kryo kryo

Game Cheats Are Illegal?

▼

Game Cheats Are Illegal?

from JoeUser Forums

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. [more]

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.

1,150,214 views 462 replies
Reply #151 from Stardock Forums Top

You bet your ass they would have! Do YOU have a WoW account? If so, you would understand.
End of quote

Are you seriously listening to yourself?  You honestly believe that every single user that got banned would have signed up again and started playing again?  Thats a stretch and even if only one didn't that proves my point.  Second if that was such an issue why isn't Blizzard sueing every user they have banned to get their 8 months of subscription fees?  I'll tell you why cause that is plain stupid!

Reply #152 from Stardock Forums Top

Figure that for every customer that complains, approximately ten do not. 465,000 complaints means 4,650,000 people aren't complaining, but are unhappy. I think the total number of players in the US and EU comes to approximately 5-6 million, so odds are good that the majority is unhappy with this. Also, the average WoW player subscribes for 7 months. A lot of players who would play normally otherwise give glider a try and get banned.
End of quote

Sorry I am not going to figure anything and the court should not either.  If Blizzard cannot prove it than it did not happen, you can look at it anyway you like but that is the way it goes.  Not only that but Blizzard claims 10 million plus active subscribers, I can only take the exact numbers I know and Blizzard states only several thousand specifically referenced Glider unless more can be proven then that is all blizzard can use.  I don't care what they assume.  They can not get damages from this guy if they can't prove it was caused specifically by Glider.

As for players that would have played for 7 months but got banned because they used Glider, uhm to bad to Blizzard that is like a store suing a theif for all the future purchases he/she would have made if they weren't in jail!  Give me a break. 

Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #153 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Also I never said Blizzard shoud ignore them I just said they should continue to ban user not sue.
End of quote


Blizzard is continuing to ban bot users. The lawsuit is an attempt to cut off the source of the problem. To use a criminal analogy, bot users are drug users, at most a neighborhood dealer. MDY is the guy in Columbia producing the drugs in the first place. It's nto a perfect analogy, but it fits. Players would not be able to use this bot if MDY did not supply it, and continuously update it.

First that means you are assuming just like me!
End of quote


To an extent, yes. I'm assuming the judge made a ruling on the information that couldn't be released publicly. The general highlights were released as public information, but proprietary information - from both sides! - is withheld to prevent others from repeating MDY's actions.

Second I thought all bots were harmful sounds like they are using this one to gain back for the ones that aren't as well known also.
Third the key word is most! that means there are others, and you say that this is the only one and should pay for everything is wrong!
End of quote


All bots are harmful to a certain extent. What raises Glider to an entirely different level is the way it was designed to evade detection. Yes, blizzard is claiming most of its bot-related losses are due to glider, MDY doesn't dispute that fact. You're arguing a point the defense was willing to stipulate!

Not only that but how do they know these subscribers would have continued playing if they couldn't cheat? I am sure some would but come on you can't know that for sure period.
End of quote


I am sure some would not. I am also sure some would have continued playing well past the 8 months. That's why it's called an average.

Sorry I am not going to figure anything and the court should not either. If Blizzard cannot prove it than it did not happen, you can look at it anyway you like but that is the way it goes. Not only that but Blizzard claims 10 million plus active subscribers, I can only take the exact numbers I know and Blizzard states only several thousand specifically referenced Glider unless more can be proven then that is all blizzard can use. I don't care what they assume. They can not get damages from this guy if they can't prove it was caused specifically by Glider.
End of quote


Luckily for everyone involved, your standards of evidence are irrelevant. There is no reason to assume a casual observer would be able to tell which bot was being used, anyway. The evidence on how Glider bots are distinguishable from other bots is part of the sealed testimony. The judge obviously felt there was enough evidence to rule on it.

If you'll note, the exact amount of damages is one of the issues held over for the full trial. Maybe we will get more comprehensive information at that time.

