Curse

RedNova88 · Mar 28, 2008, 06:39 PM // 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stockholm

Nothing illegal with MAKING and SELLING Bot programs, the buyer might break the EULA by using it.

Will be intressting to see the verdict on this as it will impact all 3rd party software.

Actually it depends on how he made the bot. It's much like the whole private server dispute, it's NOT illegal unless the person in question reverse engineered Blizzard's technology in order to make that bot, which is a big nono. It's why so many of the emulators used to host private servers get busted, because the people that made them get caught dismantling Blizzard's product from the inside out and are taken to court.

And for the record, the reason WoW is so full of grind is because quite a few of the most hardcore players from Everquest are in charge, or so I've been told by numerous people.

Esan · Mar 28, 2008, 06:41 PM // 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Sonata-

Tell that to Micheal Donnelly and the operators of Peons4hire.
Not everything is a "Phantom".

I am pointing out a false equivalence you are drawing between one person and an industry. Donnelly is the grand exception.

Numa Pompilius · Mar 28, 2008, 06:49 PM // 18:49

OK, I see my post got lost when the thread was moved. What I said was roughly this:

I find Blizzards charges laughable. Basically Blizzard is suing this guy for writing a software which 1) makes users who've paid Blizzard for unlimited access to Blizzard servers, use Blizzards servers more than Blizzard wants, and 2) his software reads the WoW client to RAM one more time than the operating system does ANYWAY.

Bullshit charges, IMO.

My guess is that Blizzard is perfectly aware these are bullshit charges, and are intending to intimidate the bot-maker into settling, or, failing that, ruin him with legal fees. Blizzard does have the resources to ruin pretty much anyone, even fairly large companies; a private individual like this guy doesn't stand a chance.

An interesting twist would be if Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) steps in to support the bot-maker.

But smart money says there'll be a settlement, and that part of that settlement will be that he stops selling or supporting his botware.

DarkWasp · Mar 28, 2008, 07:40 PM // 19:40

Gold selling is black market. The world needs to realise that.

Zinger314 · Mar 28, 2008, 09:09 PM // 21:09

How the heck can anyone interpret this as anti-WoW?

Atleast Blizzard is actually suing over bots, while NCSoft and SoE don't care at all.

Snow Bunny · Mar 28, 2008, 09:10 PM // 21:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

Atleast Blizzard is actually suing over bots, while NCSoft and SoE don't care at all.

The financial damage the bots cause pales in siginificance to lawyer fees.

Zinger314 · Mar 28, 2008, 09:13 PM // 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

The financial damage the bots cause pales in insiginificance to lawyer fees.

That doesn't change the fact that Blizzard is actually suing.

Fril Estelin · Mar 28, 2008, 09:20 PM // 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

That doesn't change the fact that Blizzard is actually suing.

Because they've got the money. Tons and tons of it. That's the only reason.

Edit: look at the kind of sharks that Blizzard are:
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/396
Blizzard is so fat in money that they create these "lawyerbots".

Snow Bunny · Mar 28, 2008, 09:30 PM // 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

That doesn't change the fact that Blizzard is actually suing.

Zinger, c'mon, think here.

Blizzard has much more money than NCSoft/ANet does. They can afford to sue. Throw the principles/morals out, think about the economics of the issue.

Stockholm · Mar 28, 2008, 09:42 PM // 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Mr. Donnelly can say whatever the hell he wants, but he'll lose, despite how flimsy the EULA is as a legal contract. Contracts are prime in American law, and thus, by virtue of this, Donnelly loses.

But the EULA only applies to players of WOW, so unless he is a registerd player that argument is OUT.
It all comes down to HOW the Bot is programmed, what means it uses to read the stream from the server. If it runs like a FREESTANDING program outside the WOW client then he will be OK.

Zinger314 · Mar 28, 2008, 09:51 PM // 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Blizzard has much more money than NCSoft/ANet does.

I doubt that. While WoW has 10 million players, it's Blizzard's primary franchise. NCSoft and SoE have lots, lots more franchises, all with equivalent monthly fees.

Fril Estelin · Mar 28, 2008, 09:51 PM // 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stockholm

But the EULA only applies to players of WOW, so unless he is a registerd player that argument is OUT.
It all comes down to HOW the Bot is programmed, what means it uses to read the stream from the server. If it runs like a FREESTANDING program outside the WOW client then he will be OK.

No actually, it doesn't come down to programming. In court, it will be about interpretation of what programming experts will say, but not about the programming itself. I've been convinced of this by the columns of Mike Rasch on this website:
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists

It's not about "client-server" or "local-remote" or "network protocol/packets", it's about what judges and jury will interpret of the intentions of the programmer and the positions with regards to the laws. And in several cases like that (Kazaa? DeCSS?) the tribunals went against the individuals, clearly stating that the digital nature of computing does not remove the notion of "stealing".

