Minifig Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 A judge in the California Central District Court ruled Thursday that Scapegaming, also known as Alyson Reeves, has lost its lawsuit against Blizzard. Scapegaming had set up private Blizzard servers that included a microtransactions market. Blizzard sued them in October 2009 for copyright infringement.As we've covered here before, private servers are a violation of license limitations of the EULA. Blizzard considers any violation of those license limitations to be copyright infringement and sues people for such. Furthermore, Blizzard established in the "Bnetd" case that crafting software to set up a private server is a copyright infringement all on its own. The total reward of $88,594,589 comes from $3,053,339 of inappropriate profits, $63,600 of attorney's fees, and $85,478,600 of statutory damages. Statutory damages are damages required by law that are increased for willful and commercially based infringement. Scapegaming may appeal the amount. Source. Any questions now as if Private Servers are illegal? I hope not as you've got eighty-eight million dollars against you to prove you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhearted Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 Everyone knows private servers aren't legal, even the players of them. It's only obvious. As for the fine scape got.... Eh, It's just your typical unrealistically inflated number they make up as what they think they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin-uk Veteran Posted August 15, 2010 Veteran Share Posted August 15, 2010 considers any violation of those license limitations to be copyright infringement I guess thats the only way they can actually sue since EULA's dont actually have any legal standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XionUK Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 I think the ruling would have been entirely different if he hadn't had any money changing hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minifig Posted August 15, 2010 Author Share Posted August 15, 2010 I guess thats the only way they can actually sue since EULA's dont actually have any legal standing. Yes they do, that's EXACTLY what this lawsuit was about. http://williampatry....f-warcraft.html http://technollama.b...eula-means.html http://www.eff.org/d...you-dont-own-it Read those.. ALL of them. The big important one comes from the last link: In a devastating blow to user rights, an Arizona federal court has ruled that consumers can be guilty of copyright infringement if they violate the end user license agreement ("EULA") that comes with the software--even where the so-called "violation" is specifically excluded from copyright liability. Why? Because those protections only apply if you own the software you buy--not if you license it. Stunningly, this means that "cheating" while playing a computer game can expose you to potentially huge statutory damages for copyright infringement. EULA's despite what you may think ARE binding contracts. That's why they're so important to companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin-uk Veteran Posted August 15, 2010 Veteran Share Posted August 15, 2010 Yes they do, that's EXACTLY what this lawsuit was about. http://williampatry....f-warcraft.html http://technollama.b...eula-means.html http://www.eff.org/d...you-dont-own-it Read those.. ALL of them. The big important one comes from the last link: EULA's despite what you may think ARE binding contracts. That's why they're so important to companies. Ah well, sucks to be in the US then, I guess. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minifig Posted August 15, 2010 Author Share Posted August 15, 2010 Ah well, sucks to be in the US then, I guess. :p That applies anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WastedJoker Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 Someone likes to underline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minifig Posted August 15, 2010 Author Share Posted August 15, 2010 :happy: Guilty as charged Joker... :laugh:.. but the point still stands, if you break a EULA for Blizzard in Europe, you're still breaking the law where the company is based, and they can charge you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 :happy: Guilty as charged Joker... :laugh:.. but the point still stands, if you break a EULA for Blizzard in Europe, you're still breaking the law where the company is based, and they can charge you. Not really, you have no idea how different the laws and regulations are across borders - Especially in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin-uk Veteran Posted August 15, 2010 Veteran Share Posted August 15, 2010 US Law doesnt cover europe, that would be silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buio Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 Guilty as charged Joker... :laugh:.. but the point still stands, if you break a EULA for Blizzard in Europe, you're still breaking the law where the company is based, and they can charge you. If you only break the EULA, the only thing the company can do is ban you from their game. If you also break the law in the country you live in on the other hand, they can press charges. Most certainly the so called private servers are breaking copyright laws. Breaking the EULA is like breaking forums rules here on Neowin (without breaking the law of course) the site can ban you but nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 and yet if the company violates their own eula or abuses it in some fashion i wonder how well an end user pursued lawsuit would go. then again the EULA is specially crafted to say things like "you do not own anything" and "we can terminate service and access permenantly at any time for any reason" but at the same time actions through the BBB actually go somewhere quite often, though the BB is pretty powerless overall. mass bans at the beginning of a billing cycle comes to mind, see this quite often in aion. in any case private servers' legality has always been pretty dubious if not obviously illegal on copyright grounds. NCsoft routinely gets teh FBI to investigate and raid l2 p servers that operate inside the US and profit from their operation. but suing and charging private servers out side the US doesn't happen. if it were possible, i'm sure mmo companies like ncsoft and blizzard would pursue them more vigorously, based on the pursuit of prosecution and litigation against p server operators and hax software devs in the US. but then again given the proliferation of private servers despite sporadic enforcement, does mean we're going to see p server use or operation decline any time soon for games that support p server populations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buio Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 and yet if the company violates their own eula or abuses it in some fashion i wonder how well an end user pursued lawsuit would go. then again the EULA is specially crafted to say things like "you do not own anything" and "we can terminate service and access permenantly at any time for any reason" but at the same time actions through the BBB actually go somewhere quite often, though the BB is pretty powerless overall. mass bans at the beginning of a billing cycle comes to mind, see this quite often in aion. Yeah true, it would be the little man vs the company with a lot of money and lawyers. And indeed the companies fill the EULA with all sorts of stuff so they can terminate you if they feel like it. The only thing stopping them from abusing it is public relations, the bad press that could come from mistreating a client that goes public with it. For example Steam has formed their EULA so you own nothing, you are basically renting the games until further notice and they can change and terminate your license to use the games at any time they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 Yeah true, it would be the little man vs the company with a lot of money and lawyers. And indeed the companies fill the EULA with all sorts of stuff so they can terminate you if they feel like it. The only thing stopping them from abusing it is