As for players that would have played for 7 months but got banned because they used Glider, uhm to bad to Blizzard that is like a store suing a theif for all the future purchases he/she would have made if they weren't in jail! Give me a break.
End of quote


No, it's Blizzard suing the guy selling tool kits to beat all the anti-theft devices.
Reply #154 from Stardock Forums Top

No, it's Blizzard suing the guy selling tool kits to beat all the anti-theft devices.
End of quote

I see so your analogies are the only ones that count?

I am sure some would not. I am also sure some would have continued playing well past the 8 months. That's why it's called an average.
End of quote

No Blizzard specifically states that the damages are not speculatively, they say nothing of an average they are saying they want 8 months of fees for every player banned.  That is complete crap.

All bots are harmful to a certain extent. What raises Glider to an entirely different level is the way it was designed to evade detection. Yes, blizzard is claiming most of its bot-related losses are due to glider, MDY doesn't dispute that fact. You're arguing a point the defense was willing to stipulate!
End of quote

No I am not, I am saying they can't claim damages that they can't prove are caused by MDY even if MDY admits they are causing damage Blizzard still has the burden of proof as to what that damage is.

To an extent, yes. I'm assuming the judge made a ruling on the information that couldn't be released publicly. The general highlights were released as public information, but proprietary information - from both sides! - is withheld to prevent others from repeating MDY's actions.
End of quote

No you are either assuming or your not there is no extent.  Without seeing the unseen data your assumption is not better than mine.  Judges are not infalable, in fact cases are overturned all the time.  Even cases that are not challenged doesn't mean they are right, should I list them. ;)

Blizzard is continuing to ban bot users. The lawsuit is an attempt to cut off the source of the problem. To use a criminal analogy, bot users are drug users, at most a neighborhood dealer. MDY is the guy in Columbia producing the drugs in the first place. It's nto a perfect analogy, but it fits. Players would not be able to use this bot if MDY did not supply it, and continuously update it.
End of quote

LOL yeah ok, sorry maybe if I can stop laughing at that analogy I would respond.

 

Reply #155 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I see so your analogies are the only ones that count?
End of quote


If yours had been even marginally relevant, you might have had an argument. Blizzard is not suing individual cheaters, it is suing the company that gives them the tools necessary to cheat.

No Blizzard specifically states that the damages are not speculatively, they say nothing of an average they are saying they want 8 months of fees for every player banned. That is complete crap.
End of quote


Go back and reread, please. The "this damage is not speculative" line appears in the paragraph addressing customer discontent and reputational losses, not the financial losses. From filing 39 :


"A study of WoW play estimated that an average user needs approximately 480 hours of play to reach the maximum character level. Whereas a typical human player averaging two hours a day would thus need eight months to reach the highest level, a Glider user can run the bot and achieve the same level in less than one month. (SOF 257-59). Thus, Glider users can "skip ahead" to the advanced levels without having to pay the additional seven months of subscription fees required of a legitimate human player...."

That sure sounds to me that Blizzard set up a model to estimate losses. Changing any of the assumptions would change the outcome. This is partially why the issue of damages was held over for trial.

No I am not, I am saying they can't claim damages that they can't prove are caused by MDY even if MDY admits they are causing damage Blizzard still has the burden of proof as to what that damage is.
End of quote


You are correct, but MDY not disputing the fact they are causing the damage makes Blizzard's burden of proof a lot lower. Again, this is why the issue of damages (not that damages are owed, but the amount of them) is held over for trial.

To an extent, yes. I'm assuming the judge made a ruling on the information that couldn't be released publicly. The general highlights were released as public information, but proprietary information - from both sides! - is withheld to prevent others from repeating MDY's actions.
No you are either assuming or your not there is no extent. Without seeing the unseen data your assumption is not better than mine. Judges are not infalable, in fact cases are overturned all the time. Even cases that are not challenged doesn't mean they are right, should I list them.
End of quote


While decisions can be overturned, they represent a far smaller share compared to the ones that are not. My position assumes the judge is competent until proven otherwise; yours assumes he is incompetent until proven otherwise.
Reply #156 from Stardock Forums Top

Go back and reread, please. The "this damage is not speculative" line appears in the paragraph addressing customer discontent and reputational losses, not the financial losses. From filing 39 :
End of quote

I don't need to reread anything, you either aren't listening or only hear what you want.  I have been saying not that Blizzard doesn't have a formula or didn't come up with it through averages.  What I am saying is I find their assumption that every player would have play the 8 months, they are flat out wishing there, they only deserve damages for the players they can prove would have continued playing WOW after the ban, my point is there is no formula or average on he planet that can give them that answer, it is a complete unknown, sorry but that is reality whether you (or Blizzard) like it or not.

