Of course MDY wont win the ninth circuit. The weirdest !@#$ ever comes from there. "Bong hits for Jesus" is an example. Theres other cases that have to deal with more ridiculous things, but theres no need to get into all of that.
I disagree with the train of thought presented by Aris. Blizzard isn't "charging" anything by allowing third-party developers or users like us to create addons and then incorporate similar features. They are allowing us to playtest their game and giving us the tools to tailor it. Then they're turning these little tweaks into official changes. I wouldn't say that's charging--maybe saving money, but not charging.
To the people not caring about the "loss of addons" Why write anything? All you're saying is you only care about yourself. Awesome? To the people saying "botz r der sux!1" Yeah great, but thats not really the important issue, and you sound a little too lost in the videogame to notice. The issue is why the hell is the law getting involved in something that is clearly suppost to be under the control of Blizzard? Blizzard has FULL RIGHT to block anything they want from their game, and even sue anyone using their server code to host games without authorization. But not, with this, and perhaps the 9th courth, they are basically telling you what you can run on your system, by law. Its become more than a risk of some nerd getting banned and I dont think alot of people are seeing that slippery slope and are way too entrenched in their virtual fantasies to see it. If it was possible for them to enforce any of their addon "rules" by law, it would be a sad day for the legal system.
One:Maybe Blizz is a bully, but when he threatens, leave. this isn't grade school.Two:Working for tips is rough. If your intent is to make addons and sell them, make your own game so you can do so at your own price; don't come into someone else's yard and try to sell shade.Three:Blizz is charging for addons. They charge 15 dollars a month. If/when they ammend that or adjust the sevices they provide for those 15 bucks, i may have a problem.Four:I would rather this be debated in court than not. In court very clearly defined terms are used to quantify the results. If this were somehow "not worth the court's time" or deemed not in its jurisdiction, all that would remain as a means of defense would be detection of addons and banning of those that use them. That, i feel, would violate my privacy to the point that i would leave. I know some monitoring is already taking place, but what is in place is ok by me.Bottom Line:We all have a vote in this. It's our 15 bucks a month. Talk, debate, QQ all you want. That vote is all you've got when the dust settles.
And some people still wonder why lawyers will be first against the wall when the revolution comes."over 100 addons" to manage a raid and run some DKP. I believe the term here is "Proof or Get Out."
I believe (again ethically not legally) that there are two major issues here:1- Does Blizzard gain from allowing addons. My answer here is a definite yes, for good or ill addons is an important part of the appeal of this game for many people. I don't use many but I do know that a large number of players enjoy the costumisation aspect of the game (macros included) and would list it among the top features.2- What part of the game does Blizzard 'own' (in an ethical sense not legal). Here I believe that virtually every single idea in the game is derived, some novel features include things like specific WoW lore. Most of the actual game mechanics and ideas are very much entrenched in existing lore and fairly common gaming ideas. For this reason I see Blizzard standing to WoW as the Catholic Church stood to Chritstianity in the Dark Ages. More of a custodial relationship than a ownership relationship. When I pay my subscription I feel like I am paying for a great implementation of these things, not the things themselves. I think Blizz is probably right when they go after and shut down leechers, but I also think they must recognise that they need the leechers almost as much as the leechers need them.
yes lawyers are sharks, they get paid no matter which side they are on they HAVE to do what they are paid to BUT some do go over board, in this case BLIZZ has the right to say... Hey its ok for you to create mods for this game BUT its not ok for you to get paid off of our product. Now ( just my belief) that if I made a product that the whole world is using and someone creates a mod and offers it for money, my next move would be to do what Blizz did BUT first offer them the chance to sell that product to me, as a way out of legal action. Now in the case of ( that lvling mod),THAT was a slap in the face to EVERYONE who plays this game the right way and grinds their way to max lvls. I have been playing this game for almost 2 years now and as frustrated as I have gotten I never once used a lvling mod, now I am human and HAVE thought about it but I also know that those things compromise you account, and leave you wide open to hacks. Blizz didn't foresee this as a potential problem at launch because "Good People" don't think that other "Good People" will try to benefit from "Free" "Freedom" ...If you get my drift. Like I said before, IF its my product that YOU want to be PAID from offer it to ME and I'll pay YOU for it. IF its a product I want then I'm sure all sides will be pleased, if not then its back to the drawing board
In reply to ChefEscoffier -
Xantham9 I appreciate your points, and they are really valid, important points, but you have to realize we as the user do have a right, one very huge right. We have the right to stop playing the game.Our dollar is really the ultimate power here. That is how a free market society is supposed to operate, that the consumer's dollar keeps everything in check. If blizzard messes up the game badly everyone will quit and go to a new game, and all their future profits are gone. There is too much money at stake here for blizz to do something ridiculous like say name your first born Uldar.Now obviously it doesn't always work this way. There's tons of scams out there and consumers do need laws to keep them safe. Just look at the banking industry and mortgages these days and it's obvious many laws and regulations are needed. But what blizz is doing in this particular case is cracking down on a botter and actually protecting the consumer and their profits imo. They are trying to keep the game enjoyable and the integirty of it intact.I don't think they should make asking for donations against the tos, because most open source coders ask for donations, but making all the code go through them seems acceptable to me. They're just policing their product and trying to maintain a high level of quality.
I really don't think Blizzard is trying to shut down or curtail the development of addons. In fact, I believe it's just the opposite. I see this more as a first step towards an "app store" for their games. Looking at the success of Apple and the iPhone, it's not hard to see that they can have both the success of many independent developers and some of the revenue of selling the apps. If app creators were able to sell their products more effectively, and receive 80-90% of the revenue, I don't see why they (addon creators) wouldn't be happy with this kind of model.Sure, allowing the sales of apps for games brings up bigger questions, but when did "doing the right thing" ever get in the way of profit and greed!
From the interview:
The more I think about it the more this looks like a feudal arrangement to me. You, as the user of a software program, are essentially seen as a squatter on the property of:a) The king (i.e. Microsoft if you run windows)b) The lord (i.e. Blizzard in this case)c) Whoever decides you owe them money for going over a bridge (Your service provider, Google etc.)You don't HAVE to use any of those services of course, just like a serf did not HAVE to farm the land, there was always the option of invading England (Apple) or Pillaging some little Ukranian Hamlet (Linux). But while you did use the king's air and the lord's fields you owed them everything, bar none.Maybe a bit of a hyperbole but the central theme is clear, at least to me. Now I am not saying feudalism is inherently bad of course, a good lord or a good king is much preferable to a good president. It's just that when the BAD lord comes along you tend to get the shaft (figuratively in our case fortunately).
Exactly this, law is all about precedent. My problem comes down to basically the definition of copyright and the use of copyrighted material. If I read a copyrighted book I have every right to use the information gained anyway I please. Give lectures and seminars on the book and even make direct quotations (with appropriate referencing of course).How is 'copying the text of a book' into my memory substantively different from copying code into RAM. It is not. The makers of this bot were not selling WoW code for profit, which would be effectively stealing, they were using publicly available (if copyrighted) material to produce and sell SUBSTANTIVELY NEW MATERIAL. That last bit is crucial because in any other knowledge domain (like music and literature) it is the test for copyright infringement.I believe that the licencing model of software is fundamentally unethical and infringes on the right to ownership of individuals (hence the feudalism reference).