public relations, the bad press that could come from mistreating a client that goes public with it. For example Steam has formed their EULA so you own nothing, you are basically renting the games until further notice and they can change and terminate your license to use the games at any time they wish. steam's eula is typical of any software license. even if you buy a game or app in teh store on disc, you don't own it and are merely licensing it and that license may be revoked at any time without notice for any reason with liability to the dev or publisher etc etc. has been that way since at least the 90s. in practice steam is pretty decent though, they even give refunds on games you bought before launch on mmo's(seen it in STO, or at least claims of this happening), although i've seen people blame steam for ubisoft drm, ask for a refund and get refused. i don't what the account hacking rates are for steam, or what happens if that happens. or if they puruse account trasnfers(ie selling your steam account) or what happens if they do catch you doing that. or even steam account sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyfrog Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 Personally I don't care if some kid sets up a private server, they generally suck and aren't a threat to Blizzard. These jerks were making money off of Blizzard's product though, so by all means burn them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentGray Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 *gasp* god forbid the creator of something gets to descide how it's distributed. Private servers collapse under their own weight 99% of the time, so Blizzard can afford to ignore them. Second someone starts making money? burn them to the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 I think the ruling would have been entirely different if he hadn't had any money changing hands. I do believe so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentralDogma Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 Yes they do, that's EXACTLY what this lawsuit was about. http://williampatry....f-warcraft.html http://technollama.b...eula-means.html http://www.eff.org/d...you-dont-own-it Read those.. ALL of them. The big important one comes from the last link: EULA's despite what you may think ARE binding contracts. That's why they're so important to companies. I could hunt around for these cases, but honestly, Wikipedia actually has a rather decent article on EULA's legality: The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. ?see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91), Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well. No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "licensed and not sold" argument, while most other circuits do not. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that has passed UCITA. Recently, publishers have begun to encrypt their software packages to make it impossible for a user to install the software without either agreeing to the license agreement or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and foreign counterparts. The DMCA specifically provides for reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes, so there was some controversy as to whether software license agreement clauses which restrict this are enforceable. The 8th Circuit case of Blizzard v. BnetD (at eff.org) determined that such clauses are enforceable, following the Federal Circuit decision of Baystate v. Bowers. It really depends on what court you get in the US. The general thinking of why EULA's are not binding is that they are presented after you purchase the software. And, in most case, cannot return it after opening. That applies anywhere. Now, that's entirely untrue. I'd doubt Blizzard would have much recourse if this all took place in Nigeria.But, I'm not seeing how the EULA factors into this case. The EULA is placed on the client software Blizzard distributes, private servers would not be affected by it. Indeed, its possible Mr. Reeves never purchased a license from Blizzard and has never seen the EULA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buio Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 steam's eula is typical of any software license. even if you buy a game or app in teh store on disc, you don't own it and are merely licensing it and that license may be revoked at any time without notice for any reason with liability to the dev or publisher etc etc. has been that way since at least the 90s. That doesn't really work, at least not in countries with strong consumer laws. You are more protected as a consumer if you buy a physical product. Companies can write whatever they want on the box, it doesn't matter what they say if the law protects the customers rights of ownership. Unless the store specifically tells you that you in fact are renting the product, you own it after buying it. To be honest, the boxed games with Steam should come with a warning from the store personnel, that you are only renting the game and that Steam can retract your license at any time. Now, I'm not an expert on law, so I could be out on thin ice here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 I could hunt around for these cases, but honestly, Wikipedia actually has a rather decent article on EULA's legality: It really depends on what court you get in the US. That is why our federal court system needs a massive overhaul. What applies in one federal court can easily be contradicted by another federal judge in another district. It is getting completely out of hand, especially in cases like this. EULAs in some federal courts have been declared completely invalid, yet in other courts have been declared not only enforceable, but violations are treated as tantamount to copyright infringement. The only recourse someone has is to appeal to the Supreme Court, but that is a lengthy, expensive process, and you have no guarantee that the SC will even hear the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PL_ Veteran Posted August 15, 2010 Veteran Share Posted August 15, 2010 That applies anywhere. lolwat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaP Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 Of course they are not legal. Why would someone think they are? But why would i care about video game companies rights ? We are talking about companies who realese games with known bugs and patch them 1 week later. We talk about companies who put locked contens on CD and ask money to unlock them. Video game companies often do things that are border line illegal. Video game companies are often exploiting the outdated north american copyright laws to their advantage. Basically the copyright laws tell us that customers don't have any right while companies can do whatever they want. I love that if i want to play L4D2 with my friends on 360 and PC i need to buy the same ****ing game twice. I should have the right to copy the PC version since i already bought the right to this game while buying the 360 version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 $88 million... seriously :/ Do any US courts ever think before they hand out these ridiculously large penalties? How in the hell will this person ever pay a fine that large off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M_Lyons10 Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 US Law doesnt cover europe, that would be silly. EULA's are not US Law, nor is anything therin implied... They are explicit, and they are a binding contract that you are agreeing to no matter where you are. I can understand your argument being applied to something like a patent, but in this case it just doesn't work... $88 million... seriously :/ Do any US courts ever think before they hand out these ridiculously large penalties? How in the hell will this person ever pay a fine that large off. File bankruptcy... The court doesn't care, it is their responsibility to award the plaintiff what they determine they are due (Though this sounds kind of high to me as well), not what the defendant can afford. I would say that in most cases this forces the defendant into bankruptcy though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts