Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / private server to pay Blizzard $88 million in damages

Author
Message
Kumi
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Jul 2009
Location: Behind You
Posted: 24th Aug 2010 12:21
88 Millions is Too Much, She had it coming ye,She know what was the Risks. But 88 Million? Come on, she wont even pay 1 Million of it :/ And Blizzard wont get there money for sure.

-Kumi


{Remake}
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 24th Aug 2010 13:08
Quote: "£88 million pounds is ridiculous for something like this:
- Are Blizzard entitled to repayment for their loss?
Yes
- Does this loss come close to £88 million?
Definitely not. The vast majority of the people playing on this free server would be people who simply do not pay for this type of game.
- Will the woman ever be able to repay anything close to £88 million?
No, so Blizzard aren't going to get their money either way.

IMO, this woman should be fined an amount equal to the profit gained in an illegal way, and then have some further punishment as a deterrent from doing it again. IE, jail for a short time or a reasonable fine.

As it stands, a serial killer would likely be completely free before this woman will be.

As for the "one woman versus hundreds of employees", that is ridiculous. An employee loses their job: they can find a new one. Yes, it is difficult and easy to get into debt, but they still can.

The woman is fined this amount of money: what's the point? She now has no incentive to go to work since she will never be able to earn anything for herself. She sent the wrong kind of signals down a wire, so now her whole life is taken away."



Word. word. word. word.


[Q]uik, Quiker than most
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 24th Aug 2010 13:34
I understand them suing her, but why for that amount? That part makes no sense to me.
Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 24th Aug 2010 19:13
Statuary fees. For the 470000 players there were. If Blizzard
wanted, they could have sued for MUCH more as the number was only at
its peak. There were probably twice as much players in the private
servers run. Blizzard could have tracked all the players and sued
here for much more


BiggAdd
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: != null
Posted: 24th Aug 2010 20:05
Quote: "Definitely not. The vast majority of the people playing on this free server would be people who simply do not pay for this type of game."


Do you have any way of proving that in a court of law?
No.

Quote: "The woman is fined this amount of money: what's the point? She now has no incentive to go to work since she will never be able to earn anything for herself. She sent the wrong kind of signals down a wire, so now her whole life is taken away."


Quote: "Reeves had not responded to the suit, resulting in the default judgment in favor of Blizzard"


Its her own damn fault. She has taken her own life away, nobody else is to blame.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 24th Aug 2010 21:39
To throw in the devils advocate here:

She wasn't responsible for ALL of the damages suffered by Blizzard, the players who chose to use her server and breaking the terms and conditions have contributed to it, but she suffers all of the charges.

Click!
the_winch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posted: 24th Aug 2010 22:11
If you end up owing some company $88 million you are just going to declare yourself bankrupt.
Not exactly the end of the world. Especially if you can see it coming and spend the money you are making as soon as it hits your bank account. Probably a lot better than going bankrupt because you overspent on a house and lost your job at the wrong time.

By way of demonstration, he emitted a batlike squeak that was indeed bothersome.
Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 24th Aug 2010 22:48
Nah. Theyll take her house and everything. So being bankrupt doesnt solve it.


Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 24th Aug 2010 23:11
Quote: "Nah. Theyll take her house and everything. So being bankrupt doesnt solve it."


and thats the kind of society i wish to fight against...


[Q]uik, Quiker than most
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 24th Aug 2010 23:55 Edited at: 24th Aug 2010 23:56
You don't think she should lose her house over it? I agree, if she is able to declare bankruptcy to strike the debt, then I'd be satisfied with that outcome.

IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 00:18
@BiggAdd,
I'm not sure whether you were replying to me or to others regarding being down on big companies. However, I don't care how big a company is really - if they are twisting the law to their own ends to squash competition, then that's simply wrong. And IMO, $3m revenue getting 'rounded up' to $88m is just wrong no matter how you slice it.

You also switched to answering a question that wasn't asked ('boo hoo ... big corporation') and then raised a completely different scenario on piracy - you haven't attempted to answer the questions I raised.