Reply #157 from Stardock Forums Top

Damn hit the wrong button! :)

If yours had been even marginally relevant, you might have had an argument. Blizzard is not suing individual cheaters, it is suing the company that gives them the tools necessary to cheat.
End of quote

Uhm my analogy was very relevant in what I was comparing and that was my comparison of Blizzards attempt at claiming damages.  I was not refering to Blizzard sueing individuals.  Again I am only talking about Blizzards attempt to claim damages ther is no way they can ever prove cause the information is not there, it does not exist.  No matter what formula they use.

While decisions can be overturned, they represent a far smaller share compared to the ones that are not. My position assumes the judge is competent until proven otherwise; yours assumes he is incompetent until proven otherwise.
End of quote

I absolutely never said that the judge was incompetent, that was you. Over turned cases and rulings do not mean a judge is incompetent it just means his interpritation of the law was not correct in the eyes of his peers, laws believe it or not are interpruted by judges.  Also if you don't think reversed cases happen frequently you may want to look into that.  Just as one example look up the 9th circuit they keep the supreme court very busy overruling their rulings in fact.  Not only that but if individuals had unlimited funds I would bet that even more cases would be overturned.

 

Reply #158 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I don't need to reread anything, you either aren't listening or only hear what you want. I have been saying not that Blizzard doesn't have a formula or didn't come up with it through averages. What I am saying is I find their assumption that every player would have play the 8 months, they are flat out wishing there, they only deserve damages for the players they can prove would have continued playing WOW after the ban, my point is there is no formula or average on he planet that can give them that answer, it is a complete unknown, sorry but that is reality whether you (or Blizzard) like it or not.
End of quote


Barring time travel, your standard of evidence would be entirely umprovable under ANY circumstances. Even interviewing every individual player who was banned would be suspect; how could they know how long they would continue playing? Luckily the law exists outside of what your fantasy says it should be.

Uhm my analogy was very relevant in what I was comparing and that was my comparison of Blizzards attempt at claiming damages. I was not refering to Blizzard sueing individuals. Again I am only talking about Blizzards attempt to claim damages ther is no way they can ever prove cause the information is not there, it does not exist. No matter what formula they use.
End of quote


What made your analogy irrelevant is that Blizzard had a contract with the banned users, so they could easily define exactly how much money they were losing each month. You can argue whether the length of time is appropriate or not, but the loss of monthly income cannot be argued.

Compare that to the hypothetical losses of someone stealing from a store. The store cannot easily prove how much the person was spending each month, nor could they reasonably assert that ammount would remain constant into the future.

Over turned cases and rulings do not mean a judge is incompetent it just means his interpritation of the law was not correct in the eyes of his peers
End of quote


Does that not pretty much define what "incompetent" means in a judge? If his peers believe he makes wrong calls in a high percentage of his cases, that implies he is not competent to make those decisions. So yes, by assuming his decision will be overturned you are calling him incompetent.

Just as one example look up the 9th circuit they keep the supreme court very busy overruling their rulings in fact.
End of quote


Thank you, I did. In 2002 (apparently the latest year such statistics are available), The 9th Circuit heard approximately 5100 cases, 24 of which the Supreme Court reviewed, and 18 were reversed. That's a 0.35% reversal rate - higher than other courts, but not reason enough to assume this ruling will get overturned.

