Blizzard Sued By Game Guide Creator 285
Gamespot reports on a suit brought by a game guide creator against Warcraft-maker Blizzard Entertainment. The two parties will be going to court because of an attempt by Blizzard to quash a guide the plaintiff created for the World of Warcraft MMORPG. Offered electronically through eBay, the company claims that the guide creator is infringing on their IP. From the article: "Kopp's complaint argues that his book does not infringe on any of the companies' copyrights for several reasons: The book presents a disclaimer on its first page about its 'unauthorized' nature, contains no copyrighted text or storylines from the game, and makes "fair use" of selected screenshots under copyright law, the complaint said."
More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's another person creating his own art based on the prior art of someone else. The copyright and IP laws make no sense to me -- why is it OK to protect the overall look of a game or the name when pieces of the game are taken directly from thousands of games before it? Why is it wrong for someone to use their own labor to make a product (even a direct knock off) and go and sell it?
I believe in true freedom and true competition. Both are what is best for the consumers in the market and the producers as well. If someone is willing to spend their own time and their own labor creating something with their own hands, I see no reason why the product shouldn't be allowed to sell. I personally tend to buy some items from large companies just because I feel I've gotten better quality products, but there are many items I won't buy from a big company because I prefer the unique feel of the item.
Intellectual property laws were originally created to protect artists and artists alone. Blizzard is not an artist, it is a co-op of artists. The idea that a co-op can have more rights than an individual is ridiculous -- individuals have rights, co-ops are just groups of individuals trying to market a huge variety of products together. Each artist at Blizzard has their own art they've created, and they should worry individually about making the best produt they can at the lowest price. That is competition.
Making a knockoff or a product that supports another is the best part of competition -- it gives the market a choice in goods of varying prices and quality, and it also allows others to make a product better by supplementing it with add-ons, upgrades, modifications and third party support services. Can you see Google suing someone for writing a guide to using Google? Wouldn't that guide give Google free marketing and promotion for their product?
Blizzard is run by MBAs, I guess, not artists. These "educated" businessmen don't see the value of free promotion; they should be taking advantage of this guy's supplementary art by promoting his product just as he's promoting theirs. They can both profit, and the consumers will walk away with the products they want at a price they're willing to pay. That is competition, and that is freedom.
The argument that invention and art would not occur without the force of copyright and IP is over. We see proof here that people can't create something based on previous work (as every work is) because the cartels with the power of the legal industry are the ones controlling the law -- the law meant to keep opportunities open, not close them off.
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:5, Insightful)
It ties in that Blizzard will stifle any competition because it only wants itself to make money. Maybe Blizzard wants to release its own Game Guide. I, for one, hope Blizzard loses or else this may set precedent for others to sue publishers for producing Game Guides.
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:4, Insightful)
That's funny, actually, because I was looking up that quote a few weeks ago. I tend to think of it a bit differently: "The chief obstacle to the progress of an individual is democracy."
It ties in that Blizzard will stifle any competition because it only wants itself to make money. Maybe Blizzard wants to release its own Game Guide. I, for one, hope Blizzard loses or else this may set precedent for others to sue publishers for producing Game Guides.
The precedents set can affect more than game guides. Why isn't it illegal to do a review of a product? Why isn't it illegal to complain about a product? I'm sure there are cases where both were true.
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:5, Insightful)
Except there is no precedent set unless the trial actually concludes. Most often something like this is dropped or settled out of court.
The real question is, can this guy afford to stay in the fight long enough to bring a case to conclusion?
The main reason a big company is willing to sue small ones frequently, is that even if the law doesn't support the big one, they can afford to outlast a small one so the little guy gives up without a fight. It isn't right, but it is the way it often goes.
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2, Informative)
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:5, Insightful)
While I understand what you mean, you might want to avoid casual use of the term 'prior art' as it is a term of art in patent law, and this is essentially a copyright discussion.
why is it OK to protect the overall look of a game or the name when pieces of the game are taken directly from thousands of games before it?