Let's just say that I'll be happy to be convinced that 1. She's actually guilty of something, and 2. That $88m is a reasonable response to the crime, if it took place.

@PlanetaryFunk,
Your reply started out with 'an understanding' of unlicensed software, but then switched to needing permission to compete, with an edit that doesn't appear to compare to the Blizzard situation at all.

If the unlicensed software was client-side, then that has nothing to do with Scapegaming, and everything to do with the client breaking the EULA.

@Eminent,
You basically raised an 'entitlement' argument - 'someone making money of something that I did' - I have a question in response: You write a book on C++ programming, someone learns from it and writes a multi-million selling game ... would you expect to be paid over and above the sale price of the book that you already sold for that?

Or how about, you write a whole set of plug-ins for DBPro and give them away, then someone make a profit using them on something they write. Would you expect people to start passing the money along? (In my personal case the answer is NO - profit all you want from the plug-ins I provide).

@Fatal Berserker,
Congratulations. So far, you are the only person who has tried to answer the question 'what was copied?'

Your argument is great as far as it goes, but is that actually what happened here? Is there proof, or was this a simple case of reverse engineering - as I understand it, there's even a choice of freely available software to use if you want to run a server yourself - all perfectly legally.

I've also seen arguments elsewhere that because this server did not include any verification of Blizzard's registration codes that Scapegaming are guilty of circumvention (as per the DMCA), but on the other hand, why should anyone but Blizzard have to support Blizzard's own licensing scheme? After all, if you aren't using Blizzard's servers, why should you need to support it? As a client, you aren't costing them anything - no server time, no network usage etc, and you are connecting to someone else's service instead and paying them - so why would you feel you need to pay out twice?

Interplanetary Funk
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Apr 2010
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 00:23
Well, she wasn't competing, she was making money of someone else's software, that's not competition, that's piracy.

BASIC programmers never die, they GOSUB and don't RETURN.
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 00:30
No, she wasn't using anyone Blizzard's software - she was using publicly available software (google for 'wow server download' and see what I mean).

lazerus
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2008
Location:
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 01:03 Edited at: 25th Aug 2010 01:03
I really dont see whats the problem then...


Attachments

Login to view attachments
Interplanetary Funk
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Apr 2010
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 01:23
Well obviously she was doing something illegal, otherwise this wouldn't of happened. I reckon that we don't know most of the facts and that neither side can be right or wrong until EVERYONE is aware of the full facts. I think this is exaggerated by the fact that everywhere seems to be copying the same information off of each other rather than provide a full informative article.

Just found this

Quote: "Clear Infringement
Copying any server-side Copyrighted material is clearly infringing and what I’d consider outright theft. The easiest example is quest text, which is normally contained on the server’s database (makes it a lot easier to add new quests without client patches). Most of the operating private servers have copied this text.
Copying WoW story and trademarks. Unless fair usage applies, repeating even the names of Blizzard’s trademarked characters would be infringing unless it’s as they’re supplied on the client (and ugh at risk of repeating myself, see EULA notes). Extending the tales of Azeroth is a no-no. Even a clear parody (normally fair usage) is going to run into some troubles when combined with gameplay.
Advertising with Trademarks. You can advertise your repair shop as having the ability to repair GM cars, but naming your repair shop GM Repairs is a trademark violation. So Fred’s WoW Server is a no-no.
Distributing copies of the client is such an obvious infringement that I consider it outside of the scope of this article, yet it’s a pretty common practice for private servers. It’s just outright piracy."


BASIC programmers never die, they GOSUB and don't RETURN.
BiggAdd
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: != null
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 03:51 Edited at: 25th Aug 2010 04:55
Quote: "Let's just say that I'll be happy to be convinced that 1. She's actually guilty of something, and 2. That $88m is a reasonable response to the crime, if it took place."


My comments weren't aimed at you, more the people who were just stating in the thread that they feel sorry for her.

But, as I said, she was using Blizzard's Database, which is not publically available and is Blizzard's property.

