Game Cheats Are Illegal?

Published on July 15, 2008 By kryo In Personal Computing

In his summary ruling on Blizzard's case against World of Warcraft cheat-maker Michael Donnelly (released yesterday), District Court Judge David Campbell has stated that the act of using a bot in violation of a game's license or terms of use qualifies as a copyright violation. Huh?

Just to get it out of the way, I'm as much against cheats as the next guy. As a WoW player in particular, I'm glad to see Blizzard shut down the cheaters and cheat-makers. But this ruling doesn't make much sense to me; it seems like a case of the judge just trying to find a way to cover something which doesn't really cross any real existing laws. Worse, it sets some (arguably) nasty precedent, effectively making EULAs law (any violation is a violation of copyright), rather than simple contracts where the most you can lose is your right to use the software.

Strangely, the judge actually dismissed Blizzard's claims that the cheats violated the DMCA. Given the amount of use the DMCA gets in such cases, you'd think that the ruling would have been the other way around, at least. In any case, it seems the case is now going to trial to decide the DMCA portion for certain.

What do you guys think? Should this ruling stand? Personally, I think that it shouldn't--stripping cheaters of their access to the game and perhaps making a civil claim against the cheat-makers for damaging the game for everyone else is justified, but making any EULA violations illegal, as Judge Campbell (inadvertently or otherwise) has done is going too far.

Comments (Page 31)

451

Jonnan001

on Oct 10, 2008

WIllythemailboy

reply 24

B. Here is where your premise is incorrect. I have no *desire* to declare EULA's invalid. I *do* desire for the inherent illegality of enforcing an EULA that has provisions in it that are only enforcable via contract law (as opposed to a true license, which is defined with *much* more restraint under copyright law) on a consumer, who has been protected under the UCC from exactly that, to be enforced properly.

A Properly and correctly circumspect EULA which either 1: enforced between merchants, or 2: is enforced on consumers, consisting only of those terms legally enforcable under copyright law or those limited disclaimer as recognized under UCC code, is FINE!

So to properly restate this, you don't want to declare EULAs invalid, you simply wish to limit them to enforcing exactly what copyright law says would apply in the absense of an EULA. In what POSSIBLE way does this differ from declaring EULAs invalid?

On a barely relevant, sadder note, both parties in the Glider case blinked. Most of the outstanding counts of the case were settled before trial, denying us an actual ruling on an issue that is highly relevant in today's uncertain legal environment. Although I did find it humorous that MDY settled on damages nearly double the revenue they made from Glider during it's entire lifetime. On the bright side, one of the remaining issues to be settled is whether Donnelly can be held personally accountable for said damages, rather than limiting liability to the MDY corporation (which consists of Donnelly himself, and not much else).

Filing 95

Edit: seems the font got changed in my previous post due to all the copy pasta. Oh well.

No - I have no objections to a EULA being enforced between merchants. It is between a merchant and a consumer.

That said - You actually do have a case that argues your point here as I see it - I think it's bad law, but it does in fact explicitly accept clicking a EULA as acceptance to the modification of the sales contract. For all practical purposes, it completely defenstrates all consumer protections written into UCC in respect to software programs buy ruling the contract as a 'sale now, terms later' contract - I disagree with it's using ProCD as a precedent - It's both from a different circuit, and given how badly reasoned ProCD actually is, it makes me ill to see it referred to as the "leading Case on Shrinkwrap Agreements" for every reason I gave - But they take that case and make the extra effort to clarify that the simple act of accepting the "I agree" on previously bought software implies accepting it.

Which means any court that accepts *this* case as a precedent will enforce any license term not deemed unconscionable.

Congratulations. For all practical purposes, you have no rights.

Jonnan

452

Bodyless

on Oct 11, 2008

You don't take it as a logical reason that, um, the law establishes that special protection for the consumer? Since it, actually explictly spells out special protections for consumers, I'm going to accept that as a logical reason for granting special protections for consumers.

It is certainly not logical to value every right that is not limited by the law as "garantued". Yes there are some laws for consumer protection. Buts thats not what i was talking about.

My bias towards consumers is broadcast honestly, and if there were no law protecting consumers, I would certainly advocate for one.

But the neat thing about logic is that in order to create a logical argument or attack one, you are forced to set aside your personal biases and look at the actual logic objectively, what is, not what one might wish for - the premises, the implications of those premises, whether there is a hidden assumption that need to be dragged out into the open to be supported or slain, all the things that clarify thought are forced when one has to actually look at the logic. 2+2 = 4, no matter how much you may like the numbers three and five.