These are really two different questions. So long as the assemblage is creative and original, it's not a problem that many of the component elements are not. Dragons and knights and rescuing princesses and so on are all staples of the fantasy genre and are unprotected, but what you do with those elements may be perfectly worthy of a copyright. And there are a lot of ways you can put those parts together. Think of them as being like legos; the individual blocks aren't interesting, but what you do with them is. As for the name, that's basically just consumer protection. If I bought a bottle of soda with the word 'Coke' all over it, I don't want it to actually contain coffee or something.
Why is it wrong for someone to use their own labor to make a product (even a direct knock off) and go and sell it?
It's not wrong, per se. But it might be unwise. Until fairly late in the 19th century, US copyright law didn't include a derivative right. So, if you wrote a book, anyone else could translate that book into another language without needing permission or having to pay you, the original author. If we have this right, then that means more of the possible profit that can be made from a work is directed to the author. This increases the incentive he has to create and publish works, and one goal of the copyright system to cause works to be created and published. Of course, we must balance this against other goals of the system, such as having the least restrictive, if any, copyright law at all, and having the shortest copyright terms, and encouraging the creation and publication of derivative works by any author.
Intellectual property laws were originally created to protect artists and artists alone.
That's wrong in many regards. First, I would strongly encourage you to not use the term 'intellectual property.' It includes bodies of law such as trademarks and patents which have nothing to do with artists, and which have quite different reasons for existing. Second, copyright laws were not created to protect artists alone; they also protected publishers, but their actual goal was to serve the public interest by enticing authors and publishers to behave in certain ways beneficial to the public. Helping authors is just a means to an end; it's not our goal.
Think of cable television. A town that doesn't have cable will often give a monopoly on cable tv to a particular company for a term of years, in exchange for the company shouldering the cost of building the infrastructure. The goal of the town is not to have to pay one company that can charge monopoly prices. It is to get someone to build the cable tv infrastructure so that it can eventually be opened up to competition.
Blizzard is not an artist, it is a co-op of artists. The idea that a co-op can have more rights than an individual is ridiculous -- individuals have rights, co-ops are just groups of individuals trying to market a huge variety of products together. Each artist at Blizzard has their own art they've created, and they should worry individually about making the best produt they can at the lowest price. That is competition.
That's a really bizarre statement.
The argument that invention and art would not occur without the force of copyright and IP is over.
I disagree. First, I at least have never felt that creation and invention wouldn't occur without copyrights and patents, respectively. Second, however, the quantity of those acts would likely decrease sharply. So we have to decide whether unrestricted competition or some degree of monopoly granting wil
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
Back in the 1800's the USPTO would sometime revoke patents it
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
In any event, I think that it's better to consider the balance with regard to broad policy and classes of works, rather than trying to look at individual works.
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:4, Interesting)
But you wouldn't know which store is Target, either. Or visit some other place, you couldn't rely on the names at all to help you identify anything, you could go into Target and find a grocery store or a bar or a brothel. You wouldn't know which "Coke" they are selling until you try it, you could not carry over any previous experience with any product. All that just for some idea that "names should belong to noone".
If you can do a job cheaper, the market will prosper. I don't believe in derivative profits being forced by law -- I believe the market sets many precedents why people will buy the original over the knockoff (see "generic products" for details).
Problem is when you add media to the deal. With media the good sold is information, not the physical medium. But there would be no protection on the information and we have technology to duplicate the information without loss of quality. Concrete example: Take CDs. Data on a CD can take months or years and thousands or millions of dollars to produce but the actual medium only costs pennies these days. As you know, it's trivial to just take a CD and make an exact duplicate of it. A leech could sell tons of CDs for 1$ a piece by simply copying content he did not create. The original creator cannot offer any advantage to the buyer (except for the feeling of supporting the creator but few care about that) that the copiers cannot offer. So the creator would have to compete with the leeches on price directly but the leech has no development costs to cover. As a result the leech has a competitive advantage over the creator.
A market for data simply cannot exist without some restriction on just going out and copying it. And while you may argue that it's better to create art for the love of it instead of for money, you cannot deny that it would lower the productivity of artists simply because they would have to spend time they would spend on creating art on earning the money to live. Oh, and of course because they can't use the same budget current for-profit art uses. While some argue that Hollywood movies are unnecessary I still think that it would mean a loss of variety and artistic freedom. It's not like anyone's preventing you from making your own art in your free time, that possibility always remains. But without copyright the freedom to use expensive elements in your art would be greatly reduced, simply because you can't afford it.