Quote: "
You also switched to answering a question that wasn't asked ('boo hoo ... big corporation') and then raised a completely different scenario on piracy - you haven't attempted to answer the questions I raised."


By letting users access the Database for free, she is essentially giving away the game. So that is 470,000 "Copies" at $200 (20 months worth of gameplay) that Blizzard did not get, because she hosted it for free.

Which is where my analogy ties in. If someone gives something away for free on the internet, the company has every right to recover the damages on potential sales lost.

Quote: "
@Fatal Berserker,
Congratulations. So far, you are the only person who has tried to answer the question 'what was copied?'"


?
Quote: "
Most of the WoW private servers use the Databases which are illegally downloaded from blizzard's servers (not sure how they go about doing that)
So its the massive amounts of quest, item and npc data that Blizzard could probably get them on."


Quote: "Quote: "Blizzard had accused Reeves, based in the state of Georgia, of marketing and promoting Scapegaming, which allows users to access the copyrighted World of Warcraft without using official Blizzard servers, circumventing subscription fees due to the game's creators."

This sort of hints to the fact she was using Blizzard's database to run her server."


Quote: "
I can pretty much guarentee Scapegaming was using Blizzard's Database, otherwise Blizzard would have sued every other private server company by now."


Fatal Berserker
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 04:52 Edited at: 25th Aug 2010 05:06
Lazarus take down that image its bad for this company, if you really want to know how to get a wow private server ill send you a mail of tons of different cores, but you shouldn't be showing that image on this site.

Quote: "Your argument is great as far as it goes, but is that actually what happened here? Is there proof, or was this a simple case of reverse engineering - as I understand it, there's even a choice of freely available software to use if you want to run a server yourself - all perfectly legally."

Well, these maps on every core i know for wow private servers aren't reversed engineered, they are extracted from the data files, however i do think there is some reverse engineering going on because wow private servers are programmed inside C++. (originally, you can set one up that has already been compiled, these are known as repacks)
I never got into the C++ programming side due to me having a problem with .net framework refusing to install, then when i got my new computer i had lost all interest in private servers.
However i do know that on this pre compiled side it is very complex with thousands of lines of code, i would doubt that the core (a private server core is you could say the way it was programmed, i cant really describe it, but theres tons of different cores), was completely programmed without reverse engineering. However that is no fact, and i will not stand by it.

Quote: "I've also seen arguments elsewhere that because this server did not include any verification of Blizzard's registration codes that Scapegaming are guilty of circumvention (as per the DMCA), but on the other hand, why should anyone but Blizzard have to support Blizzard's own licensing scheme? After all, if you aren't using Blizzard's servers, why should you need to support it? As a client, you aren't costing them anything - no server time, no network usage etc, and you are connecting to someone else's service instead and paying them - so why would you feel you need to pay out twice?"

I know in england it isn't done much, but you do not own your copy of world of warcraft at ANY point. When you run the WoW App you are actually (you could say) renting the ability to use it.
Its like you buy a new flat, you don't own the flat, but you rent the ability to use the flat.
Because of that you are required to support all of Blizzards EULA, terms of use whatever, to just run the application (not just log in). And like i said to connect to the private server you also need to modify the realmlist to connect to the private server, which is also against the rules (modifying game data files).

Quote: "I understand it, there's even a choice of freely available software to use if you want to run a server yourself - all perfectly legally."

It violates the terms and conditions i agreed to when i ran wow, regardless of who i connect to or if i got the game for free illegally. Therefore it isn't legal, it could be considered a contract.

I believe though it isn't hard to clone the database, im pretty sure when you load something in wow it saves it to the Cache files, in the cache files are all the information needed to start linking up the database with the correct values. Even fan-sites like Wowhead have the correct IDs to the Information.

However, i have known of very well made private servers in the past, which are hard to tell from the real ones (generally minor bugs, but hard work has made the majority of things to work properly), these people then make profits by selling gold to the people, and it isn't as uncommon as you may think (most *popular* private servers try and do this, popular can just be 15 people on at once). It is robbery, it is Blizzards product, it is morally and legally bad, i don't know why you are supporting this lady.

