not fining is like saying: "Well don't do it again." And leaving it at that. The point of the fines is the Punish the parties that broke the law. It's incentive not to do it again and an example to others who might think about committing similar practices. Maybe it was a steep punishment but consider this:

A company was making programs that unfairly compromised the fairness and integrity of their game in the favor of people who paid for ai bots to follow them around. Then they took up Blizzards legal attention for over two god damn years trying to weasel out of it. I'm the first to point out Blizzards flaws too but the fact is that this company very clearly broke a ton of ToA rules which the Judge agreed was the case. The SOLUTION to the problem was dissolving the company and making them unable to sell the bots anymore. But that's not punishment. What's to stop them from just doing it again under a different banner in a different game? That's the point of punishment.

Punishment is not to 'pay legal fees' or 'recoup losses'. Let's face it, Blizzard is stinking rich. They don't actually need the money, however nice it is to have. The point is that it punishes, rather severely, the people who broke the law and the ToA. Now others know that if they do that, then they too could get slapped with a 7 mil ticket. That's the point.

 

[Athinira]

That's not actually true. The key words there are "to make our own software work." Denmark's copyright clause is designed to prevent unethical obsolescence plans like Microsoft does, where the software breaks down and you're not allowed to modify it without breaking terms of use. It's not designed to prevent people from making programs which clearly compromise the integrity of a game that already works perfectly fine on its own.

You're talking about a clause instated to protect the customer from unethical software companies bleeding you for unnecessary 'new editions' of a program that don't appreciably change. Honestly, Blizzard would likely have still won the case in your country because that clause wouldn't even apply to bot makers. There is no logic in the world that would convince a sane judge that a company which creates bots that trail around a perfectly functional digital world soaking up xp is worthy of being protected under that law.

Wrong. You're reading the wrong paragraph here. What you are referencing here seems to be, at least from what I'm reading, § 36 of danish copyright law. I'm referencing § 37, which gives exactly the rights I've been talking about. Those are two different paragraphs. Since your profile says you're American, I've done you the favor of translating it for you (Google Translate is rather useless for laws, so i did it myself).

Spoiler: § 37 (click to read)

§ 37. The reproduction/recreation of a software programs code and the translation of such code is permitted, when it is required to get the necessary information to make an independently developed software program and other software programs capable of interoperability with the original software program, assuming
1) the actions are performed by the licensee, or someone who has a license to use the original software program, or someone who does it on behalf of the people who has the license,
2) the information, for which it is necessary to to create interoperability, hasn't previously been easily accessible for the people mentioned in point 1,
3) the actions are limited to the parts of the original software program, for which it is necessary to create interoperability.
Part 2. The information gathered in part 1, may not
1) be used for other purposes than making the independently developed software program interoperable,
2) be transmitted/transferred to a third party, except when necessary to make the independently developed software program interoperable, or
3) be used in the creation, development or marketing of a software product, which in its expression widely resembles the original software product, or for any other act which violates the copyright law.
Part 3. The provisions in part 1 and part 2 cannot be waived by agreement.

As you can see, it very clearly states "to make an independently developed software program and other software programs capable of interoperability with the original software program".

So in short, it probably would (and should) fly pretty damned well, assuming you stick to the restrictions applied, (including only doing the necessary reverse-engineering work, not using it to develop/market a similar product, not transmitting/publicizing the information you've gathered, and that you have a license to use the original product, which in this case means simply having an active WoW-account). Even an EULA/ToS clause that specifially says "You cannot make bots for this game" would be invalidated by this, because the law always protects your right to make an independent software program work with another program as long as the restrictions in question are respected.

 

[JayRPG]

Whether you like cheating or not (most people don't, obviously), this is still a rather controversial subject.

Consider that a judgement like this can be used as a basis for limiting/prohibiting ALL software development of third-party addons/plugins for games or other software (not talking the standard WoW addons here), and it's in fact a rather large limitation.

Bots today, FRAPS tomorrow?

I could see that happening, sadly. Suddenly if you want to record video of your game play, you need the Blizzard combo recorder plus codec ($20 USD). Anyone caught recording on anything else will have their account banned.

Someone tries to argue the point *Points to bot case*


"But sir, it wasn't hurting your game," you might argue.

"Sure it is, look at how low our sales of the Blizzard game recorder is, but how many let's play videos are on youtube on our latest game," replies the lawyers, "Everyone one of those should have been a sale."

Those 2 cases are not even the slightest bit similar, blizzard could make that same case without the bot one and the outcome would be the same.

