WoW Insider

TotalBiscuit - I'm not sure your analysis is correct. A quick look at the app implies that it simply takes (publically-available) data from the Armory site and skins it in an interesting way. It's a very specific-purpose browser, which doesn't utilise Blizzard IP except in that it displays publically-available information. It's much like WoWecon, or more generally like, say, Opera, which is a for-pay web browser.

I can't see a copyright infringement argument there, and there's no EULA on the website, so they can't control commercial use there.

Frankly, this looks like an extremely dubious C&D, in line with Blizzard's history of utilising very dodgy legal logic. Indeed, this is very reminiscent indeed of the bnetd case. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_v._BnetD )

It's no different than printing off the New York Times and trying to resale it. A lot of work goes into maintaining the armory, and this guy/girl is just trying to make a quick buck.

I agree, making money off Blizzard's IP is a no no. Companies have to protect their IPs these days so I am not surprised and tbh only a fool wouldn't have seen this coming. There is a free armoury app out there anyway which I prefer, it's called Warcraft Characters.

I hope Blizzard are working on their own system. Even moreso I'd like to see a Blizzard themed version of twitter that plugs into their games possibly tied into Battle net. Now that would be very cool.

On the fan created front I'd like to see something that maybe ties into WoWhead and enables you to put different gear in your slots and mess around with talents for an iPhone/smartphone.

@hugh

From the Website Terms of Use:
"The Site or any portion of the Site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without Blizzard’s express written consent. "

That settles it, I'd say.

And the comments system here truly sucks now.

don't talk crap you don't know about.

They aren't using Blizzard's IP, they're merely taking available internet information and putting it on the phone.

If you're not a lawyer, don't talk crap about what you perceive blindly defending blizzard.

I umm... am a lawyer? At least I would be if I actually used my degree.

I agree, the comments system kinda blows. Either implement threaded discussions or don't!

@PeeWee: So, does that mean that Blizzard could also sue Opera for making money off writing a browser than can be used to view the Armory? If not, please explain the distinction.

Terms of Use on a website range from "not very plausible" to "total rubbish". Just because they wrote it doesn't mean it's legal. See also the legal kerfuffle a few years ago as various people tried to ban deep-linking into sites, and discovered they couldn't.

@Brandon: Yes, it is different. In your suggested case, the reseller is directly reselling materials copyrighted by the New York Times. To the best of my understanding, the Armory Browser doesn't include any copyrighted content outside their own in the distribution.

The actual case is closer to Google displaying portions of the Blizzard site text in search results. Do you think Google should be legally liable for that?

@Hugh - seriously man, you're just demonstrating your lack of legal knowledge here. I see what you're trying to say, but it's not relevant. What these guys did is produce a 'micro-browser' for a single site, which exclusively took data and graphics from the armory (all of which is Blizzard's intellectual property), and then sold it. Google is a mere search-engine, and it's purpose is what matters. It is not 'selling' the data, nor is it charging for you to open your search box. Google is not a browser, it's not even a piece of software, you cannot make the comparison.

If you create something with the sole purpose of using Blizzard's intellectual property, and then sell it, then yes, you're likely to find yourself in hot water. That's all this is, and that's why it got taken down. Feel free to provide statutory evidence or precedent/case-law to prove your point. Otherwise, don't dabble in law if you have no knowledge of it. It's misleading and never ends well.

"@Hugh - seriously man, you're just demonstrating your lack of legal knowledge here."

Ah, appeal to authority coupled with an ad hominem, always a guarantee that the rest of the argument's sound. :)

"If you create something with the sole purpose of using Blizzard's intellectual property, and then sell it, then yes, you're likely to find yourself in hot water. That's all this is, and that's why it got taken down. Feel free to provide statutory evidence or precedent/case-law to prove your point."

I notice that you have quoted neither case law nor indeed statues to prove your case yourself. Indeed, you haven't even told us on what basis you believe pwnies.org to be infringing. (And you haven't mentioned design right yet, which any IP lawyer of my aquaintance would have jumped straight to)

So - if you're claiming that this is a copyright infringement, there must have been an instance where pwnies.org distribute copyrighted work - note, pwnies.org directly, not the user of the software. There's plenty of case law there in the lawsuits against Kazaa, Napster et al - MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., and dozens more.