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
So? You go to a store and you return because the service is good, the price is right and the
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2, Interesting)
So if you had the idea and ability to create a product that could not give you these additional income sources (e.g. movies, music or videogames) you'
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
If his main source of revenue is being able to train others on his product, tailor the product for specific customers, get support for the product, and/or provide a community for his users, then who could really be able to provide this better than the creator of the product himself or his "official" affiliates?
When I want to update my windows installation I don't go to www.joes.update.com I go to windowsupdate.microso
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
That's not a good enough justification. And it treads dangerously close to the utterly discredited sweat of the brow theory. Copies of a work are commodities, and commodity markets should not be impaired with monopolies unless there is a very good reason. There are good reasons in the case of copyright, but merely not wanting competition at marginal cost isn't one of them.
But without copyright the freedom to use
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
And that's anticompetitive. When Twain's books were copyrighted, only he could sell them, and he could charge a premium. When they hit the public domain, anyone could sell them, and the competition forced the various publishers to become more efficient and lower their prices.
It's no different from saying that a monopoly on wheat held by one farmer doesn't take away
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
It's merely jargon, but using it in an unusual manner can make it harder to understand you than it needs to be. Think of how many novice computer users call the monitor the computer, and the computer the hard drive, and so on. It makes it hard to provide them with tech support; they can't quite explain what their problem is, and the pe
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
Which just means that the uneducated consumers would have to pay more for support -- the way the market is supposed to work anyway.
No, I'd stop buying things labeled 'Coke' because I would no longer have any idea of what I'd be buying.
I highly doubt it -- retailers build their
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
Like I said, the numbers were arbitrary.
Kidnapping is violating someone's property -- their person.
People aren't property.
Intentional emotional distress doesn't happen without voluntary cooperation of both parties.
Thoroughly untrue. If I suddenly and without warning scare you half to death, and you're left with mental trauma, e.g. constant nightmares, new phobias, anxiety, etc., then I've harmed you, just not physically. Your nonsense about trespas
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't you anarcho-capitalists at least supposed to consider fraud to be a form of indirect force?
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
Meh.
Authors and pirates have always had parity in technology, often with a bit of an edge to the authors due to economies of scale, first mover advantages, etc. There's no reason that the MPAA can't put their movies on Bit Torrent themselves, rather than letting that medium remain the playground of pirates that it largely is. But, they don't want to, and for this they've no on
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
BT is actually both distribution and reproduction. If the downloader wasn't making a new copy, what would happen to the copy on the machines serving it?
In any case, it's true for reproduction and distribution. Pirates have no special advantages, and since the technologies they use are just as available to everyon
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
Anyway, it doesn't interest me too much. Unless things really change dramat
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
Thousands of bands play music without worrying about copyright. Thousands of theatre groups put on performances without worrying about copyright. Millions of bloggers post daily without worrying a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
Tires replaced horseshoes -- what happened to the anvil makers?
The Internet is quickly making the Encyclopedia irrelevant, should we protect the encyclopedia makers?
The highway system made trains irrelevant, should we safe them with government power?
In the grand scheme of things, as technology improves, it replaces old ways of doing business. Now that you don't need a huge studio to make music, you also don't need huge budgets. What is wrong wi
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
I think this assumes that there will always be a demand for the copied product. Which I really doubt is true -- if some band releases a song, and it's immediately picked up and copied everywhere, there will be a high initial demand for it
There is a clause in copyright for this (Score:2)
I doubt sincerely that Blizzard is a cooperative in any sense of the word. It is a corporation, with management and a board of directors like any other. It's true that there are multiple creators who work for this single entity, but that doesn't make it a co-op.
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
Not really.
