Are they copying the game? If not, then it's not a copyright violation. Copyright can be traced back to two words. Right (as in entitlement), and copy (as in reproduce or reproduction) make up copyright. If it is not a copy, it's not an infringement of copyright.

Why?

Isn't a violation of an EULA a breach of contract?

Just because it has an acronym doesn't make it less enforcable.

If you agree to the terms of an EULA then that's that.  You cannot selectively disregard it...

If copyright were that simple there wouldn't be room for debates of IP, etc....

Looks like the issue here would be with the taking and modifying of proprietary content for uses other than that which was intended.

If the Game designer wanted the game to be difficult and involving....any third-party attempts to circumvent that complexity would be a case to answer....

I'm not saying it's not illegal, I'm just saying that it's nto in copyright.

Somebody cheated while playing Monopoly "ruining the game for the rest of the players" all the injured parties should sue the offending party for enjoyment infringement. The law is being distorted by such a ruling. What did the judge find fault with that any user of this cheat software had to buy a second license to use WoW to cover this copy in RAM memory?

Furthermore Blizzard had a suitable remedy in banning the use of the cheat software from the WoW multiplayer boards. Bad ruling in my opinion. There's no proof that the cheat software damaged the WoW product in any way.

the judge is obviously not a gamer.

glad blizzard gigged the cheat-maker.

So, when is stardock giving the community the source code for SINS?   

Ah, but breach of contract is just breach of contract; it's grounds for a civil claim of damages, but not illegal in and of itself. This ruling changes that.

The particular cheat in question, as I understand it, doesn't modify anything. It basically just plays the game for you.

I haven't read the decision yet, but the way I would have gone about arguing that would go something like this:

Cribbing from the Diablo EULA (as I don't play WoW, but I assume the WoW terms are at least as restrictive) one of the terms he agreed to was: Blizzard may, at its discretion, terminate this License Agreement in the event that You fail to comply with the terms and conditions contained herein. In such event, You must immediately destroy the Program.

Creating a bot program would violate one or more terms of the EULA (I would argue reverse engineering, modifying, and creation of a derivative work all took place), so Blizzard had the right to terminate his liscense to use the program. Any use afterward would constitute copyright infringement not breach of contract, as he was no longer party to a contract.



You wouldn't consider that a modification of the user interface?

How about the idea of entering a contract with the intent of breaking it?  Fraudulent, maybe? ....

This is a rather unsupportable ruling in my opinion for the following reasons. I have a 2 GB standard windows machine whenever running software of any kind Windows which is owned by MS has to have a "copy" of that software in RAM to run it. Windows caches my use of my computer to make loading times for frequently used programs faster. My HD has a cache on it. All of these place "copies" of programs in RAM memory.

I haven't read the court ruling and don't know if I would fully understand it but, I'm thinking if the judge is relying on the fact that Michael Donnelly's program needs a copy of Blizzard's WoW in RAM memory to work properly as proof of a copyright infringement, I think his ruling will be overturned.

It's a ridiculous technicality (legally) that the judge is using here. Obviously, a program has to be loaded into memory to use, but that hardly consititutes a "copy" in any sense that actually matters.

The user already owns a legally purchased copy and is not duplicating it in any substantial or material way, though they *are* using it in contravention of the license--but that's another matter (continued breach of contract). It's just a horrible misapplication of copyright law.

That depends on how WoW is set up when it comes to the division of client and server. If the client needs substantially more of the game in RAM than would be the case in normal play (allowing the program to "see" more of the map, location of enemies, etc), it could be sucessfully argued.

I really need to get myself a copy of the WoW EULA, so I can go through this properly.

Edit:



Actually, (again from the D2 EULA) copying necessary to run the game is expressedly and specifically granted, so long as it is created as an essential step in your utilization of the Program in accordance with the terms of this License Agreement and for NO OTHER PURPOSE.

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html 

For those looking for the EULA.

If it can be demonstrated that the use of bots disadvantages other WoW customers there will clearly be a legitimate case for compensation....and that will be for a serious amount of money.

The guy who creates/sells this bot thingie is gonna be very very deep in the poo.

I'd chalk that up to their lawyers just wanting to cover every possible base or avenue or exploitation, since yeah, some such cheats make mirror copies of the game's memory so it can't detect tampering in its own memory space.

In all actuality though, the copying of a program to memory is an integral step of using it, so it HAS to be granted or the whole thing is moot. It's actually not unlike the act of reading a book, in which the words pass through your short term memory. It would be utter nonsense to say that you're making a copy in the act of doing that. As with a game, only a tiny part is ever there at any one time, and the rest of the book (or assets) are read in and forgotten as you go. Generally, much of what's in memory at any given time is not the program itself, but runtime-generated data about the game world.