Blizzard going to the courts again?

[Jarulf]

Blizzard has appearantly been sued (or at least charges against them has been made) for interfering with an unofficial guide to WoW:

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2157

(For more articles on it, just google).

It is my understanding that the person in case, Brian Kopp is perhaps not a "good guy" and appearantly might be using similar tactics versus others but never the less, sometimes one have to accept that it is not the best person who wins the good case, yes, I am, with just information based on the news articles on the net, not seen the actual case filings and documents, not on Blizzard's side in this case (nor have I been in previous cases of Blizzard).

[Raelynn]

I had my doubts about Blizzard in this case until I read his site.

It looks like an infomercial, but more importantly, he basically states right out that he uses copyrighted material. His claim is that it is protected under fair use for educational purposes, but the problem is

1. He is intending to profit off of this, which isn't quite "educational"
2. Fair use for "educational purposes" is limited to doing research on the copyrighted material, which this is obviously not.

I personally think that a company should be able to control "guides" to an extent, though it is a touchy issue. It only gets more touchy for MMOs as they change and people may want what isn't given. The people that write the guides may not even know what people want.

The other side of the issue is that this would prevent something like a how-to for Word if it contained a picture of the GUI. However, the biggest deal in my mind is that this person intends to profit.

[Occhidiangela]

I had my doubts about Blizzard in this case until I read his site.

It looks like an infomercial, but more importantly, he basically states right out that he uses copyrighted material.  His claim is that it is protected under fair use for educational purposes, but the problem is

1. He is intending to profit off of this, which isn't quite "educational"
2. Fair use for "educational purposes" is limited to doing research on the copyrighted material, which this is obviously not.


I personally think that a company should be able to control "guides" to an extent, though it is a touchy issue.  It only gets more touchy for MMOs as they change and people may want what isn't given.  The people that write the guides may not even know what people want.

The other side of the issue is that this would prevent something like a how-to for Word if it contained a picture of the GUI.  However, the biggest deal in my mind is that this person intends to profit.
[right][snapback]105646[/snapback][/right]

This is a tough one to predict. His initial assertion, if I understand his filing, looks defeatable due to the "clean hands" issue. Public Citizen's comments do not stress the "education" angle. If he goes back to brick and mortar, rather than using PayPal in the interim, he can continue to earn revenue, but his stream will probably be reduced due to the convenience of PayPal for online business transactions.

Check or Money Order would still be viable, if his product is good.

A number of "unofficial biographies" have been published on a number of public persons, and they have generally withstood challenges vis a vis the rights of being published and sold for a profit. That might be a more productive line to take.

Occhi

[savaughn]

This is a tough one to predict.
[right][snapback]105650[/snapback][/right]

I strongly disagree. This one's easy.

1) He's disputing an action that was taken by E-Bay which reserves all rights in this arena. He hasn't a leg to stand on here.

2) He's disputing conventional copyright laws. His educational claim is ignorant (by which I mean his lawyer seems to have read the word "education" without looking at the specifics of an educational exception) and he is in absolute direct violation.

3) The DMCA is pretty explicit on this one. He has no rights in this space and in fact if Blizz wants to press it they can do bad things to him for this including both a civil suit and a criminal one.

[Brista]

I strongly disagree.  This one's easy.

1) He's disputing an action that was taken by E-Bay which reserves all rights in this arena.  He hasn't a leg to stand on here.

2)  He's disputing conventional copyright laws.  His educational claim is ignorant (by which I mean his lawyer seems to have read the word "education" without looking at the specifics of an educational exception) and he is in absolute direct violation.

3)  The DMCA is pretty explicit on this one.  He has no rights in this space and in fact if Blizz wants to press it they can do bad things to him for this including both a civil suit and a criminal one.
[right][snapback]105726[/snapback][/right]

I'd be interested to know if all the Windows for Dummies type books paid royalties to Microsoft. That seems directly comparable and is a well-established publishing market

[Darian]

A number of "unofficial biographies" have been published on a number of public persons, and they have generally withstood challenges vis a vis the rights of being published and sold for a profit.  That might be a more productive line to take. [right][snapback]105650[/snapback][/right]

I'm not altogether sure that's relevant, however, as the only potential risk for a biographer is libel. Facts are not protected works, only the presentation of those facts.

I'd be interested to know if all the Windows for Dummies type books paid royalties to Microsoft.[right][snapback]105731[/snapback][/right]

Yes. The benefits for IDG in securing the company's cooperation vastly outweigh any other concern anyway, but even if that wasn't the case, trademark applies.