Remember, copyrights only apply to creative portions of works. Works which lack creativity (e.g. the white pages) or uncreative portions of works (e.g. a historical novel which is chiefly fiction, but which contains som
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
There is a flaw with this. The plumber has a marketable skill that he exercises in a "free" society. The environment is natural and exists in its own state. Any skills that the plumber employs in this environment are because he has them. If someone else learns this skill, they are free to employ it themselves as they see fit in the "free" environment. The idea tha
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2)
*DISCLAIMER: Laws are opinion and subject to change. Usually by a judge on the 9th circuit court. See your lawyer for details.
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:5, Insightful)
His use of the WoW trademark appears to be nominative. And use of screenshots would be fair use.
Really, the copyright and trademark parts of the case seem open and shut in the guide author's favor. However, there is an interesting breach of contract claim that Blizzard could assert. I'm mostly interested to see how that works out. If it's like the bnetd case, it could be bad for the guide author.
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of people use
But hey, if talking trash about me makes you feel like a big man, knock yourself out.
Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP (Score:2, Funny)
What the poster meant was that since you are an informed individual rather that an ill-informed no-nothing know-it-all, you have no business posting on /. unless you parrot the group mime that EVERYTHING should be free as in beer.
I said good day!
The BS of the DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think everything about the DMCA is wrong. But I do think that it has no boundaries and can be openly interpreted. I believe this Act needs to be reformed before it is renewed and that it should be better defined. The internet has developed far past our wildest imaginations and no act passed in 1998 could account for all the legal caveats of it.
I believe my hatred for the DMCA falls just under my hatred for the Patriot Act.
And that's saying a lot.
Hey, with the DMCA, anything's possible! Well, what do you say Microsoft? O'Reilly's [oreilly.com] got deep pockets!
You hit a nail on it's head... (Score:2)
In effect, if the video game industry's actions are upheld, "then selling a how-to book about Microsoft Word would infringe Microsoft's copyright, especially if the book contained one or more screenshots of Word's user interface," said Paul Levy...
I guess these idiots have never heard of Windows For Dummies, Word for Dummies, Excel for Dummies, etc.? Just how are those 'guides' infringing upon copyright, hrm?
Re:The BS of the DMCA (Score:3, Funny)
PLEASE dont give them ideas, if that puts Oreilly out of business or keeps them from putting out books on how to use basic word processing software, it'll mean more people wont be able to read those books, meaning there'll be more people asking insanely stupid questions on how to use M$ word ("For the 80th time, *this* is how you change the font size"), making less time for us to be posting on glorious /.
Re:The BS of the DMCA (Score:2)
Best damn books a sysadmin's money can buy, though...
Re:The BS of the DMCA (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's usually the opposite. If your opponent is low on funds, wave the DMCA in front of them and force them to settle out of court. A lot of these cases are adjudicated fairly if they ever actually get to court, but that's not where the main problem is.
Re:The BS of the DMCA, agreed (Score:2)
Until we can figure out a way to hold persons or companies responsible for their actions in civil court regardless of the size of a plaintiffs bankroll AND protect against frivolous or "harrassment" types of lawsuits, civil law will always favor those with more money, quite the opposite of the "scales of justice" the ideal of law is based on...
WTF is wrong with Blizzard? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard? (Score:2)
They're owned by a company run by overzealous lawyers.
The same company that sued Sony for inventing the VCR.
It's why I'll never buy a Blizzard (or Universal) product ever again (or, at least until they become more friendly to their customers.)
Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why anyone would by crap like that when you can just look it up on the web I have no idea.
Meh. I can download Shakespeare for free from all over the net. But I also bought a hardback collection of his work. Just because you wouldn't buy something is no reason to denigrate people who would, or people who create things for them.
And to be clear, Blizzard's not the one harassing in court here. It is the GAME GUIDE writer suing Blizzard.
Well apparently Blizzard kept issuing complaints to Ebay that resulted in the guy being unable to sell any of his guides there. So arguably they were harassing him out of court, and he's decided to go to court to protect himself.
Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard? (Score:2)
Why wouldn't his beef be with Ebay though? They're the ones that made the actual decision. I would think that Blizzard has a right to complain to Ebay, who can then say either "oh, you're right, we'll take it down" or "looks fine, it's staying". So...why sue Blizzard but not Ebay
Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard? (Score:3, Informative)
He puts an item up for auction.