So, if I have given you an explicit set of premises, and an argument, both to be debunked should you wish to do so, the question of my biases is irrelevant - either those premises are valid, or they're not.

Instead of debunking my argument or supporting your own, you consistently keep trying to make this about my 'biases', as if I had never made a logical argument for you to debunk.

Frankly that hits me as dishonest and lazy. Make an argument, or don't, but don't hide behind "he has a bias, so I don't have to pay attention to his argument"

Still you refuse to see that an argument like your 5 points may be right and such. But that does not mean that you can win the discussion with only this single argument and instead deny any argument that does not directly fight yours.

Second - "yield no benefit to the game maker nor to the consumer.". On what basis exactly do you believe that having a consumer be aware of the contract they are being held to is not a benefit?

Because in practical terms there is hardly any customer who wants to read such a contract when he only wants to buy a 50$ game. Nor would hardly anyone refuse to buy a game because of this.

EDIT:

Since signing the contract would be the only way to legally purchase the game and there is atm no paragraph of an eula which limits the consumer in a serious way.

453

Bodyless

on Oct 11, 2008

#2. Contradict itself I don't grant, but the law in one statute may be more applicable to a case than law that was written in some other statute loosely touching on the case. But a general argument that "Well, there *might* be another applicable law!" isn't an argument - there might be an invisible omnipotent deity that created the universe 6,000 years ago with all the evidence that it existed longer built in. Or 5 minutes ago, with the exact same results. It's an "Well, anything could happen" argument. I don't do faith based arguments.

Still you would need to prove that there is no contradicting law if you wanted to prove anything.

#3. First of all, I have not attempted to declare EULA's invalid in general - You've stated this repeatedly (and again below that "it didn't look this way". Check your glasses.), but it's a red herring. I have stated consistently that this is a result of specific consumer protections writ into the law, which apply to specific provisions, and I have given direct links to each and why I believe they are applicable. That's hardly an "In General" Statement.

Well i am still confused what you wanted to say with your 5 points and how it relates to this topic.

Attempting to set an impossible standard of proof is not a valid argument for a debate about, well, anything. Either the contract is legally valid, or it is not. Once again I have given my reasons for stating I don't believe that (under these circumstances) it is. If you have a valid counter-argument to make, make it.

But as long as you didnt prove that the contract is invalid you cannot ignore the question if a part of it is legal.

A. You're quite correct. There is nothing inherently illegal about banning bots from a server.
Which is equivalent to the whole software in case of WoW.

Yes - I granted that.

So you agreed that banning bots is legal in wows case. Why was anyone saying the opposite on page 17 of this thread?

Actually, since only two districts have recognized the "Software as Licensed" principles your argument is based on, actually, in general your premise is false.

No. Since in your logic anything, that is not illegal, is legal. So everywhere where eulas are not declared invalid, they are valid.

If you don't want to deal with a rational argument - saying "I Disagree, but I don't feel like debating it" is a valid option. But having posted repeatedly and committed to actively hashing it out, I think it's only ethical to debate it rationally and without sophistry. This "See above" stuff is kinda, y'know, wussy - {G}.

I try to discuss about the topic and not only about a single argument.

Also i never disagreed with it. I accept it as argument but atm is not enough to convince me of ....what did you wanted to say?

And i wrote "see above" because i would have to repeat myself to often.

EDIT:

Ok, done ragging on the font goof. So commercial and consumer laws are set up entirely different, but you keep using commercial rulings to justify consumer scenarios because you feel they're applicable despite the vast differences?

MDY vs Blizzard is a commercial case. So commecrial rulings are very on topic.

454

CobraA1

on Oct 11, 2008

Which presents a fundmental difference, because although neither faith nor an axiom can be proved, faith describes something that cannot be disproved, whereas an axiom, premise, or assumption is disproved if accepting it leads to a logical contradiction or contradict known facts.

Assuming the law of non-contradiction holds, of course. Which I think we'd agree is a reasonable assumption.

About the "I can't disprove it, therefore it is false" argument: While we agree that the teapot you refer to is so unlikely that it is extremely unreasonable to expect it to ever occur, it is still a statistical argument rather than a predicate logic argument.

Indeed, it is a statistical argument, and while the chances of a teapot appearing are extremely unreasonably small, the chances of a contradiction in our laws is not unreasonably small, therefore I would argue that you are ignoring the statistical aspect of the argument in respect to the law.