Quote: "@Fatal Berserker,
Congratulations. So far, you are the only person who has tried to answer the question 'what was copied?'"

Can i have a cookie?

Smoke me a kipper, ill be back for breakfast.
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 12:41
Quote: "
By letting users access the Database for free, she is essentially giving away the game. So that is 470,000 "Copies" at $200 (20 months worth of gameplay) that Blizzard did not get, because she hosted it for free."


are you telling me the game is hosted on her website?
because to use a private server you need to buy the game or, download the game illegally.
clear that up for me please?
if it wasnt Hosted as an illegal game download, then she havent gave away a single copy illegally.
My guess is that she hosted the files altered for the private server to work (altered files and server info and bla bla bla) however the original game is still needed to play


[Q]uik, Quiker than most
lazerus
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2008
Location:
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 13:54
Quote: "Lazarus take down that image its bad for this company,"


Im not following...
If a simple google result brought it up as the first 8 pages of free severs and most being freeware, then i dont see the problem. You most likly need a sub to use them or something like that. And i have no intrest what-so-ever in playing £30 a month for a game.

Toasty Fresh
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: In my office, making poly-eating models.
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 15:19
$88 million is a lot of money, and this woman is going to be in debt for the rest of her life, and it's all because of a damn videogame.

I don't like how the system we live in works on this sort of thing. Surely she could just pay back the money that she gained, as well as maybe, 1 million? She's obviously just made the wrong decision, and now she's paying for it. Nobody should be forced to be in debt for the rest of their lives just because of a stupid decision.
KeithC
Senior Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2005
Location: Michigan
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 15:48 Edited at: 25th Aug 2010 15:52
Well; here's my "2 centavos".

First off; there are a lot of assumptions going on. We don't know the details of the suit, the lawyers do. So attempting to put "two and two" together is a little futile/presumptuous...isn't it? Sure, we know what's been published; but that's it.

Secondly; breaking the law is breaking the law...period. Do I think 88 Million is excessive? It sure sounds excessive to me; but I don't know what the holdings of the woman, who has allegedly broken the law, has. If she's committed a crime that has used the IP of Blizzard in any way, then I'm assuming it is illegal (read "assuming"). Sure; Blizzard is a large company with quite a bit of cash reserves. They also have quite a large payroll; with everyone from the graphic artist and programmer, all the way down to the accountant and the janitor. All of those people deserve a good salary and benefits for their work.

I don't always agree with the practices of some publishers and studios, such as the fiasco with Assassin's Creed 2 and it's (IMO) insane requirements; but that doesn't mean that I'm going to try to circumvent their IP and break the law...because I either felt justified in doing so ("stick it to the man"), or believe that they won't really mind if I glean a "little" cash off of their business.

I suspect (again...IMO) that the number thrown around here will not be the final number that she owes; but it will more than likely be size-able.

I have a lot of people where I work at that made a mistake in life (sometimes numerous mistakes), and they are paying for it for the rest of their life (once you get a felony conviction; whether you serve time, pay back money, or are put on a tether...you have a record forever); they're called "felons", and I am part of their punishment system (notice that I said I am part of their punishment "system" and not part of their punishment). Do I feel sympathy towards them? Not really. The majority of them knew what they were doing was wrong, and chose to roll the dice.

The internet seems to instill a mindset in people, that crimes committed via the net either can't be punished, or are minor. We can see here (as in other cases) that this is not so.

I'm interested to see how this all plays out though. I'm assuming Blizzard has hit this woman hard, to use her as an example to others who have similar criminal aspirations. Hopefully those people heed the warning set forth here.

-Keith

IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 15:57
Quote: "It violates the terms and conditions i agreed to"

Sure, and if YOU connect to a non-Blizzard server, or YOU modify your game data files, then YOU'VE broken the agreement, not the server provider.

Quote: "i don't know why you are supporting this lady"

I'm not, but I'm definitely not supporting that ludicrous $88m copyright judgement either. And no-one really has anything beyond guesses on what was copied!