Reply #159 from Stardock Forums Top

Thank you, I did. In 2002 (apparently the latest year such statistics are available), The 9th Circuit heard approximately 5100 cases, 24 of which the Supreme Court reviewed, and 18 were reversed. That's a 0.35% reversal rate - higher than other courts, but not reason enough to assume this ruling will get overturned.
End of quote

You miss the point, I am only pointing out that even the 9th circuit court makes mistakes an frequently enough that the supreme court yearly hears and over turns more of their cases than any other.  Just means a judge can be wrong and not incompetent as you some how seem to think.  In fact 9th circuit judges are some fo the most respected!  I guess you have never been wrong cause that would mean you are incompetent.  Geez!

Does that not pretty much define what "incompetent" means in a judge? If his peers believe he makes wrong calls in a high percentage of his cases, that implies he is not competent to make those decisions. So yes, by assuming his decision will be overturned you are calling him incompetent.
End of quote

No it does not, that is quite possibly the goofiest thing I have ever heard.  There are things such as mistakes or just differences in opinion.  Laws are constantly overturned or changed that does not me that the individuals that created them are incompetent or stupid it can just mean they don't agree with the majority!  Examples from just recently. hand gun ban overturned inn DC, Californina gay marriage ban overturned!  Just to big examples of laws or desicions overturnd not because someone was incompetent.  Glad you see everything as either black or white but real world just doesn't work that way.

What made your analogy irrelevant is that Blizzard had a contract with the banned users, so they could easily define exactly how much money they were losing each month. You can argue whether the length of time is appropriate or not, but the loss of monthly income cannot be argued. Compare that to the hypothetical losses of someone stealing from a store. The store cannot easily prove how much the person was spending each month, nor could they reasonably assert that ammount would remain constant into the future.
End of quote

Of course they lose money when the ban someone but again if they want that persons money have them prove they would have paide for 8 months.  Not going to happen.  Plus banning users is a cost of thier business.  MDY had absolutly no contract or agreement with Blizzard no matter how you like to slant it.  EULA does not equal law it cannot be applied to everyone whether you want it to or not so my point stands if they want money they need to sue the banned users and try and prove that they would have played for at least 8 months.   THat is not possible, just like it is not possible for a store to prove a thief would have bought whatever over the next so many months of jail time.  There is no difference. 

Barring time travel, your standard of evidence would be entirely umprovable under ANY circumstances. Even interviewing every individual player who was banned would be suspect; how could they know how long they would continue playing? Luckily the law exists outside of what your fantasy says it should be.
End of quote

Yep that is exactly what I am saying, glad you see how impossible it would be to prove, just cause you don't agree doesn't invalidate the point or make it fantasy.  So glad you put infinite faith in the legal system. let me just say I am glad not everyone does otherwise we would be in a world of hurt.  Questioning stupid rulings and laws is a good thing.  Sorry your fantasy world doesn't accept that.

Reply #160 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
the argument that, because blizzard is still in business, anything that potential reduces their profits is OK is probably one of the most poorly thought out arguments on this entire forum. most people learn in elementary school that you can't do what ever you want whenever you want because either directly or indirectly you are hurting someone else or in some way violating their rights. that bot hurts every WOW user who doesn't use it as well as blizzard who has to combat it. aside from that it is a clear violation of the EULA which no one can dispute. regardless of how anyone may feel about the state of the legal system, It simply cannot be argued in any intelligent way that blizzard was wrong. It clearly says in many EULAs that violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of law, and that's what this is.
Reply #161 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
this argument that has been going on for the last 2 pages is absurd. Prozac here has either been sleep deprived or is insane. the way u portray the legal system is simply absurd. no analogy will fit perfectly, but yes, Willy's analogies are far more relevant.

as far as modeling losses, it is entirely possible and like it or not, that's how it works. the world is to complicated to model perfectly, like Prozac would seem to like, so we model things based on the probable outcome of the situation. most people who buy a game and like it intend to beat it, so that is how blizzard modded it.

anyone can be wrong prozac; the judge, Willy, and you. admit that possibility.

no matter how much the point is argued, the company that made the bot will be put out of business. there were over 30 million in losses claimed, and the ones responsible aren't worth a tenth of that. they are completely screwed.
Reply #162 from WinCustomize Forums Top
but either way you are flat out wrong multiplayer is alive and well and still free, cheaters (oh my) or not.
End of quote


I never said multiplayer was dead. Just that Cheats/ hacks are killing off (Free) multiplayer gaming. Check the listings. I can remember a time when there was no pay to play multiplayer games. Now theres tons of them.