For 1, recording gameplay isn't against the T&Cs, and if they added it in to the T&Cs you better believe there would be a shit storm from the community and it would likely bring lawsuits upon blizzard for purposely eliminating the competition in trying to create a monopoly on gameplay recording.

This case doesn't give shaky precedence to anything except other bot makers (third-party program that Automates gameplay)

 

[weirdee]

Can't say I've never used a bot out of curiosity.(Literally, the longest I've had a bot run for was 60 seconds and at that, it performed extremely poorly. It was more efficient to do it myself.) However, I've never really accepted that bots as a whole are a detriment and give an unfair advantage. Fact is, doing it yourself is faster/more efficient if you do it right. Unless the bot is extremely well coded, you're at a deficit, not a gain. It really kindof boils back down to the whole debate regarding Pokemon and Action Replay codes being used to create "perfect" pokemon instead of the hours and hours it takes to breed merely 1 (one) not quite perfect and the months it could take to breed a "perfect" then having to repeat that over 6 "pokemon" for competetive play. But, that's neither here nor there. My issue, is with the 7,000,000$. Is that in legal fees or is it a fine? If it's legal fees-Fine, that's fair, they need to be recompensed for the time and energy spent debating it in open court. If it's a fine-No, that's not cool. You cannot properly gauge how much or how little impact this one software groups "bots" did or did not do to the World of Warcraft as a whole. It isn't like they were creating a way of bypassing Battle.Net security and making false accounts that were being spoofed and played on legitimate servers. They were making automated methods of playing an online game with no tangible consequences. I'll be the first to admit, I take pride in my characters, I take pride in my achievements. It pisses me off knowing I'm "working" hard at a game and others are just cheating their way into finance and making headway on a raiding schedule that I never get to be a part of, but this is taking it a bit too far.

i'd just like to make a point here that the purpose of bots is not to necessarily emulate the level of player activity on a 1 to 1 basis, but also by running during times when the user is not actively playing, or in the case of resource gathering, multiple agents which may collectively meet or exceed the production speed of just one person

 

[MHR]

Good riddance. bots and botters can go to hell. I hate WoW but I hate bots way more. I only wish the court order could make Ceiling Fan required to pawn off the shirts from their backs.

 

[Shim3d]

Good. If, while playing a videogame that you're paying $15 a month for, you decide you'd rather have the computer play it for you, it should be obvious that you are not having fun which is what games are for!! (generally... Spec Ops: The Line yada yada)

 

[Diddy_Mao]

While I regularly wish I could automate my fishing process. I'll still say I completely stand by Blizzard here. Bots are a huge pain in the ass and tend to be a significant downer when trying to enjoy certain parts of the game.

They have also done a good job in the past of allowing/supporting the addon community well enough that I can't justify the "slippery slope" argument that some are sure to make.

 

[DjinnFor]

Yeah I'm not seeing either the damages nor an inducement to break a contract, after reading the judgment. Sure, they may have violated some technicality of The Law, but its not like that matters in real life. Only in Legal Land, where logic and sense are thrown out the window and everything is the opposite of what you'd expect does that kind of shit make a difference.

 

[aPod]

Without bots who will play WoW?

The 7 million judgement is pretty massive. How much money did the bot makers actually make?

 

[J Tyran]

How dare that big meany Blizzard try and ensure people follow the rules when playing a multiplayer game. Those jerks.

You mean how dare that big meany Blizzard use the legal system to try and ensure people follow the rules in a game.

Frankly this is a shitty ruling, unless 3rd party software breaks the law by facilitating piracy its no business of the courts at all. Since when do the courts get involved over cheating in games?

Next time I get wall hacked in an FPS I might sue...

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Whether you like cheating or not (most people don't, obviously), this is still a rather controversial subject.

Consider that a judgement like this can be used as a basis for limiting/prohibiting ALL software development of third-party addons/plugins for games or other software (not talking the standard WoW addons here), and it's in fact a rather large limitation.

Bots today, FRAPS tomorrow?

I could see that happening, sadly. Suddenly if you want to record video of your game play, you need the Blizzard combo recorder plus codec ($20 USD). Anyone caught recording on anything else will have their account banned.

Someone tries to argue the point *Points to bot case*


"But sir, it wasn't hurting your game," you might argue.

"Sure it is, look at how low our sales of the Blizzard game recorder is, but how many let's play videos are on youtube on our latest game," replies the lawyers, "Everyone one of those should have been a sale."

Bots and recording are two different things though. Bots are basically cheating in the game. However, no one can stop you from recording what happens on your monitor.

OT: This is great. It's kinda funny watching them pretend to be the hero aswell. "our customer's right to play WoW as they choose" my ass. It's outright cheating and I'm glad they been stomped.