33:
151:, which reversed the district court in part, upheld in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals ruled that for a software licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the license condition and the licensor’s exclusive rights of copyright. However, the court also ruled, contrary to
250:. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Blizzard with respect to MDY's liability for tortious interference, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement. The court granted summary judgment in favor of MDY on a portion of the DMCA claim and on the unfair competition claim.
318:
MDY Industries appealed the judgment of the district court, and a judgment was delivered by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals on 14 December 2010. In the ruling, the summary judgment against MDY for contributory copyright infringement was reversed. The court ruled that "for a licensee's violation
334:
The summary judgment for tortious contract interference was vacated and remanded to the district court for further consideration because the requirements for summary judgment - that as a matter of law, judgment could only possibly be found in favor of one party even when all disputed facts are
326:(in the Federal Circuit), but declined to follow that case, stating that "were we to follow Chamberlain in imposing an infringement nexus requirement, we would have to disregard the plain language of the statute". The court therefore upheld the judgment that MDY violated the provisions of the
302:
The Court found that since the prohibition on botting was a prohibition related to
Blizzard's copyright interest in WoW, users of Glider infringed Blizzard's copyright when played the game in violation of the license. The Court believed MDY to be encouraging and profiting from this copyright
319:
of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the condition and the licensor's exclusive rights of copyright. Here, WoW players do not commit copyright infringement by using Glider in violation of the ".
180:, in which players control characters and complete a variety of tasks, such as exploring the landscape and performing quests. As players continue to play and succeed in their tasks, their characters gain various talents and skills.
270:. In the terms of that agreement, Blizzard specifically prohibited "the use of bots or third-party software to modify the WoW experience." Thus, the Court found that players who use the Glider program violated the
330:
against trafficking in copyright circumvention technologies, at least with regard to the dynamic nonliteral elements of
Blizzard's content, i.e., those portions provided by the World of Warcraft servers.
194:
MDY sought a declaratory judgment that the Glider program did not infringe upon rights owned by
Blizzard. Blizzard contended in a counterclaim and a third-party complaint the following seven claims:
253:
In its ruling on
Blizzard's contributory copyright infringement claims, the district court first considered whether purchasers of WoW were legal "owners" of the client software. According to
260:
The Court agreed with
Blizzard's arguments that WoW purchasers were not legal owners of the game software but instead licensees, in line with the prior Ninth Circuit ruling in
148:
126:
43:
129:. At the district court level, MDY had been found liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's
177:
257:, owners of computer programs are allowed to create copies or adaptations of the computer program if it is an essential step towards utilization of the program.
478:
287:
483:
488:
32:
306:
The district court also ruled that Glider users had violated the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act by using Glider to circumvent Blizzard's
209:
204:
64:
401:
Eichner, Andrew W. (2013). "Game Over, Insert Coin to
Continue: Entering a New Era of Video Game Intellectual Property Enforcement".
122:
344:
327:
215:
158:
247:
104:
267:
130:
72:
436:
277:
As with most software, the client software of WoW is copied during the program's operation from the computer's
262:
437:"Opinion for MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings"
92:
323:
307:
221:
169:
153:
454:
198:
282:
191:
to play WoW for its users. Thus, Glider users were able to advance their WoW characters unattended.
108:
292:
226:
310:
program, a security application that controls access to the World of
Warcraft game environment.
295:, 518-19 (9th Cir. 1993), the district court held that RAM copying constituted "copying" under
246:
of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona granted and denied in part the parties'
243:
231:
173:
138:
419:
Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the
384:
Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the
271:
278:
372:
266:. As licensees, players are required to make use of the software within the scope of the
472:
424:
389:
188:
184:
134:
76:
161:
does not require a nexus between circumvention and actual copyright infringement.
296:
254:
303:
infringement, and therefore found MDY secondarily liable for the infringement.
118:
MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc.
25:
MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc.
183:
Michael Donnelly, the founder of MDY Industries, LLC, created a software
68:
335:
considered in a light most favorable to the other party - were not met.
144:
172:
created and operates a popular online world video game known as
390:§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer Programs
371:
MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc,
149:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
127:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
44:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
98:
88:
83:
57:
49:
39:
23:
285:(RAM). Citing the prior Ninth Circuit case of
322:In the judgment, the Ninth Circuit considered
178:massively multiplayer online role-playing game
8:
425:§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
367:
365:
363:
361:
157:, that a finding of circumvention under the
125:(9th Cir. 2010), is a case decided by the
31:
20:
288:MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.