Blizzard issues a notice to Ebay to remove it. (This is similar to, but distinct from, a section 512 takedown notice -- something the plaintiff's attorneys may be confused about, from reading the complaint)
Ebay removes it automatically.
He contests it, which results in Ebay putting it back up after a period of time.
Blizzard issues another notice.
Ebay removes it automatically again.
Cycles of putting it up and having it taken down conti
Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard? (Score:2)
How much are the books? Like $15 or something? $15 is ridiculous?
Now, if he is taking other published text verbatim and selling it, THAT is ACTUALLY copyright infringement. I doubt, of course, that most lawyers would recognize it, given they spend all their time trying to make non-infringing uses into infringements.
and every other free game guide site out there for "interfering with his revenue stream"
And he would be prevented from doing so by a l
Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard? (Score:2)
Not infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. And it is perfectly within the boundaries of copyright law for someone to do so, provided they don't infringe on a trademark, create a derivative product or republish copyrighted material that is not a fair use.
From the article it sounds like this is a work of non-fiction, written to help people improve their knowledge of the game. It also sounds like "big company (that makes over $80M a MONTH in subscription revenue) uses copyright law as a club against entrepreneur." As long as all trademarks and copyrights are attributed, there's no infringement here. Sorry.
Re:Not infringement (Score:2)
His guide (from descriptions, I haven't read it) will most certainly sail through any Fair Use review.
Re:Not infringement (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is more about Blizzard's trademarks than their copyrights.
Attribution is irrelevant in this context.
Nonsense. It's a work of non-fiction. Attribution is not only relevant, it's required.
Is it for teaching purposes? Nope
Your list is quite flippant. The book is obviously both research and educational.
teaching purposes in this context is formal education systems, not self-help guides
Please point out the phrase "formal education system" in the law? Soun
Re:And it goes on... (Score:2)
1)The use in quesiton is the use of the person producing the work, not the consumer of the work. the guy writing the guy is doing so to make money, so yes it is comercial.
2&3)The specifics of how the game works and how a character interacts with the world can be considered part of the copyrighted work. The settings, the unique characters, the mechanics are all creative expressions in addition to artwork. I'm not sure about the details here but in it's not quite as clear
Just play Oblivion (Score:2, Informative)
I bought Oblivion and it was well worth it. Throw away those MMOs and play something with atmosphere.
Re:Just play Oblivion (Score:2)
Re:Just play Oblivion (Score:2)
That said, most MMOs could stand to use more story and less pure "grinding". (This is actually available in some MMOs such as Anarchy Online. You can get randomly
Re:Just play Oblivion (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the characters in Oblivion use English properly, spell their words correctly, speak in complete sentences and never
I know, it ruins the atmosphere but somehow I manage to enjoy it
Re:Just play Oblivion (Score:2)
But I guess that's just me. I'm not t
Blizzard Is Looking Worse & Worse (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Blizzard Is Looking Worse & Worse (Score:2)
Re:Blizzard Is Looking Worse & Worse (Score:2)
Don't worry about it. As long as WoW is going strong, they'll apparently never release another product anyway.
Re:Blizzard Is Looking Worse & Worse (Score:2)
Yes, lets all be outraged that any company would dare stand up for its IP rights. How dare they sue some poor 24 year old trying to exploit thier product for financial gain!
.
.
.
Oh wait, they didn't. HE sued THEM. Guess what, this guy brought it on himself and is now trying to build sympathy for his unsubstantiated case.
You're trolling most likely, but lest someone not rtfa and spot this, there should be a rebuttal. He is only suing because Blizzard repeatedly forced Ebay to remove his listings for the gui
Prima Game Guides? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prima Game Guides? (Score:2)
Blizzard signed an exclusivity deal with Prima. "You are the only ones who get to write game guides." Part of the deal with probably states that Blizzard will be responsible for enforcing that exclusivity.