Asking most of my old Unit of why they like the new pay to play games, I was told, constant development,and they keep hackers/cheaters at bay. So one of the top 2 biggest reasons to go with play to pay games is the constant resources used to keep hackers and cheats out. Go figure. But yet cheats dont drive folks away from games with less resources available to fight cheaters? Hackers and cheats are not a factor?? hmm... :NOTSURE:

Mean while back on planet earth. Pay to play games are gaining in popularity, look at EQ and WOW 2 imencely popular games, both pay to play. If there are cheats or hackers they are typically dealt with swiftly. And as of now by this decision it seems are being held accountable for their actions. :CONGRAT:


To deny hackers and cheats Impact gaming and or its evolution, at best is as nieve as claiming Pirates are not the reason for the antipiracy movement in the digital music industry. Please who are you trying to kid?

In my opinion, from watching the evolution of gaming, that eventually gaming will all go pay to play. AND yes cheats/ hackers will be part of the driving force behind it.


Oh and If you sign a contract to buy produce from a farmer ,as much produce as you can harvest in a day unaided for X amount of $ a month. On average he knows you alone will take aprox 8 mos to get a years worth of food. But you decide to cheat and hire a guy with a machine to harvest the food in 1 month, thus breaching the contract and shorting the farmer 7 months of revenues. The farmer has the right to sue you and the mfg of the equipment since the bot maker also signed the same contract agreeing not to make or use Machines as a way to harvest.


It amazes me that folks sign contracts then get all self rightious when busted for knowingly breaking that contract.


Reply #163 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ProzacMann - A judge's overturn rate is one of the most common measures of competence, as each overturned case indicates a misreading of the law or serious procedural error. The judges promoted to higher courts are generally the ones with the fewest overturned cases - not saying that is the only criterion, but is one of the big ones.

I'm happy to see you've downgraded your opinion of this ruling to "stupid". That's progress, of a sort.

Barring time travel, your standard of evidence would be entirely umprovable under ANY circumstances. Even interviewing every individual player who was banned would be suspect; how could they know how long they would continue playing? Luckily the law exists outside of what your fantasy says it should be.

Yep that is exactly what I am saying, glad you see how impossible it would be to prove, just cause you don't agree doesn't invalidate the point or make it fantasy. So glad you put infinite faith in the legal system. let me just say I am glad not everyone does otherwise we would be in a world of hurt.
End of quote


By your standard of proof, I wouldn't be able to prove my own name! Nowhere in law is absolute proof of anything required. Criminal courts hold the standard as "beyond reasonable doubt" while civil court rulings are based on "the preponderance of evidence". Expecting absolute proof is a fantasy.

God, I hope there's no one this deluded on the jury I'm sitting on tomorrow.
Reply #164 from WinCustomize Forums Top

you said:

You honestly believe that every single user that got banned would have signed up again and started playing again?
End of quote


I repeat what I said:
Not all people would go to that extreme though.
End of quote



As for players that would have played for 7 months but got banned because they used Glider, uhm to bad to Blizzard that is like a store suing a theif for all the future purchases he/she would have made if they weren't in jail! Give me a break.
End of quote


Ummmm.. no. Are you seriously listening to YOUR self? It would be more like comparing it to a locksmith selling the thief a key to perform the robbery. Blizzard is not suing the end users, they sued the guy that created the software. sheesh... get a grip will ya  :LOL: 



Reply #165 from Stardock Forums Top

Yep I am insane and crazy because I think Blizzard is wrong in this case and this is a bad precedent to set.  Apparantly I am not the only crazy out their, http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/you-bought-it-you-dont-own-it oh yeah and public knowledge also thinks Blizzard is wrong.  Whatever!  I truly think all of you need the help, you can't seem to find the forest through the trees.  This is not a simple Blizzard was wronged wha wha case. 

Gee and even the court found that MDY didn't violate the DMCA by circumventing warden.

Reply #166 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The particular cheat in question, as I understand it, doesn't modify anything. It basically just plays the game for you.
End of quote
You wouldn't consider that a modification of the user interface?
End of quote


Been away for a few days but honestly - if that is a sufficient modification of the user interface to violate the contract - then using a Dvorak Keyboard is sufficient modification of the user interface to constitute violation of the contract. For what is done, no modification of the game code, on disk or in memory, is necessary - only the ability to pipe info to stdin.

So, effectively, the court seems to me to have enforced a provision of the EULA that says someone cannot filter stdin on their PC.

Enforcing a EULA that effectively makes pipes illegal seems to me to be a stretch.

Jonnan
Reply #167 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Here's a thought.
The 'bot' plays the game for you, however it was you who 'agreed' to the EULA...not the bot.  Ergo the bot has no right to be playing the game as it did not indicate tacit agreement to the EULA....
AND he's selling it, too....
This bloke is screwed.
If he is not then the US Legal system is more screwed than most people imagine.
There IS no positive legal/defensible spin that can be placed on what his proggy does.
It's actually not a Game Cheat...such as being Invincible in Quake and beating your computer bots.  It's a method to defraud/deny others of THEIR game enjoyment that they paid for...with a reasonable expectation of equitable treatment.
I'm on Blizzard's side....100%...
End of quote


Counterpoint - I am not actually posting on this website - I am only poking keys on a keyboard, and software (In this case a suite of Ubuntu Linux kernals, applications, and TCP/IP protocols) is converting these keystrokes, storing them, and eventually allowing you to see them and realize I'm hear.

That software is no greater or lesser an extension of my will than that 'bot' installed on a machine is an extension of the owner will.

Or would you agree to the argument that a pirate distributing copies of your software wasn't *really* cheating you, because he was only distributing the machine code version, and while you own the source code a highly sophisticated compiler actually converted it to binary form - since no human hand adapted that binary data, and the compiler can't own a copyright itself, it must be in the public domain, right?

Of course not - the software is an extension of the computer owner - the 'bot' ran his game from his computer according to his wishes, just as the compiler converted source code to binary form according to your wishes.

An EULA should no more be able to place limitations on the software he runs on his PC than it should be able to place limitations on what compiler you use to convert source code to machine code.

Jonnan

Jonnan
Reply #168 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
For an analogy. Since CDs are a big issue with copyright. A person goes and buys a CD from a store. The person goes home and plays the CD. They dont like how the CD sounds, so they go on their computer and create a mix/remix of the CD and sell it. The person uses the same tempo and beat, but changes the lyrics. (weird al yankovich has been sued by almost every artist he has done parodies of. Coolio with Gangsters Paradise, weird al doing Amish Paradise)
Now its not the SAME thing. But copyright law doesnt state that it has to pertain to COPYING, just because its in the name. It also has to due with the alteration of the original media for resale. This of course has to do with copyright laws of media, as there are different types. So this guy selling a bot/hack with blizzard data on the program IS a copyright issue.
End of quote



Just FYI - Ah - Weird Al lives and dies by two things:
A) The Parody exception for Fair Use. I don't think anyone has ever sued him.
B) Weird Al is, uh, incredibly polite. He doesn't *have* to ask for permission, he just does (Well, it also CYA's him, but strictly speaking he doesn't have to). Amish Paradise was a specific case where he was under the impression he had permission and didn't, so now Weird Al asks the artists directly and not the label.


Wikipedia: Weird Al: Reactions_from_original_artist
Reply #169 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
By Blizzard's estimate, it takes a typical player 8 months to reach level 50, compared to the bot doing it for you in less than one month.
End of quote



Greg Dean will be so happy to know this - {G}

Jonnan
Reply #171 from Stardock Forums Top

the argument that, because blizzard is still in business, anything that potential reduces their profits is OK is probably one of the most poorly thought out arguments on this entire forum. most people learn in elementary school that you can't do what ever you want whenever you want because either directly or indirectly you are hurting someone else or in some way violating their rights. that bot hurts every WOW user who doesn't use it as well as blizzard who has to combat it. aside from that it is a clear violation of the EULA which no one can dispute. regardless of how anyone may feel about the state of the legal system, It simply cannot be argued in any intelligent way that blizzard was wrong. It clearly says in many EULAs that violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of law, and that's what this is.
End of quote

Please look back at the thread as I never said at anytime anyone can do what they want at anytime.  What I did say is that I 'feel' (yes believe it or not these are opinions, including yours) that Blizzard just can't claim losses without proof and what I am saying is that what they are trying to prove is unprovable.  Yes I know our legal system works that way however I am still entitled to think it is not ok and wish it changed.  In fact I would wager that you don't agree with everything that happens in the world and it is your right to wish it would change, wouldn't call you childish or insane.  As I said previously I am sure glad that people like Rosa Parks and our founding fathers didn't feel like you.  I mean during their time people thought the way things were going was just fine!  Does that make it 'right'?

Reply #172 from Stardock Forums Top

no matter how much the point is argued, the company that made the bot will be put out of business. there were over 30 million in losses claimed, and the ones responsible aren't worth a tenth of that. they are completely screwed.
End of quote

Well again there are others (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/you-bought-it-you-dont-own-it ) like myself that disagree with you and on appeal or even without this case stands a very good chance of being overruled whether you like it or not.  As you said the world is a complex place and just because you or a court says something is right doesn't mean it can't be changed!

Reply #173 from Stardock Forums Top

By your standard of proof, I wouldn't be able to prove my own name! Nowhere in law is absolute proof of anything required. Criminal courts hold the standard as "beyond reasonable doubt" while civil court rulings are based on "the preponderance of evidence". Expecting absolute proof is a fantasy. God, I hope there's no one this deluded on the jury I'm sitting on tomorrow.
End of quote

Sorry it is quite easy to legally prove your name that is exactly why there are things called birth certificates, in fact good luck to you in a court of law if you need to legally prove your name without hard documented proof.  Saying I can estimate my name cause that is what 400,000 people call me ain't going to cut it, call me deluded if you like.

ProzacMann - A judge's overturn rate is one of the most common measures of competence, as each overturned case indicates a misreading of the law or serious procedural error. The judges promoted to higher courts are generally the ones with the fewest overturned cases - not saying that is the only criterion, but is one of the big ones. I'm happy to see you've downgraded your opinion of this ruling to "stupid". That's progress, of a sort.
End of quote

Not going to argue this one anymore as it is off topic and I will never agree that just cause a judge was overruled that that makes him/her incompetent sorry.

As for this case it is still ridiculous, sorry my opinion has not changed and as I said it appears I am not the only insane one out there.

Reply #174 from Stardock Forums Top

Ummmm.. no. Are you seriously listening to YOUR self? It would be more like comparing it to a locksmith selling the thief a key to perform the robbery. Blizzard is not suing the end users, they sued the guy that created the software. sheesh... get a grip will ya
End of quote

Have you even read anything that I have typed?  Cause I have said all along that that is who Blizzard should be sueing if they want to collect damages, the case they have come up with is terrible and they deserve nothing.  The users that have decided to use the bot are the ones that caused the damage.  They could have easily decided not to do it, but they chose to they are the ones that broke the EULA.

Reply #175 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I take it you don't visit the auction house very much in WoW.
Uh yeah and I take it you have actually surveyed the multimillion WOW users to see if they have actually even heard of this bot! My bet is the vast majority would have no clue what you are talking about if you asked them, and I would even go so far as to say few of the millions would truely care.
 
End of quote


The existence of farming bots is common knowledge in every WoW server I've visited - ways to mess with them, including exploiting their bot nature to get them into situations where they die horribly, are routine conversation in the various city general chat channels. It is essentially impossible to *AVOID* knowing about bots and still play WoW.

Many people ignore them completely, but at least on the servers I have played on, it's common knowledge that they exist.