Yesterday, Blizzard was awarded a summary judgement against MDY Industries, LLC, makers of the popular grind-bot program, Glider. Drawing on a 1993 ninth circuit decision in the case of MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. (where it was decided that a copy of software loaded into RAM constitutes a legal copy for the purposes of copyright), the court agreed with Blizzard's assertion that the Glider program violates copyright by making alterations to the World of Warcraft software after it is loaded.
This is an interesting decision that could have some far-reaching implications in the software world. Imagine, if you will, that Microsoft decided that OpenOffice was cutting in on their productivity software. A little tweak to their EULA for Windows that allows only Windows-approved programs to run on their operating system, and they might have a strong case against anybody they don't like anymore on the grounds of copyright infringement.
To bring it into the gamespace, do you like unapproved mods? A precedent like this might strike a little fear into the heart of some mod developers, as they could become targets by making mediocre games fun again.
I'm not trying to be alarmist here. I think it's pretty safe to say that companies don't want to alienate consumers on a broad scale by throwing down lawsuits against every nickel-and-dime operation out there. That said, they probably could now, and that's scary enough on its own.
[via Neoseeker]
Conrad Zimmerman is Destructoid's News Editor and home to the busiest mustache in the gaming press. An amateur historian and pop culture fanatic, Conrad possesses a nearly limitless wealth of videogame factoids and a passion for the power of games to teach, inspire and entertain. He enjoys reading, writing and turning things which should be fun into work.
Likes
Mega Man 2, Arcade Games, Books about games, Board games, Having cultural interests that aren't games
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
14 comments | showing # 1 to 14
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
5:44 PM on 07.16.2008
| 
HOWEVER, it sets a legal precedent for something like the scenario with Microsoft changing their EULA
While there may be foothold for similar concepts, such limitations already exist at a reasonable level. Some DVD Ripper software checks to see if DVD unlocking applications are running on a machine before a copy action can be taken with the DVD Ripper software.
Furthermore, an updated EULA would need to be presented PRIOR to any software update that would limit such actions (it is illegal to do otherwise and the company in question can be sued for the cost of the product as well as the estimated profit that the product may have given the plaintiff), and therefore would be a user-beware type of element. It's not something that will "just happen," nor would it be something that wouldn't be reported on heavily prior to such an update and what it means in today's day and age of online reporting and blogging.
Honestly, it's just not a probable action that would be taken outside of what has already been taken in today's day and age. Possible? Yeah, but not at such a level that I wouldn't place all my eggs in one basket regardless.
And keep in mind that this case was specifically about a program that was meant to perform actions in a game without the human being there. I'm sorry, but I think that's cheating. (Yes, that's a whole can of worms, but if you don't have time to play the game yourself, you probably shouldn't have bought it.) I don't see how the scope of a binary being modified after it's loaded in RAM to cheat in a game can apply to programs running in Windows.
And I don't know any game mods that actually replace the game's core binaries. Some configuration files? Yes, but they're not binaries that play the game for you while you're not there.
The only reason they won is some technicalities in the way Glider operates in the newest edition of Glider they removed these infringements but it has already been to late.
Cry some more.
Lawyers aren't that different from us gamers after all, I guess. They just want to win, too.