![[firm] blog logo](/wp-content/themes/haynesboone2012/images/firm_header.jpg "Blogs of Haynes and Boone, LLP")
>MDY v. Blizzard – The Court of Appeals Weighs-in
>As you may recall (and as we’ve been covering), last January, an Arizona District Court found that using MDY’s Glider bot program in conjunction with Blizzard’s World of Warcraft game software fell outside the scope of the game’s End User License Agreement (EULA). The District Court then held that MDY is responsible for players running Glider outside the scope of the EULA, and awarded Blizzard a $6.5 million judgment against MDY for copyright infringement. MDY appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently issued its own decision. The Ninth Circuit overturned the District Court’s finding of copyright infringement, but nevertheless held MDY liable for breach of the EULA on a different ground – violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).The Ninth Circuit held that using Glider while playing World of Warcraft in violation of the EULA did not amount to copyright infringement. The Ninth Circuit… Continue Reading
>The End of Used Video Games?
>Are you one of the 75 million used video game purchasers in the U.S? Or, are you one of the 26 million used video game sellers looking to subsidize your next game purchase with a trade-in? If so, you might not want to delay too long before making your next trip to GameStop. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Timothy Vernor, an eBay seller of used commercial versions of Autodesk’s AutoCAD, is not permitted to sell used AutoCAD discs under copyright law. The court held that the “first sale” doctrine that traditionally protects used book sellers from charges of copyright infringement does not apply to used software sellers. The court based this distinction on the finding that the company that originally sold its old copy of AutoCad to Vernor was not an owner of software, but merely a licensee. The court held that a software user is… Continue Reading
>NFL Retirees Suing EA Over Madden
>Electronic Arts, Inc. is again feeling the pressure regarding its sports-based video games, this time thanks to a class action centered around its “Madden NFL” video game franchise. The complaint was filed in the District Court for the Northern District of California on Thursday, July 29, 2010, by former Cincinnati Bengal and Tampa Bay Buccaneer Michael “Tony” Davis, on behalf of himself and about 6,000 former NFL players. It claims that EA is intentionally pilfering the players’ publicity rights under California law, through the unauthorized use of the players’ likenesses to recreate over 140 NFL teams of the past. Specifically, the complaint states that older versions of Madden NFL included player profiles for each “player” on a “vintage” team featured in the game, such profiles including descriptions of the players’ positions, number of years of NFL experience, physical characteristics, and relative skill level in different facets of the game. These… Continue Reading
>Blizzard v. MDY Update: $6.5 Million Judgment Stands, Appeal is Imminent
>If botting on World of Warcraft can get you a 48 hour ban, what does coding a bot and selling it to thousands of other players get you? The answer (for now) appears to be a $6.5 million dollar penalty. We’ve referenced the Blizzard v. MDY case in a few previous entries here at LiaGW. The latest ruling has come down from the Arizona District Court. As you may recall, the case went to a bench trial on the issue of damages, and the Court awarded $6.5 million to Blizzard back in January, along with a permanent injunction on the sale of Glider. After trial, Blizzard argued that under the DMCA, it was entitled to between $200 and $2,500 for each violation, so MDY should be liable for at least $24 million. MDY countered that the $6.5 million judgment should be decreased based on the “innocent violators” provision under the… Continue Reading
>Ninth Circuit Declines to "Boldly Go Where No Court Has Gone Before"
>Proponents of free speech through the arts earned a victory on February 20, 2009, when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed a California district judge’s 2007 ruling that a California law that restricts sales of “violent video games” to minors is unconstitutional.Chapter 638 of the Statutes of 2005, otherwise known as “AB 1179,” was passed by the California state legislature in October 2005. AB 1179 imposes restrictions on the sale and rental of violent video games to anyone under the age of 18. The act defines a “violent video game” as, among other things, making available the option of “killing, maiming dismembering or sexually assaulting” a human or substantially human game character if doing so appeals to a “deviant or morbid interest of minors” or is done in an “especially heinous, cruel, or depraved” manner. Such games must also be labeled with two-inch by two-inch… Continue Reading
Tag RSS