Now, pwnies claim that the distributed binaries and supplementary code - which is the only bit that they themselves are distributing - doesn't contain any of Blizzard's IP. If they're lying, they're screwed, but there's no reason to believe they are.

If the users were then infringing Blizzard's copyright in turn, then pwnies could be liable for contributory infringement. (Definition here - http://www.quizlaw.com/copyrights/what_is_contributory_infringem_1.php). However, the users are also engaging in an entirely legal activity, that being surfing the publically-accessible Armory site. I'm assuming you're not going to claim that viewing the Armory is infringement.

So, they're not on the hook for copyright infringement, by definition. They're not on the hook for contributory infringement. They might be screwed on design right, but I brought that argument up below. So what basis are you arguing? The legality of website terms and conditions? That's sticky ground - Kelly vs Arriba Soft Corp seems to bear upon this specific case. Something else?

Saying "I'm a lawyer so I'm right" doesn't really cut it.

Attempting to discuss anything with you is infuriating, since you're posting in a dozen different places.

"Ah, appeal to authority coupled with an ad hominem, always a guarantee that the rest of the argument's sound. :) " - When you're dealing with someone who mistakes uneducated opinion for fact, it's a little difficult to resist the temptation to tell them to stop, before they embarrass themselves.

"I notice that you have quoted neither case law nor indeed statues to prove your case yourself. Indeed, you haven't even told us on what basis you believe pwnies.org to be infringing. (And you haven't mentioned design right yet, which any IP lawyer of my aquaintance would have jumped straight to)" - I've already told you why it's an infringement, design right doesn't even come into it. Using somebody elses intellectual property without permission, outside of the exceptions of fair use and public domain is an infringement. What about that is so hard to understand? Do you really want me to start rattling off design right doctrine to people who know nothing about the legal system? I mean really. That and the fact that Design Right is a principle under British law, not American. Probably best to mention that. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 if I remember correctly?

"So - if you're claiming that this is a copyright infringement, there must have been an instance where pwnies.org distribute copyrighted work - note, pwnies.org directly, not the user of the software. There's plenty of case law there in the lawsuits against Kazaa, Napster et al - MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., and dozens more."

Ahh yes the old 'we only provide the road the drug-dealer drove on' argument. The difference is pretty clear, the sole purpose of the file-sharing program was not to provide a means of infringement, and indeed, infringement was in essence, the decision of the user, not the provider of the software. In this case however, the decision to infringe is not on the user, since the user cannot help it. The app is locked solely to that one site, the decision to infringe was the developer's, not the user's. Please note that almost all of those cases were decided in favor of the file-sharing application on the basis of who was doing the infringing, and the purpose and potential uses of the program. Napster, Kazaa etc did not infringe in and of themselves, however, this program does. There's the difference, explained in layman's terms.

"Now, pwnies claim that the distributed binaries and supplementary code - which is the only bit that they themselves are distributing - doesn't contain any of Blizzard's IP. If they're lying, they're screwed, but there's no reason to believe they are."

The difference is that without access to the armory and the use of Blizzard's intellectual property, the program would not function. The above statement would be correct if we were not dealing with an online application. The fact of the matter is though, we are, and part of that application, whether they coded it or not, is Blizzard's IP. It doesn't matter if it's a part of the stand-alone code, the app still relies upon that material in order to function. It's effectively like coding half an app, and having the other half rely on somebody elses website. Indeed, that's exactly what this app does. Take away the third party's website, and the app ceases to function.

"If the users were then infringing Blizzard's copyright in turn, then pwnies could be liable for contributory infringement. (Definition here - http://www.quizlaw.com/copyrights/what_is_contributory_infringem_1.php). However, the users are also engaging in an entirely legal activity, that being surfing the publically-accessible Armory site. I'm assuming you're not going to claim that viewing the Armory is infringement." - As mentioned earlier, the infringement occurs on the developers end, not the user. It is not comparable to the peer-to-peer cases you mentioned earlier.

"So, they're not on the hook for copyright infringement, by definition. They're not on the hook for contributory infringement. They might be screwed on design right, but I brought that argument up below. So what basis are you arguing? The legality of website terms and conditions? That's sticky ground - Kelly vs Arriba Soft Corp seems to bear upon this specific case. Something else?" - Yes, they really are, reasoning is stated above, and everywhere else in this thread.