Regarding copying of the Blizzard database ... Citation please?

bruce3371
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 16:34
Here's some links to a couple of web sites. The first is an article explaining the case, and why Blizzard sued, the second is the EULA on the WoW website itself.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/the-88-million-server-private-wow-server-op-loses-big.ars

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

If you fully read both the article, and the EULA, it becomes clear that Scapegamers were clearly in breach of the EULA and therefore Blizzard were clearly entitled to sue for damages. The first link even gives an explanation as to why the amount awarded was so high.

I game therefore I am.
Dr Tank
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Apr 2009
Location: Southampton, UK
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 17:00
Seems like a crazy amount of money. Glad I don't play Warcrafts.
KeithC
Senior Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2005
Location: Michigan
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 17:05
I'd also like to add that the defendant chose NOT to show up for the trial. That speaks volumes in itself.

-Keith

bruce3371
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 17:12
Exactly, if you clearly, knowingly break the law, then can't be bothered to defend yourself, you deserve everything you get.

I game therefore I am.
Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 18:02
Plus Blizzard was actually sorta nice. The statuary fees(the 85 million) were 200 each. The minimum is 200. The could have gone a thousand a player. And the amount of 470000 was at its peak, not counting the players before. The lawyer could have made a killing.


IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 21:01
@bruce3371,

You pointed out:
E - end
U - user
L - license
A - agreement

So, having never bought or played WOW, and therefore never having agreed to the EULA and never having been an 'End User', am I OK to host a WOW server and charge for access to it? (Assumption: That I don't need to copy any data from Blizzard to implement it - that's still an unanswered question AFAIK)

If not, why not?

Quote: "Exactly, if you clearly, knowingly break the law, then can't be bothered to defend yourself, you deserve everything you get."

TBH, I kind of agree with this - at least if you defend yourself, there's a chance you can win, or at least mitigate the judgement. If you disappear and deliberately avoid following a court judgement, you've simply turned a civil judgement into a criminal act.

So, definitely stupid to not turn up at all and end up with a default judgement.

Quote: "Plus Blizzard was actually sorta nice."

ROFL - I guess that depends on your opinion of 'nice'
$88m and a lifetime of bankruptcy?

Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 21:12 Edited at: 25th Aug 2010 21:15
Even if it was 10mil, she still couldnt pay it off. Even if Blizzard took everything down to her 1st grade project on Volcanoes.
Besides she probably took a plane out of your country so no jurisdiction.


bruce3371
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 21:52
EULA was my own way of referring to it, the WoW website refers to 'terms of use' which means the online service, and also incorprates the EULA of the software. The TERMS OF USE clearly states that you are NOT to, and I quote;

"F. facilitate, create or maintain any unauthorized connection to the Game or the Service, including without limitation (a) any connection to any unauthorized server that emulates, or attempts to emulate, the Service; and (b) any connection using programs or tools not expressly approved by Blizzard"

So, I still maintain that Blizzard were well within their rights to sue.

As for the amount, it was the STATUTARY minimum, meaning the judge had no choice but to reward that amount, in fact, as pointed out before, he could have rewarded more than the minimum.

I game therefore I am.
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 22:00 Edited at: 25th Aug 2010 22:09
Who cares about their terms of use if you never use their server?

Really, there's no way that they can apply anything like that to everyone everywhere for people who have never used the WOW server or client software - if there was, then I'm applying terms of use that require you to wear a red nose and honk a horn whenever you use the Internet.

[EDIT]Sorry, I couldn't resist adding that to my signature

Utility plug-ins (26-JUL-2010)
I'm applying terms of use that require you to wear a red nose and honk a horn whenever you use the Internet
bruce3371
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 22:28 Edited at: 25th Aug 2010 22:29
"I'll spend millions of pounds creating this great game and setting up servers for you to play on, but hey, you just go ahead and use your own servers so that I don't recoup my investment"

Does that make any sense to you?

