Michael Donnelly created a ‘bot’ program called WowGlider (since renamed to simply “Glider” in response to Blizzard’s trademark complaints) that allows players of the wildly popular World of Warcraft (“WOW”) MMORPG to automate their game play and keep their character “playing” 24/7.

Using this bot the player can continue to level up and harvest gold 24/7 without actually having to play the game – an activity widely considered to be cheating. The use of such “bots” circumvent Blizzard’s security/anti-cheating measures and are prohibited by WOW’s EULA and terms of use.

In the fall of 2006 Blizzard (and its parent Vivendi) demanded Donnelly cease selling the bot. In response, On October 25, 2006 Donnelly’s company MDY filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of Arizona seeking a Declaratory Judgment that it is not infringing any rights, copyright or otherwise owned by Blizzard and Vivendi.

Blizzard and Vivendi have now answered Donnelly’s complaint and filed a countersuit. Blizard summarizes the case as follows:

Donnelly is an individual responsible for the development and sale of “WoWGlider,” a software program that enables users to circumvent Blizzard’s security measures and infringe Blizzard’s intellectual property rights in its World of Warcraft® (“WoW”) software. WoWGlider’s unauthorized code then enables its users to cheat fellow players by completing in-game tasks and building characters with little or no human participation, thereby giving WoWGlider users significant unfair and contractually prohibited advantages over legitimate players. Via the website wowglider.com, MDY actively markets and promotes WoWGlider with knowledge that they are encouraging and enabling WoWGlider users to breach their contracts with Blizzard. MDY’s actions have unjustly profited Michael Donnelly while negatively impacting the experience of millions of legitimate WoW gamers and causing significant damage to Blizzard. The acts of MDY, described in more detail below, constitute tortious interference with the contracts between Blizzard and WoW users; contributory and vicarious infringement of registered copyrights in violation of the Copyright Act, as amended, 17 U.S.C. § 501; trafficking in technology designed for the purpose of circumventing copyright protection systems in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as amended, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1); trademark infringement in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act; and unfair competition and unjust enrichment under the laws of the State of Arizona.

The countersuit contains the following seven counts/allegations:

1. Tortious Interference with Contract
2. Contributory Copyright Infringement
3. Vicarious Copyright Infringement
4. Violation of the DMCA
5. Trademark Infringement
6. Unfair Competition
7. Unjust Enrichment

Blizzard/Vivendi are seeking the following relief/court orders (amoung others):

1. preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoying MDY/Donnelly from: (i) infringing its copyrights; (ii) violating its anti-circumvention systems; and (iii) encouraging others to violate its EULA;
2. shutting down the WoWGlider.com website, assignment of the domain to Blizzard
3. ceasing further development, sale and distribution of WoWGlider
4. an accounting of all sales and monetary damages payment

Sources: Gamasutra | GamePolitics.com | Wow Insider | Tera Nova | The Forge | Markee Dragon| Glider’s Legal Forum | Glider FAQ

I'm just now getting the time to review the claim and post this blog entry about it. 

The complaint contains a terrific history (frankly, the best I've read) of Linden, its MMORPG Second Life and describes how Linden differentiated Second Life from its competitors by granting "ownership rights" to in-game property (most MMORPG publishers claim/retain ownership in all related virtual property). It also contains a history/description of virtual property generally in the context of the growing MMORPG phenomena.

The 239 paragraph complaint alleges violation of Californian and Pennsylvanian unfair practices and consumer protection laws, fraud, violation of California's Civil Code concerning auctions, conversion (theft), interference with contractual relations, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and tortuous breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. He discounts many of the provisions of the Linden Labs Terms of Service ("TOS") as being unenforceable due to unconscionably. Suffice it to say, when this case is over, I suspect Linden will be updating its TOS!

This Law.com article provides a good summary of the facts. The complaint, itself, is worth reading if only for its best-in-class description of the MMORPG industry and related virtual property issues. Excellent job Mark!

Dale's Comment: Given that many courts in many countries have upheld the validity of extremely one-sided Internet-service click-wrap/shrink-wrap agreements, I think Mark will have a tough time overcoming the clear provisions contained in the TOS. But he makes many compelling arguments pertaining to the contradicting public statements of Linden representatives, rights in and to virtual property purchased from other Second Life users, and the right to recoup the real $U.S. dollars he paid into the Second Life economy and not returned when Linden booted him from the game.

Bragg is claiming ownership to his in-game property. I am quite sympathetic to his arguments and have advocated, here, for the the recognition, at law, of rights in and to virtual property. But, if analogies to real-world and intangible property are taken to their logical extreme, Second Life players could argue that Linden would never have the right to shutdown their MMORPG and deny virtual property owners of their "right" to access, use, sell and other wise deal with their virtual property when, as will inevitably be the case one day, Second Life ceases to be a profitable game for Linden. 

This could be a very important, precedent setting case if it goes to trial. It could set the ground rules for the application of laws to virtual property going forward. Needless to say, I'll be following this one closely.

[Dec 13, 2006 Update: Mark has sent me this link where the most recent court filings in the case can be found. At the moment the parties are fighting over the most appropriate jurisdiction for further proceedings.] 

Sources: *Law.com | Blogger News Network | MMORPG BLog | Pilly.com

Related Posts:

• Mark Bragg File's Virtual Property Complaint Against Linden Labs (November 16, 2006)
• Linden Lab Sued for Alleged Breach of Virtual Land Contract (May 18, 2006)

Chapter 1

Chapter 2:

Sources:
Joystiq | YouTube (Chapter 1) | YouTube (Chapter 2)

Source: Lawyers Weekly

Sources: CNet | ZDNet | P2PNet | Blizzard’s Response

Related Posts:

• EFF Label’s Blizzard’s Anti-cheat Warden Program – “Spyware” (October 20, 2005)
• Player’s Say Blizzard’s Anti-cheat Warden Program Invades Privacy (August 12, 2005)