It seems like a stupid contract. I'm sure it happens in all industries, but video games see it all the time. Mostly with demo's and these 'Premium File Services' like Gamespot and Gamespy. For some worhtless reason, (payola? higher review scores?), or legitimate reason (che
Re:Prima Game Guides? (Score:2)
I'd guess the actual deal is more like, "You're the ones who get to sell the game guides." Thottbot, Goblin's Workshop, and WoWWiki are all free, and still online. And they're GOOD. I suspect that Blizzard doesn't like these websites, but they're still operational, though they happen to contain a ton of copyrighted text. There's just something about charging money for services such as these that gets a lawyer's bloodlust up.
Another possibility is that they just have a bunch of noob lawyers, paralegals and
Re:Prima Game Guides? (Score:5, Insightful)
The sticking point for unauthorized guides is usually that the author has no access to the software or development team before it is released to the general public. Large publishers want to have a book on the shelves the day the software comes out, not 12 months later.
Re:Prima Game Guides? (Score:2)
Blizzard may be able to offer someone the exclusive rights to make an officially sanctioned game guide, but they can't prevent someone from making an unofficial guide. Writing a game guide is simply writing about the game. It is part analysis, part critique. Typically in an official
Heh. Next thing you know... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Heh. Next thing you know... (Score:2)
Authors have done this before -- successfully (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Authors have done this before -- successfully (Score:2)
As for Anne McCaffrey, if you read any of her book
Blizzard is right (Score:2, Informative)
I wonder what would have happened if the guy just followed accepted procedure and simply asked to publish his works? Most of the time, as stated, this
Re:Blizzard is right (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference between all these other publishers and this one guy is that all these publishers do one thing first: that is ask Blizzard's permission.
It may be true that others asked for permission (actually just one AFAIK, which is Prima, who has the rights to publish the "Official Guide"), but it's certainly not required. I don't have to get permission to write a book on how to use MS Excel, and have it published. That's not the point of copyright law. I can write the book, include screenshots and de
Re:Blizzard is right (Score:2)
Or to rephrase: you have a right to create a guidebook, but you do not have the right to abuse someone else's good name in order to sell more copies. For instance, you can't confuse people into thinking your book was written by blizzard or is sanctioned by blizzard. It doesn't matter th
Re:Blizzard is right (Score:2)
Well they aren't claiming trademark infringement in this case, so it's my guess that they don't feel they have a trademark case against him. They're claiming copyright infringement, but I doubt that will hold up in court. They tried to intimidate him and it seems to have backfired.
Re:Blizzard is (not) right (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as your capitalist comment, a company would only allow permission if the work would favorably impact their bottom line.
Lastly, you most certainly can use a "Brand" when selling a product of your own, as long as you make note of whom that "Brand" belongs to, and corre
yeah, i agree (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like the guy basically just published and is trying to sell the data that's available almost everywhere on thottbot.com or wow.allakhazam.com (for example), which Blizz doesn't seem to object to.
So what's their beef? Probably that he's trying to make a buck off THEIR IP. I agree with them. If he just put it up for download as a free pdf, I bet that they wouldn't have any beef with it.
Re:yeah, i agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Like movie reviewers?
Copyright law was not written to prevent people from "making a buck." It's to prevent people from taking a buck away from the copyright holder. This book sounds like it's perfectly within the boundaries of fair use.
Re:yeah, i agree (Score:2)
Ah, but a good game guide could speed up a player's progress in WoW, which means fewer months of subscription fees for Blizzard. Therefore, he is taking money away from them.
No, I'm not serious.
Yes, Blizzard might be thinking this very thing.
Good Riddence (Score:2)
Stolen Game Guides. (Score:3, Interesting)
Another one of their writers (mongoose) who is very popular for having leveled every class to 60, has had many of his guides stolen and resold on ebay, and on those annoying 1 page ad websites. The worst part is they resell guides that are months old, with tips that haven't worked for many patches (such as the zoning into and out of instances near maintanence to dupe items).
I was actually thinking about writing a new guide and selling it on ebay. Nice to see blizz is picking on the little guys again. tsk tsk.
This isn't about the content, it's about the money (Score:2)
So 3rd party software texts infringe copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad Prima Guides (Score:3, Insightful)
What's next? (Score:2)
Will Apple start suing publishers for distributing OS/X documentation?
Hey, maybe they'll even take the next leap and start suing third-party developers, since obviously referencing the OS by calling the API is copyright infringement!
