eula
Latest
The Daily Grind: Read and understood
End-User-License-Agreements, Terms-of-Use, Terms-of-Service. Some MMOGs and virtual environments get you to agree to them on first-use. Some get you to agree on every load and/or every login. In all cases, proceeding to click through indicates that you have (a) read it, (b) understand it, and (c) agree to abide by it. It is a legal contract between you and the operators and developers of the service. But frankly, did you? Do you? If the agreement contains specialist legal terms, it is technically not even possible for the average user to proceed with any level of informed consent without considerable research. It is even possible that many of these agreements may fail to stand up in court -- there's certainly precedent for that, depending on how finely you slice it. Do you read these manifestly lengthy and fearsomely involuted tracts? Do you understand them? Or do you just click on through and don't care what it actually says?
Blizzard wins lawsuit against bot makers
You may recall the long running Blizzard vs. MDY battle from various reports here on WoW Insider. In short, Blizzard sued MDY, the makers of the MMOGlider bot (formerly the WOWGlider bot), claiming that the bot violated Blizzard copyright by writing portions of the game to RAM in order to work (since you only have a license to run the game files, and do not actually own them, unauthorized copies are against the EULA). They also claimed that the bot tortiously interfered with Blizzard's customer base. MDY sued them right back, claiming they had every right to sell and distribute their bots. MDY received a crushing blow yesterday as the court ruled against them, Virtually Blind reports, declaring them guilty of copyright infringement and tortious interference (Apparently, bots stealing your kills is now a legal issue, which is sort of cool). The ramifications of this decision are still being discussed in various corners of the net and legal world.
Forum post of the day: Winning isn't everything
I love most of the battlegrounds. Oddly enough, even as Horde, Alterac Valley is my favorite. Warsong Gulch is the exception. Maybe because of it's small team size, it seems really difficult to get organized and the games drag out. Now I don't necessarily need honor from WSG, but I do need marks for some of my gear. Should I just go in with the intention of getting a single mark, offer no resistance to the opposing team, and collect my singular mark. That's not my style. I'm in it to win it like Yzerman. Aparently not every feels the same as I do. Pigskin of Medivh is unimpressed with mark farming. Even if it's a premade losing team, there are still often folks who get pugged into their groups who can't do much alone when they lack the support of their team. She's hoping for a response from Blizzard.
WoW Rookie: Embracing the official forums
WoW Rookie is brought to our readers to help our newest players get acclimated to the game. Make sure you send a note to WoW Insider if you have suggestions for what new players need to know. I spend most of my evenings perusing the North American and European WoW Foums for interesting topics for our Forum Post of the Day feature. I've come across all kinds of threads from the uplifting, to the whiney, to the popular discussion. They are a great resource for tips and strategies. Blizzard welcomes constructive criticism and suggestions from the WoW community. You are welcome to be a part of it as well. There are a few things you should know about the forums.
Hernandez v. IGE: Brock Pierce declaration and Hernandez compel developments
Antonio Hernandez filed a lawsuit in 2007 against IGE, the MMOG-currency for real dollars illicit emporium. Hernandez claims IGE diminishes the overall playing experience for legitimate players and filed on the grounds that stem from farming gold, spamming chat, and camping spawns it allegedly prevented players from receiving full benefits Blizzard intended via World of Warcraft's End User License Agreement. Eight weeks remain in the fact discovery phase under the court's calendar and two recent developments have surfaced. First, a declaration on behalf of IGE's CEO Brock Pierce which states IGE merely holds stock in Affinity Media INC. and does not employ anyone nor have anything to do with the alleged activities in the Amended Complaint was filed. Second, Hernandez has moved to compel production of documents and asked the court to force IGE to respond fully to plaintiff's interrogatories.Virtually Blind has been following the lawsuit closely since the outset and has all legal documentation available for download.
