Blizzard Victorious in Lawsuit Against Bot Developer

Human rights groups worry that a dangerous precedent, the shift Explanatory industry, policy makers of World of Warcraft to play the BOT mmoglider, lost to prosecute wow developers Blizzard Entertainment - and a decision is the pressure on players who choose their automated m morpg game. In its suit, Blizzard accused the industry commitment to this day, or enable users to make commitments, various legal systems of SINS World of Warcraft and end-user license agreement (EULA), users were forced to sign if they want to play. A claim that Explanatory tortiously interfere with the contractual relationship between Blizzard and its users, while another claimed that World of Warcraft players who use the glider, the Blizzard of copyright infringement. U.S. District Judge David Campbell, Arizona, the District Court and one-sided Blizzard of these claims, the ruling party on this day with a motion summary judgement that the short-circuit the case before, to trial. Campbell rejected the third claim, however, that this day will be found in violation of the DMCA to provide ways to circumvent technology to protect World of Warcraft completion of the procedure code. Blizzard's second claim was proved to be the most controversial, with various commentators and the public the right group, in support of strengthening the position of this day. The argument is essentially that only players allowed to load World of Warcraft into their computer's memory, when they comply with the terms of the game's EULA - including rules to prohibit the use of robots or other programs to Haq of the game. According to Blizzard, when the players loaded into the RAM and wow glider, he or she is to break these terms; ergo, the absence of their compliance with the EULA, copied to the game of RAM, and unauthorized and infringing the copyright Blizzard. Two years, and copyright reform action group Public Knowledge, an attempt to refute this argument invoked the so-called "section 117 defense," so that "owners" of a computer program to copy it for the purpose of the implementation of free software - regardless of whether or Development is not authorized. Amicus curiae ( "friend Court") from the public knowledge of the letter (PDF format), the so-called Blizzard of the claim is unjustified and accused the game developers "[attempting to] contract to replace and change those aspects of copyright law, it does not Like, and the use of copyright penalties to… implementation of the provisions of that change. " Campbell's rejection (PDF format) on the date of the "117" national defense bonds two important points: First, the District of Arizona, his hands tied, because the Ninth Circuit priority, followed by the user does not wow "Owned" copy of the game since the licensing agreement on the implementation of stringent restrictions on how the game can be used. The decision provided a precedent for bold, solid strength, the copyright holder. Since almost all the software sales implementation of the restrictions on how it can be used through a lengthy EULA - as the most open-source software, through the G PL, and the license will be similar - the software users could lose their rights as "Owner" of copies and strictly bound by its provisions. According to Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is a direct violation of the intent and writing the current copyright law. "As public knowledge of the interpretation, in its brief, confused the Blizzard of the copyright holder's intellectual property rights in software development and the buyer the right to the actual copy of the software," read a blog entry in the Electronic Frontier Foundation Site. "The logical implication held that any time you purchased the software…… [development] may have been using the license agreement, to prevent you from any time in the past have complete control of your software, and to make use of copyright restrictions (such as domestic power A copy of [Article 109 of the Copyright Law, or the right to make the necessary copies of the software [117]), you can buy it, but you can not have it. " Campbell and the appreciation and recognition of PK's argument, he has been trying to categorically said that he was "not ignore the freedom of the 9th Circuit precedent directly on point." It is unknown whether or not this day will try to appeal the decision - although the Electronic Frontier Foundation is expected, the Court of Appeal, to solve the problem "in the near future."