I wonder whether this discussion will shift to the one of 3rd party programs, like the one we had a long while ago on the Texmod Cartography mod, cheat or not? (well, at least this one if free)

Fril Estelin · Mar 28, 2008, 09:59 PM // 21:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

I doubt that. While WoW has 10 million players, it's Blizzard's primary franchise. NCSoft and SoE have lots, lots more franchises, all with equivalent monthly fees.

Are you serious? Why do you think they merged with Activision (see http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/new...?story=16457)?

Here are the details of their business numbers last year:
http://216.92.236.126/php-bin/news_i...hp?story=16458
calendar 2007 revenues of $1.1 billion, operating margins of over 40% and approximately $520 million of operating profit

Snow Bunny · Mar 28, 2008, 10:13 PM // 22:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stockholm

But the EULA only applies to players of WOW, so unless he is a registerd player that argument is OUT.
It all comes down to HOW the Bot is programmed, what means it uses to read the stream from the server. If it runs like a FREESTANDING program outside the WOW client then he will be OK.

Then you'd have a freestanding bot. He's also encouraging players to violate the EULA. GOGOGOGOGOGO conspiracy charge! At least in American law, by encouraging someone to violate a contract and offer them incentive to do so, you can get slapped with a conspiracy charge.

If Blizzard gets good lawyers, they have this thing.

Stockholm · Mar 28, 2008, 10:25 PM // 22:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Then you'd have a freestanding bot. He's also encouraging players to violate the EULA. GOGOGOGOGOGO conspiracy charge! At least in American law, by encouraging someone to violate a contract and offer them incentive to do so, you can get slapped with a conspiracy charge.

If Blizzard gets good lawyers, they have this thing.

This is a civil suit regarding Copyright infringment, what you are talking about would requir the state to take action. And is he offring any incentive? I thought he was CHARGING for the program.

Phineas · Mar 29, 2008, 01:02 AM // 01:02

I'll watch this one with interest as both sides put forward a good argument.

I am opposed to bots and rmt's but this is something the precedes that, going for the developer that enables botting. I earn my living from writing software so I do understand Blizzard's view from a loss of revenue perspective but be interesting to see if this can be settled through the EULA. But hey, the more botters in WoW could lead to more players coming to GW :P

Numa Pompilius · Mar 29, 2008, 04:08 PM // 16:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Then you'd have a freestanding bot. He's also encouraging players to violate the EULA. GOGOGOGOGOGO conspiracy charge! At least in American law, by encouraging someone to violate a contract and offer them incentive to do so, you can get slapped with a conspiracy charge.

First Blizzard would have to show that the EULA is a contract. Which would be a very hard sell. And it could backfire something horrible if the verdict goes the wrong way, as there'd then be a court decision that the EULA isn't binding.

Quote:

If Blizzard gets good lawyers, they have this thing.

Blizzard HAVE good lawyers, and they opted to go for two bullshit charges & intimidation. That should tell you something.

@Phineas: "Both sides put forth good argument"? Blizzards is suing this guy for writing software which 1) allow users who've paid Blizzard for unlimited use of Blizzard servers, use Blizzards servers more than Blizzard wants, and 2) his software reads the WoW client to RAM one more time than the operating system does ANYWAY.

Thorondor Port · Mar 29, 2008, 05:01 PM // 17:01

Wait, I read a bunch of posts and totally forgot what this thread is about.
An arguement about what company makes more, is sueing who, and has better lawyers?

oh. cool

edit: WAIT NO ITS NOT. Off topic and the absurd indeed

Snow Bunny · Mar 29, 2008, 05:35 PM // 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

First Blizzard would have to show that the EULA is a contract. Which would be a very hard sell. And it could backfire something horrible if the verdict goes the wrong way, as there'd then be a court decision that the EULA isn't binding.

I'm pretty sure that the EULA counts as a contract, if a very flimsy one. You can't access the game until you accept it.

Numa Pompilius · Mar 29, 2008, 05:55 PM // 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

I'm pretty sure that the EULA counts as a contract, if a very flimsy one. You can't access the game until you accept it.

You don't sign anything or in any way prove that you are actually you.

There's been, I don't know, four or five cases where breaches of EULA's have gone to court, and it's a pretty even split between "it's not a contract" and "it's a contract". In the EU the situation is clearer: shrinkwraps and EULA's are presently not contracts.

In the US the industry studiously avoid pressing the issue, instead focussing on lobbying politicians to get the laws changed so shrinkwraps and EULA's are expressly accepted as contracts (a day we should all dread).

@Thorondor: So, you're new to the interwebs?