MMO customer 'Bill of Rights'
Here comes the familiar discussion of player rights once again, but this time in a different form. Warhammer Online blog WAAAGH! has a post discussing the possible virtues of an MMO customer "Bill of Rights" as it were. Our immediate thoughts were of Richard Bartle's presentation discussing the good, bad and ugly futures of massively multiplayer online worlds. If you skim through Bartle's presentation, you'll come across the future involving player "rights" pretty quickly. Otherwise known as the lawyer future, possibly one of the scariest suggestions we've ever heard for our beloved MMOs.Granted, some of those predictions are quite out there. Paying income tax on the money you earn in-game is a pretty big leap, but it all starts out with players pointing to EULAs (End User License Agreements) as unfair. If we start demanding more rights within our online worlds we run the risk of having to walk a very thin tightrope that could lead to a lot of headaches later on. Don't get us wrong, we're all for companies treating their player-base better, but a virtual coup d'état is the last thing any of us should want.
Law of the Game on Joystiq: Much Ado About Game Night
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: Ah, the library (the place with books, not the bar). The once quiet and relaxing readers' domain has moved into the digital age, now containing computers and video games. In fact, a number of non-profits, like libraries, churches, and schools, have all found video game based events worthwhile to attract players of all ages to their establishments, or to add more entertainment to an existing event. GamePolitics actually raised an interesting question I had also received from a reader related to library and church game nights, specifically: What are the potential ramifications of holding these events from a copyright and EULA perspective? It's actually a very good question, albeit one with a fairly nebulous answer. As was pointed out by the GamePolitics piece, there are licensing services that will acquire the proper license for the public performance of a movie. Similarly, groups like ASCAP have well established licensing procedures for music. The reasoning is that public display and performance are within the bundle of rights a copyright holder has. Therefore, in order to publicly display something, you need to have the copyright holder's permission in the form of a license. Of course, if it were this simple, I wouldn't be writing a column about it.
"It wasn't me": Account sharing and excuses
Technically, account sharing is a bannable offense, no ifs, ands, or buts. If your brother, best friend, coworker, or Fred from the soccer league who sometimes drops by your house after practice for a couple cold ones want to play some WoW, they have to get their own account. If they play on your account, and Blizzard finds out, they can shut you down for it.
Azeroth Security Advisor: WoW is watching you, part 2
Every week, computer security expert Jon Eldridge is your Azeroth Security Advisor. He will delve into the darkest reaches of computer security rumor and bring the facts back home even if they're wriggling at the end of a pike. His goal is to provide useful information to gamers who don't think about security much and flame fodder for those self appointed experts who need to rationalize the cost of their expensive certifications. Like any good security force he's a mercenary at heart and is happy to take subject requests from the user community that he serves. So feel free to leave a comment below or just sit back and enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Azeroth Security Advisor. Last week I discussed two of the three ways Blizzard keeps an eye on your computer. This week I'll cover the controversial Warden program whose discovery in Oct 2005 by Greg Hoglund caused a great deal of outrage and confusion not unlike accidentally joining a pickup group full of rogues. Reactions have been so strong that some trolls dwelling in their parents basements are still alternately posting "OMFG BLIZ HACKZ CALL COPS!!!" or "U SIGNED EULA SO STFU N00B!!!!!" depending on which of their medications are kicking in at the time. Most people forgot to care one way or the other within a few weeks and went back to life as usual. Lucky for Blizzard apathy is the universal solvent for organized resistance otherwise they might be facing a class action lawsuit by now. The Warden's core mission is to continuously audit your PC for suspicious activity while you play. First it reads all the DLL's loaded into the WoW process space, which is a perfectly legitimate activity any way you slice it. After that, the Warden ditches its friendly park ranger hat for a ski mask and takes a look around the rest of your PC. It reads the text in the title bar of every window you have open including that really embarrassing Furry fan site you don't want your friends to know about. Yes Nekudotayim, Bliz knows about your pr0nz.! The Warden then creates a hash code (think fingerprint) of each window title and compares the results to a list of "banning hashes" for potential matches and subsequent divine retribution.