Anyone from Blizzard here? Don't those leaps I'm proposing in the above scenarios look idiotic? Well, your suit against someone who developed a strategy guide (a VERY common type of pub
"Derivative Works" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no lawyer, but I'm willing to bet Blizzard is working under the derivative works clause of the Copyright Act. In essence, "derivative works" means that I own the rights not just to what I have created but also to what I have not yet created.
For example: If I write an science fiction novel with original characters, settings, etc., I own not only the story I have written but also the characters and the settings I have written about. I can create further works based on those characters and settings, which promotes the original purpose of copyright law (at least as I understand it).
If, on the other hand, I want to write a novel set in the Farscape universe, I can't just go out and write the story. For one thing, someone else owns that universe--and aside from the capital they stand to lose if I write and publish something set in their universe, they also stand to lose the intellectual integrity. What would Farscape look like if any schmo could publish material about it?
That's what I think Blizzard is protecting here--not just its right to make money off its product, but the ability to make sure people who participate in WOW are getting information that's at least somewhat accurate.
The screenshots may be the problem (Score:3, Informative)
For fair use to be most clearly applicable, the content need to not impact the copyright owner, the material isn't sold, and isn't used to profit from it. But these things aren't fulfilled here, which puts him in a grey area, and I can understand why greddy Blizzard lawyers make a fuss of this when they can.
Re:Protecting the Trademark (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. If the writer attributes the trademark and makes it clear for his readers that he does not own the World of Warcraft trademark, there is no infringement, therefore there is no possibility that Blizzard will "lose" their trademark.
It is no different than if someone writes about McDonald's or Home Depot. Both are trademarks. As long as its clear who owns the trademark, there is nothing there.
Re:Protecting the Trademark (Score:2)
No, attribution is not all that's necessary. Usage still needs to fall under fair use, which is shaky at best for this guy.
Way off base, this is Copyright (Score:2)
Regardless, this clearly falls under Nominative Use [wikipedia.org] of Blizzard's trademark. Since nobody is selling a competing product using "Warcraft" in it's title, but is instead selling a product that speaks about one of Blizzard's products by name, this is absolutely ok. Nominative Use is very clearly defined for trademarks, and
Re:Way off base, this is Copyright (Score:2)
Re:Protecting the Trademark (Score:2)
Fair use applies to copyrights, not trademarks. The article seems to indicate most of the writing is original. A few illustrations are included, which, if attributed are fair uses, and the World of Warcraft trademark is included as well. As long as the trademark is attributed, there's no infringement here. There just isn't.
Re:Protecting the Trademark (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Protecting the Trademark (Score:2)
I'm afraid Blizzard does actually have a legal basis here, mainly because screenshots are involved.
Screenshots are used in 95%+ of the how-to books on computing that are out there today. I don't see them getting hauled into court. I fail to see how this is different.
Re:Protecting the Trademark (Score:2)
GUI apps have trademarked names and phrases all over the place. It says "Microsoft Word" right there on the titlebar near the Word document icon, and has "Microsoft Office Help" on the help sidebar. Pretty much every application book I've ever seen has the trademarked name of the app right there on the cover! Using a trademarked word or image is not a violation of the trademark if you are using it in a way that is not competing with the owner of the trademark's own product, and you are not deceiving cust
Re:Protecting the Trademark (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Protecting the Trademark (Score:5, Informative)
But trademark law doesn't prevent you from using another company's trademarks for your profit. It primarily protects against uses that dilute the value of the trademark. So "MS Excel for Dummies" can be published without a license from Microsoft, even though it (1) clearly uses a trademarked phrase and (2) is published for profit. You can even sell your own spreadsheet program and market it as "Better than Excel!(tm)" as long as you don't call it something that could be confused with "Excel" or "MS Excel" or... Basically, all you have to do is acknowledge the trademark and not confuse potential customers with your use of the other company's trademark in your materials.
Which this guy apparently did. Blizzard is way out on a crazy limb here and in my non-expert estimation, will probably not prevail.
Regards,
Ross
MOD PARENT DOWN -- thanks (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks to everyone who pointed it out!
J