So, unless someone provides an actual, y'know, law that debunks my argument, I feel comfortable in treating the statement that I can't prove there is no law theat renders my case moot rather like the statements that I can't prove there is no teapot orbiting the earth in an elliptical orbit, I can't prove there are no Invisible Pink Unicorns, and I cannot prove that the universe was not created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Unfortunately, while it is certainly true that contradictions don't exist in the universe itself, that's not to say we can't create laws that don't contradict each other. There's nothing saying that two contradictary phrases can't be written down on sheets of paper. While it may be very likely that you are right, we can't say it's logically impossible for you to be wrong.

Most of the outstanding counts of the case were settled before trial, denying us an actual ruling on an issue that is highly relevant in today's uncertain legal environment.

Please excuse any inaccuracies or poor word choices or just plain bad reasoning, I am not a lawyer.

Well, filing 96 appears to indicate they are still going to trial. Counts I, II, and III (Tortious Interference with Contract, Contributory Copyright Infringement, and Vicarious Copyright Infringement) have basically been granted summarry judgements, and the jusge has awarded $6 million for damages. Counts V and VII (Trademark Infringement and Unjust Enrichment) have been dismissed.

That leaves us with:

Count IV, or the violation of the DCMA. More specifically:
- The part dealing with circumventing technology that controls access to a work.
- The part dealing with circumventing technology that protects the right of a copyright holder.
Count VI, or unfair competition. Basically, they claim that since he's breaking the law, he's being dishonest.

In the best English I can muster:

He has been found liable for encouraging others to break their contract with Blizzard.
He has been found liable for contributing to copyright violations.
He has been found liable for being responsible for the acts of others to violate copyright.
They have yet to determine if he has violated the DCMA, which they will determine in court.
They have yet to determine if he unfairly competes with WoW, which they will determine in court.
They agreed to drop the charge of trademark infringement.
They agreed to drop the charge that he had basically "piggybacked" on WoW's success and made a profit merely because their game was popular.

455

WIllythemailboy

on Oct 11, 2008

The part dealing with circumventing technology that controls access to a work.

This part was addressed in the summary judgement, in MDY's favor. Since a user could theoretically read the entire game off of their hard drive one bit at a time, bypassing Blizzard's security does not qualify as trafficing in illegal decryption technology.

One major part you missed that will be addressed at trial - whether Donnelly will be held personally liable, or if the judgement will only go against corporate assets. Remember, the judgement is nearly double MDY's total revenue since Glider was released, so if Donnelly is held personally liable he's in a world of hurt.

456

Spartan

on Oct 12, 2008

Yep and the new bankruptcy laws for private citizens are a bitch.

I wish that the Wall Street bankers and corporate executives would be held to such standards and liabilities for their actions and business dealings.

457

CobraA1

on Oct 12, 2008

Partially true - and partially false. The judge ruled this way for the game client itself - but for the "non-literal elements" of the game. It is still going to trial, but only for "non-literal elements" of the game.

One major part you missed that will be addressed at trial - whether Donnelly will be held personally liable, or if the judgement will only go against corporate assets.

Agreed, thanks for the correction.

I wish that the Wall Street bankers and corporate executives would be held to such standards and liabilities for their actions and business dealings.

For all business types except the sole proprietership, there is a clear line between business liabilities and personal liabilities. Changing this would be a very fundamental shift in the way businesses are run today.

458

Spartan

on Oct 13, 2008

CobraA1

reply 8

Exactly my point.

459

Enigma_Legion

on Aug 26, 2010

Thats also a MMO not a solo play game.

460

pad152

on Aug 26, 2010

Funny, there was a story a couple of years ago about a Chinese millionaire using slave labor to mine and sell gold in WOW. So using a cheat is against the law but, slave labor is ok!

If you buy the software and are paying to play it (why I hate MMORPG's), I don't see anything wrong with playing it your way, including using Bot's or cheats as long as your not cheating or effecting other players.

Getting lawyers involed in the gaming industry only means one thing, more lawyers!

The real danger here is not cheats but, mods, are we going to see game companies sueing players who use mods that change game play or adds something they don't like? Whats the difference between a mod and a cheat, that's the stuff that will keep lawyers busy from years to come and we will all pay for it!

461

CarGuy1

on Aug 26, 2010

Enigma_Legion wins the necrothead award for the day.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!