Basically, whether we like it or not, we play their game the way they want us to, where they want us to, or not at all.

In the meantime, if you break their terms of use, you break the law, and deserve the punishment you get.

If you don't like it, take it up with the Intellectual Property/Copyright legislators.

I game therefore I am.
Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 22:33
But you did not make the Internet and therefore you cannot apply terms of use.


IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 22:35
I think you have completely missed the point. How can their terms of service apply to me if I have never explicitly or implicitly agreed to them?

Quote: "I'll spend millions of pounds creating this great game ..."

That's a moral argument, NOT a legal argument, and has nothing to do with copyright infringement, copy protection circumvention or unfair and unauthorised competition.

Utility plug-ins (26-JUL-2010)
I'm applying terms of use that require you to wear a red nose and honk a horn whenever you use the Internet
Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 22:49
By playing the game you agree automatically I think. Thats the TOS or something. Why are we arguing if its legal? Top-class lawyers and judges already decided its not.


bruce3371
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 22:51 Edited at: 25th Aug 2010 22:59
The only way you can legally play the game is by agreeing to the terms of service; by agreeing to the terms of sevice, you are agreeing to only use Blizzard's own servers.

If you run your private own server, you are breaking the tos, if you play the game on your own private server, you haven't agreed to the tos, therefore you are playing the game illegally. Either way, you're breaking the law.

So it's a question of morals be damned then, lets all just abuse other people's intellectual properties?

By the way, to lighten the mood somewhat, whenever I use the internet, I wear a green nose and whistle dixxie

I game therefore I am.
nackidno
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2007
Location: Där solen aldrig skiner
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 22:55
Quote: "I think you have completely missed the point. How can their terms of service apply to me if I have never explicitly or implicitly agreed to them?"


I'm not sure what you mean, is it ok to break the EULA if you don't agree to them? that doesn't sound right.

IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 23:11
You are still missing the point.

As a provider of a server I have no need to use the client myself, so the EULA for that client software doesn't affect me at all.

If the server software is not provided by Blizzard, then again, they have no say over that software and cannot impose terms of usage on it either.

Remember, this is all as a provider of a server.

The EULA does cover those people who use the Blizzard client to connect to my server, but just because they are breaking the EULA, doesn't mean that I would be. If I use the client to connect to my server, then yes, I would also be breaking the EULA, but if I never play and never use that software, only providing the server, then how can I have broken it?

So basically I'm saying that running a server per se is not illegal AFAIK. There's no infringement involved in that at all.

Now if running the server required taking a copy of copyrighted data, then yes that would be infringement, but no-one so far has shown that that is what happened.

Quote: "So it's a question of morals be damned then, lets all just abuse other people's intellectual properties?"

No, but the courts do not deal with morals, they deal with law, and it's the law that has imposed that $88m fine.

Quote: "whenever I use the internet, I wear a green nose and whistle dixxie"

I guess that's close enough

Utility plug-ins (26-JUL-2010)
I'm applying terms of use that require you to wear a red nose and honk a horn whenever you use the Internet
bruce3371
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 23:29 Edited at: 25th Aug 2010 23:29
It doesn't really matter what client software you are using, the Terms of Service, specifically forbids you from running/playing the game on your own server.

It's simple, If you want to play the game, you play it on Blizzard's own servers. If you want to run your own server, tough, only Blizzard can run servers for the game.

Quote: "but if I never play and never use that software, only providing the server, then how can I have broken it?"


Because the tos expressely forbids you from providing your own server.

Quote: "it's the law that has imposed that $88m fine."


So why are we still debating this then?

I think what we really need, is an Intellectual Property/Copyright Lawyer to tell us whether or not the TOS are legally binding. My own personal guess is, yes they are, why else would a judge have ruled in favour of Blizzard (putting aside the fact that the defendant 'did a runner') if they weren't?

Quote: "I guess that's close enough "


Occasionally, I wear a silly hat as well

I game therefore I am.
Interplanetary Funk
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Apr 2010
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Aug 2010 00:12
Didn't anyone read the link that clearly states WHATS LEGAL AND ILLEGAL ABOUT HOSTING A PRIVATE SERVER?