"Saying "I'm a lawyer so I'm right" doesn't really cut it. " - Neither does substituting actual legal knowledge with Google-searching, and please, for the love of god don't mix American case-law with British statutes in the future. It just doesn't work that way.

OK, thanks, that was interesting.

Like I said further down, I know very little about design right. It's not part of the law I deal with on a regular basis. So thanks for the correction there. (Having said that, the US does have a form of design protection - design patents, I'm informed. Contrary to assertion, I'm not comfortable talking about law I know nothing about, so I'll not go further with that, but depending on how they work, I think the argument may still be valid. )

I'm not convinced by your reasoning on the main point, but it's an interesting argument. Thanks for articulating it.

Out of interest, since we're talking about actual cases, do you know of any cases like this that have been prosecuted? Kelly vs Arriba Soft Corp, which is quite a famous case, would seem to tread the same ground, and didn't end well for the plaintiffs.

Technically speaking Blizzard could still take down the free app, but thing is, they have no reason to. Blizzard has shown nothing but support to those who produce community tools and works of their own volition, as long as they're not profiteering off of them. By all rights, Blizzard could demand that our site close down for instance, since we use Blizzard sound effects and music in our productions, but make money via advertising. They haven't though, because they're not an unreasonable company, they recognize the value of the huge library of player-created content within the WoW community. There is a pretty clear-cut line that should not be crossed, between blatant profiteering, and merely 'paying your way'.

Your point is little more than speculation without a basis in fact. There isn't any evidence to suggest that Blizzard is developing it's own app and historically has not taken action against sites or tools that have done the things that Blizzard has later put into the game (mods, profiling sites etc). Since they have also not made any threats towards the Warcraft Characters apps, it would be safe to conclude that the sole issue here is the blatant profiteering. Blizzard's legal and moral position is entirely defensible. It says "Feel free to make things based around our game, but once you start charging for them without permission, you're going to get a slap on the wrist".

Blizzard has always been very trigger happy when it comes to lawsuits. They protect their IP very aggressively, which is funny considering the origin.

The bnetd suit just showed how Blizzard doesn't care about "community" or "fair use" or even consumer rights in general and their stance in the new gold selling case is just about as radical.

So not really a huge surprise at all.

On the contrary, they are very concerned about their community, hence the reason they only take action against those they perceive as harmful to it. Gold-sellers are self explanatory. Bnetd? Reverse engineering Blizzard code to provide private Bnet hosting? What exactly was the purpose of that, how did it benefit the community? The answer is it didn't, it benefited software pirates. Blizzard are not trigger-happy when it comes to litigation at all, indeed, when they do act, it is in a calculated manner, and targets those who seek to either profit from Blizzard's work unfairly, harm the community, or both.

Those who talk about the 'wider implications' of cases such as these often don't have a clue what they're saying. Any precedent that comes from any of these cases has a very strict interpretation and is only binding in cases which are almost if not entirely identical. These kind of things seem to get open-source advocates and the overly liberal agitated, nothing more.

I'm not an open source advocate nor am I overly liberal, please try not to label me as such in the future.

My comment about Blizzard not caring about their community might have been misguided and too hastily typed - I have no insight into their internal company "culture" or processes and I'm sure they do care about their paying customers.

As far as I know (I'm not a laywer) you don't need to have a "purpose" to reverse engineer software. Reverse engineering is perfectly legal in most countries as long as the original was obtained legimately.

You could argue the free hosting didn't benefit community and it only benefitted software pirates - my experience was completely different, most servers were/are setup with legal copies of the game. It also ensures you could still run the game through bentd even if Blizzard would choose to close Battle.Net (or if it was unavailable). As a consumer and a community member, I would argue it benefited both consumers and the community.

I certainly don't claim to have any 'clue' about the wider implications of the ruling when it comes to its legal aspects, as I said I'm not an lawyer.

However, I do work in the software business and the ruling does cast some doubt over whether I should really engage in otherwise lawful reverse engineering (rev.engineering competitors products is quite normal), this can be quite agitating, as you pointed out.