The possible outcomes of Blizzard's Glider lawsuit
Terra Nova put a quick post up about putting the Blizzard vs. WoW Glider case (and the Public Knowledge amicus brief) in the larger context of whether or not End User License Agreements are "good" or "bad," but even better than the post is the comments section. Lots of MMO heavies, including Richard Bartle, show up to break down just what Blizzard is trying to do with their claim against the botting software, and what they might end up doing to the industry at large.No one is against Blizzard's goal of trying to stop cheaters. But the way Blizzard is going about it puts their stance in jeopardy -- they're saying that cheating in their MMO is a violation of copyright, and that is a completely different issue. Even Bartle himsef says this is an "ends justify the means" argument -- Blizzard is just using the copyright issue to get the judge to say that cheating is bad. As we posted the other day, Public Knowledge believes that any decision that says "yes, Glider breaks copyright law," could then be used as a precedent for calling any EULA violation a copyright violation.Adam Hyland, in the Terra Nova thread, has the breakdown of outcomes: either a judge rules completely in favor of MDY/Glider (thus leaving every software maker open to EULA violations -- very unlikely), or a judge rules either narrowly in favor of Blizzard (saying that yes, cheating is wrong, but it's not a copyright issue), or wholly in favor of Blizzard (which Public Knowledge fears the most -- if breaking the EULA is a copyright violation, everyone who names their character XXNoobz0rXX is breaking copyright law). We'll have to see what comes out of this case, and hope that it's for the best for both Blizzard and their players.
Psystar says it's shipping Open Computers, anyone get a tracking number?
It's been a pretty hectic few days for wannabe Mac cloner Psystar -- its former credit card processor shut off its account when it learned what it was trying to sell, no one could figure out the company's true address, and company president Rudy Pedraza still has the disconcerting habit of not answering any questions and promising to call everyone back with a formal statement that's never arrived. Still, the company posted up a blurb today saying it's gotten a new credit card processor and that Open Computers are now being shipped in the order purchases were made. Of course, Rudy's been promising us a test machine since day one, so we're curious to see if he follows through -- has anyone gotten a tracking number? Anyone have their credit cards charged? Let us know.Read - Psystar: "Store up and running"Read - News.com article about Psystar's former credit card processorRead - ZDNet article on Psystar's address
Psystar: What's the French Word for Lawsuit?
Yesterday, Mike posted about the new commercial hackintosh from Psystar. Many of our readers noted that, wow, that was a lawsuit waiting to happen -- or as Fake Steve put it, Psystar is French for "We're about to go out of business". Update 11 am Tuesday: InformationWeek is reporting that Psystar believes that Apple's EULA is anticompetitive and violates US monopoly laws. Interesting.Here are a few of the high points that TUAW is aware of: The Mac name Using "Mac" in the product name was probably a bad idea. Psystar just re-named the platform to "Open Computer" instead. Pre-installing Leopard It would seem that installing Leopard on non-Apple hardware is a violation of Apple's EULA. Virtualization vendors such as Parallels and VMware have already acknowledged this constraint in their product development; otherwise, both would offer VMs capable of running Leopard on any PC and not just on Mac OS X Server. Unlicensed PC_EFI It looks like Psystar is using an EFI bootloader without properly acknowledging the actual author or receiving permission to distribute the software. If you haven't yet checked out the discussion thread on Digg, I encourage you to do so. It's especially useful with its discussions about hardware limitations and hackintoshes.