If not I advise you do, and you can see she was doing several things illegally.

BASIC programmers never die, they GOSUB and don't RETURN.
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 26th Aug 2010 00:26 Edited at: 26th Aug 2010 00:31
And you missed it again.

Yes, it breaks the EULA for an owner of the Blizzard software to use that software in ways restricted by the EULA or TOS, but if I never use that software, I am not restricted by it's EULA.

In the same way, Blizzard have no right to stop me from using software that they didn't provide, or restrict my usage of that software - the people who provide that software have that right, not Blizzard.

So if I use software (the server software) that Blizzard did not provide, populated with data that Blizzard also did not provide, then how can I have breached the Blizzard EULA or TOS? I am using nothing of theirs, so they have no rights to tell me how to use it.

Quote: "So why are we still debating this then?"

Firstly because my opinion is that that $88m makes a complete mockery of the legal system, and secondly, no-one knows exactly what was copyright infringement took place.

Quote: "why else would a judge have ruled in favour of Blizzard"

Because he had absolutely no choice in the matter. Because the case went ahead (it had to - there was a case to answer), and because the defendant didn't defend her side of the case, he gave the default judgement (he was legally obliged to). At least, that's my understanding.

Quote: "Occasionally, I wear a silly hat as well"

That's good - At least you are not just sat there in your underpants.

@PlanetaryFunk,
Good read. It does mention the EULA, but as I keep saying, that covers the client software only. It also mentions what is not allowed for the server, all of which is avoidable with care, but then may not end up as 'WOW'.

Utility plug-ins (26-JUL-2010)
I'm applying terms of use that require you to wear a red nose and honk a horn whenever you use the Internet
Interplanetary Funk
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Apr 2010
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Aug 2010 00:37
Quote: "It does mention the EULA, but as I keep saying, that covers the client software only. It also mentions what is not allowed for the server, all of which is avoidable with care, but then may not end up as 'WOW'."

Agree'd, but she was obviously breaking most of those. I didn't look at their site, but she was almost definitely distributing the client server, as well as she was probably copying the trademark characters and quest databases. People who play PServers don't want to play a customized version of the game, they just want to play it for free, so I reckon almost all PServers are breaking those laws.

BASIC programmers never die, they GOSUB and don't RETURN.
bruce3371
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 26th Aug 2010 00:48 Edited at: 26th Aug 2010 00:52
I'm not missing any point.

Your point is about the use of the software.

If it is software other than Blizzard's own, why then is it being advertised/billed as World of Warcraft? That is a breach of copyright in and of itself.

My point is about the TOS stating that the software (and by software, I mean only software which has been developed by Blizzard) can only be used on blizzard's own servers.

If any software, being advertised/billed as World of Warcraft, is run on any server other than Blizzard's own servers, it is, again, in breach of copyright.

No server side/client side software, which hasn't been developed by Blizzard, can be advertised/billed as being World of Warcraft.

Nor can any server side/client side software, which hasn't been developed by Blizzard, and is being described/billed as World of Warcraft, be used on any private server.

If Scapegamers were using their own software, on their own servers, and not advertising/billing it as World of Warcraft, then, yes, I would agree that Blizzard would be on very shakey ground trying to sue them.

Quote: "That's good - At least you are not just sat there in your underpants."


Very occasionally, I do that as well lol

I game therefore I am.
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 26th Aug 2010 01:15
Quote: "If Scapegamers were using their own software, on their own servers"

I refer you to my previous post where I mention use of Google to locate that software. No-one but Blizzard has the Blizzard server software, but there appear to be many reverse engineered servers available.

Quote: "and not advertising/billing it as World of Warcraft"

Yes, World of Warcraft is a trademark, so cannot be used to represent a non-Blizzard product. However that wasn't one of the accusations.

Quote: "Very occasionally, I do that as well"

With that image in my mind, I'm going to have nightmares tonight.