357:
7:
205:contributory copyright infringement
65:contributory copyright infringement
274:and were not licensed to use WoW.
14:
67:for selling software that caused
479:United States copyright case law
347:another first-sale doctrine case
345:Universal Music Group v. Augusto
328:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
216:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
210:vicarious copyright infringement
159:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
16:Court case in the United States
484:2008 in United States case law
63:MDY Industries was liable for
1:
489:Video game copyright case law
238:Opinion of the District Court
441:Justia Dockets & Filings
248:motions for summary judgment
105:United States copyright law
505:
268:End User License Agreement
131:End User License Agreement
73:End User License Agreement
71:customers to breach their
375:(D. Ariz. Jul. 14, 2008).
103:
62:
30:
263:Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.
79:contracts with Blizzard.
244:Judge David G. Campbell
143:The court's ruling was
93:Consuelo Maria Callahan
324:Chamberlain v. Skylink
222:trademark infringement
170:Blizzard Entertainment
165:Background Information
154:Chamberlain v. Skylink
199:tortious interference
459:www.ca9.uscourts.gov
283:random access memory
141:video game software.
137:(ToU) governing the
109:First-sale doctrine
421:United States Code
386:United States Code
281:to the computer's
242:On July 14, 2008,
227:unfair competition
232:unjust enrichment
214:violation of the
176:(WoW). WoW is a
174:World of Warcraft
139:World of Warcraft
114:
113:
496:
463:
462:
451:
445:
444:
433:
427:
417:
411:
410:
398:
392:
382:
376:
369:
84:Court membership
53:14 December 2010
35:
21:
504:
503:
499:
498:
497:
495:
494:
493:
469:
468:
467:
466:
453:
452:
448:
435:
434:
430:
418:
414:
400:
399:
395:
383:
379:
370:
359:
354:
341:
316:
297:17 U.S.C. § 106
255:17 U.S.C. § 117
240:
167:
142:
17:
12:
11:
5:
502:
500:
492:
491:
486:
481:
471:
470:
465:
464:
446:
428:
412:
393:
377:
356:
355:
353:
350:
349:
348:
340:
337:
315:
312:
239:
236:
235:
234:
229:
224:
219:
212:
207:
202:
166:
163:
112:
111:
101:
100:
96:
95:
90:
86:
85:
81:
80:
60:
59:
55:
54:
51:
47:
46:
41:
37:
36:
28:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
501:
490:
487:
485:
482:
480:
477:
476:
474:
460:
456:
450:
447:
442:
438:
432:
429:
426:
422:
416:
413:
408:
404:
397:
394:
391:
387:
381:
378:
374:
368:
366:
364:
362:
358:
351:
346:
343:
342:
338:
336:
332:
329:
325:
320:
313:
311:
309:
304:
300:
298:
294:
290:
289:
284:
280:
275:
273:
269:
265:
264:
258:
256:
251:
249:
245:
237:
233:
230:
228:
225:
223:
220:
217:
213:
211:
208:
206:
203:
201:with contract
200:
197:
196:
195:
192:
190:
186:
181:
179:
175:
171:
164:
162:
160:
156:
155:
150:
146:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
119:
110:
106:
102:
97:
94:
91:
89:Judge sitting
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
61:
56:
52:
48:
45:
42:
38:
34:
29:
26:
22:
19:
458:
449:
440:
431:
420:
415:
406:
402:
396:
385:
380:
333:
321:
317:
305:
301:
293:991 F.2d 511
286:
276:
261:
259:
252:
241:
193:
182:
168:
152:
135:Terms of Use
123:629 F.3d 928
117:
116:
115:
77:Terms of Use
24:
18:
133:(EULA) and
473:Categories
455:"Opinions"
352:References
279:hard drive
69:Blizzard's
339:See also
145:appealed
99:Keywords
187:called
147:to the
58:Holding
50:Decided
409:: 101.
314:Appeal
308:Warden
218:(DMCA)
189:Glider
373:Order
40:Court
403:IDEA
75:and
272:ToU
185:bot
475::
457:.
439:.
423:,
407:53
405:.
388:,
360:^
299:.
291:,
121:,
107:,
461:.
443:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