Law of the Game on Joystiq: End User License Aggravation
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:Last week, ECA boss Hal Halpin posted a column discussing the need for the game industry to re-evaluate the big block of text you click to 'Agree' to without reading; aka the End User License Agreement (EULA). While I could write a column about the pitfalls of some actual EULAs, as PC Mag did in January, I will instead address the broader issue that no one has yet pointed out. In general, copyright law and its application to new media has lagged well behind the curve of practicality. I want to start out by saying that I fully believe the idea of copyright is a positive one, as those who create works should be able to protect their rights with respect to those works. However, technology has now pushed the envelope to the point that it is generally impractical, if not nearly impossible to impose the centuries old concept of 'copyright' that originated with the printing press. Now, that's not to say the powers that be haven't tried to adapt copyright to new media. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) was the last train wreck of an attempt to do just that. The problem with a lot of legislation is that the law is primarily drafted by legislators who, to be quite honest, know next to nothing about what they're trying to legislate, while being prodded by highly paid lobbyists who, generally, represent the side with the most money. Just to be clear, I'm pro-business, but the typical effect of one-sided drafting is that the other side is left in an unpleasant position. Given that I'm also a consumer, I see the need for balance on both sides of this issue, and unfortunately, there isn't much balance at this point in the equation. The addition of the EULA only continues to tip the scales away from the consumer. In general, this isn't a problem for most users, but it certainly has the potential to be one!
Belfaire on community policing and GM subjectivity
As you may recall, a few days ago, I wrote a little Dear Blizzard letter on the subject of enforcing the RP and Naming Policy. Of course, Once one writes a letter to someone, it is a good idea to deliver it, and thus I delivered it, or at least the issues therein, over on the Customer Service Forum. I was lucky enough to have Belfaire, who you may remember from his post explaining Blizzard's stance on multi-boxing, answer some of my questions and concerns. I also got some pretty well thought out feedback from a couple other people browsing the forums, including some roleplayers who disagreed with some of my points, so I think the threads worth a read in itself, and I'll comment a bit more on what Belfaire said after the break, now that I've had time to digest it a bit.
Dear Blizzard: Am I your police officer?
Dear Blizzard, First of all, I really do have to thank you for changing the name of that guy called Longjohnson. Yeah, He sent us this pretty long rant about how it was unfair his name was changed, but honestly, it was a pretty clear violation of the naming policy against inappropriate references to bodily parts or functions (Sorry Jason, I'm only siding with you to a point here. Your character's name needed to be changed). That said, I'll give him this: It is pretty annoying that he was able to then proceed to the Armory and find 19 characters named Longjohnson and 60 characters named Bigjohnson. If a name is impermissible because of being profane or inappropriate on one server, it should count on them all, right? Every server has the same set of naming rules, except for RP servers, which have the extra "appropriate for an RP server" qualifier, so this shouldn't be a problem. Mike has actually observed that enforcement tends to be a bit lax in the past regarding both the naming policy and RP server policy, but I figured it was worth bringing up again.
Blue poster Belfaire explains Blizzard's stance on multiboxing
Multiboxing, the process of one person playing multiple characters on multiple accounts at one time, usually by the use of multiple computers (thus the term) and macros that can be activated on all accounts by the push of a single button, has most recently seen coverage here on WoW with our 2-man Karazhan report. The act of multiboxing is one that has been the subject of some debates, mostly centered around whether or not it violates the EULA. Those in favor of multiboxing can breathe easier today, as Blizzard poster Belfaire has stated in no uncertain terms that Blizzard has no problem with the practice in a post on the customer service forums. In short, he says that the advantages of multiboxing are no different than the advantages offered by normal grouping. Since multiboxers can be damaged, feared and CC'd as easily as separate people playing separate accounts, and since they can't do anything the same amount of characters couldn't do when played by different people, there is no reason to consider it an unfair advantage in PvP or PvE. He also answers quite a few specific questions posed by thread starter and multiboxer Velath that clarify why Blizzard accepts Multiboxing and does not consider it an exploit or an unfair advantage.
GDC08: Are virtual item sales the way of the future?