Utility plug-ins (26-JUL-2010)
I'm applying terms of use that require you to wear a red nose and honk a horn whenever you use the Internet
Interplanetary Funk
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Apr 2010
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Aug 2010 01:25 Edited at: 26th Aug 2010 01:30
The quests are also Blizzards intellectual property. if she had ANY of them on her server, she is infringing on copyright. Also, the item and quest DB would have to be EXACTLY the same to work properly, and were most probably downloaded illegally from blizzard servers.

And again:
Quote: "Distributing copies of the client is such an obvious infringement"


She probably was doing this to avoid people having to buy the software. If she wasn't she'd of been encouraging people to download it elsewhere (through piracy) and encouraging people to edit their files and breach the EULA, which, while not illegal, I feel she should be held accountable for as every person she encouraged to commit piracy did not buy the real product.

BASIC programmers never die, they GOSUB and don't RETURN.
bruce3371
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 26th Aug 2010 01:55 Edited at: 26th Aug 2010 01:56
As much as I am enjoying this debate, for now, I'm not going to comment any further, until after I've spent a day or so digging up some more info about this and other similar cases

This debate has brought up a number of interesting points, points that I wish to explore further myself.

The points I want to explore are these;

Copyright law, and how it pertains to online game servers and their content.

Copyright law, and exactly how it protects a software developer's Intellectual Property.

Client side software, server side software, and the different ways that Copyright laws protect these.

The technical differences between client side and server side software, and what exactly needs to be copied/reverse engineered in order to run a private server.

I think that covers everything we've discussed.

If anyone else has any other ideas about the information that is needed please let me know!

Also, If anyone else wants to research the same ponts I have metioned, feel free, then maybe we can come back in a few days and compare notes.

Hopefully then, we will be able to provide some definitive answers to each of these points that have been raised.

I game therefore I am.
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 26th Aug 2010 03:05 Edited at: 26th Aug 2010 03:06
A couple of points clear - hopefully to help communication:


Terms of Service - These are the terms that a person has to abide by in order to use the service. If you don't agree to the terms, then you're not allowed to legally use the service.

If you aren't using the service then you don't have to abide by those terms, so you're in no way contractually obliged by them. Does setting up a server for WoW players count as using Blizzard's services? From my understanding, it would be providing an alternative service for their users. From the sounds of things, with the case of this lady, it would be a use of Blizzard's services because it sounds like she used their data without their permission. If she hadn't, then we wouldn't be talking about copyright infringement, which is probably why IanM has been asking, 'did she do that?' If she didn't, then it's only the users that are misusing the software.

Would it against any other laws? I don't know, that's probably where research ought to be focused. I've researched law before and understand it, however, I don't wish to spare the time, after all, ones of its biggest headaches is finding anomalies where laws like to contradict each other. Leave that to a law student or a qualified lawyer.

Click!
Herakles
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 26th Aug 2010 06:49
Here's how I understand it:

This woman was making a profit from something that wasn't hers (the game). That is a crime, and she should have to pay back every last cent that she made. But she should only have to pay back the exact amount that she made, no more. If Blizzard ends up with more money than they would have lost, that means that they've made a profit. Exploiting the law to make a profit cannot be allowed.

Fatal Berserker
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 26th Aug 2010 18:20 Edited at: 26th Aug 2010 18:22
No IanM, you agree to the license when you run the application, not buy it.

Its free to download world of warcraft, and also free to install. However to upgrade your WoW account to use the pack its paid for (which is what u pay for when you buy the game at the shops).

If you look around on wows site ull eventually find a like 500kb app which will download the game/expansions of your choice and install them from blizzards servers.

Smoke me a kipper, ill be back for breakfast.
KeithC
Senior Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2005
Location: Michigan
Posted: 26th Aug 2010 18:31
Quote: "But she should only have to pay back the exact amount that she made, no more."

Wrong; she should also pay a penalty amount. Otherwise, she's lost nothing that was hers to begin with.

-Keith

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-24 05:40:37
Your offset time is: 2025-05-24 05:40:37