With the stigma associated with the term RMT -- or "real money trading" -- companies such as Live Gamer and Ping0 have an uphill battle when selling their legitimized RMT services to many gamers. At GDC recently, Live Gamer's Andrew Schneider and ping0's Steve Goldstein tried to explain to a skeptical crowd why their forms of RMT trading are the future of gaming.Though you hear a lot about WoW gold, all online games have a large secondary market for currency. These services are all operated outside of the publisher's terms of service or EULA and are very inefficient, both for the player and the company. The RMT industry is littered with account and credit card theft -- and when a customer's account has been compromised, they don't call the RMT traders: they call the game's customer support line. It's an immense waste of resources for the game company and a huge hassle for the player involved. (Has your World of Warcraft account ever been stolen? If so, you know it can take weeks to get everything restored.) If game companies don't address RMT issues themselves, they're just going to have problems with black market RMT. Live Gamer seems to offer a, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach with their attempts to run a legitimate RMT business.
Hernandez drops HK IGE - Florida Economic Crimes Office investigates
If you've been following Hernandez vs IGE, you'll probably be a bit surprised to find that the Plaintiff (Hernandez) has dropped Hong Kong Internet Gaming Entertainment Limited (IGE) from the Defendants. USA IGE US LLC (the other IGE) remains on the docket. The Plaintiff alleges that IGE is gold-farming, spawn-camping, devaluing gold, spamming chat, and generally screwing up the experience for everyone else.
SOE caught red-handed: EQ2 Player / Dev relationship breached ethical boundaries
Several days ago Massively reported that EQ2 Flames administrator broke the story on a scandal that regards numerous members from Unhallowed Triad, a guild on EQ2's Test server that was transferred to Unrest, a Live server through an inside connection at SOE. Character transfers from the Test server to a Live one is not allowed and against current SOE transfer policy; albeit, the EULA has a clause that SOE may change this policy at any time. However, the case is made that a Player / Dev affiliation has led to corruption, leaving many infuriated players with lots of unanswered questions as seen in these two threadnaughts. To recap for those not following this closely or wanting to sift through 100+ pages on the forums: SOE employee(s) abused their power breaking various codes of ethics (confirmed & guilty) Numerous Test players accuse Unhallowed Triad with a history of exploitation and getting away with it in due part to their SOE connection (rumors) Someone at SOE made the call to transfer Test characters to a Live server breaking policy (confirmed & guilty) Not only were characters transferred to Unrest, but items as well. Unhallowed Triad's Guild level was also inflated to 60. (confirmed & guilty) Many Unhallowed Triad guild members admitted to transferring off test in Assassin's chat (confirmed) Several Unhallowed Triad guild members were transferred unknowingly (more than likely) Legitimately leveled characters belonging to several Unhallowed Triad members were transferred over from other servers or already leveled on the Unrest server (confirmed) Unhallowed Triad guild tag no longer exists but there other guild tag Unholy Trinity exists and their Guild level stands at 30 (confirmed) All players on the Test server have not been given the same opportunity to transfer to a Live server The evidence found via EQ2 Players alone is overwhelming. So much so that it's impossible to sweep all the allegations under-the-rug. Initially, SOE was quick to react as both Alan "Brenlo" Crosby, Director of Global Community Relations and Bruce "Froech" Ferguson, EQ2's new Senior Producer admitted to SOE's involvement. Well, rather that someone at SOE made the call to override the policy, but in a good natured manner to reward certain players for their hard work on the Test server. Not a smart choice of words or tone given EQ2 players warranted concerns. In any case, Ferguson claims the transferred characters will be removed. Since their initial statements and response there has been no further word from a SOE representative on this matter.
Herndandez vs IGE - IGE withdraws motion to stay/dismiss
There has been a new development with the uncertified class action Herndandez vs IGE. The Plaintiff alleges that IGE is gold-farming, spawn-camping, devaluing gold, spamming chat, and generally screwing up the experience for everyone else. Defendant IGE filed a motion to stay/dismiss in favor of arbitration on 26 October. IGE has now changed it's stance and withdrawn that motion, and gives the impression that it will answer the complaint in court. That could only be an impression, however.
