In its suit, Blizzard accused MDY Industries of committing, or enabling its users to commit, a variety of legal sins against World of Warcraft and the End User License Agreement (EULA) that users are forced to sign if they wish to play. One claim alleged that MDY tortiously interfered with the contractual relationship between Blizzard and its users, while another claims that World of Warcraft players who use Glider infringe on Blizzard’s copyrights. U.S. District Judge David Campbell of the Arizona District Court sided with Blizzard on these claims, ruling against MDY with a motion for summary judgment that short-circuits the case before going to trial.

Campbell rejected a third claim, however, that would have found MDY in violation of the DMCA for providing countermeasures to circumvent technological protections built into World of Warcraft’s programming code.

Blizzard’s second claim proved to be the most controversial, with a variety of commentators and public rights group stepping in to support MDY’s position. The argument essentially claims that players are only allowed to load World of Warcraft into their computer’s RAM when they comply with the terms of the game’s EULA – which includes rules forbidding the use of bots or other programs to hack the game. According to Blizzard, when a player loads WoW into RAM with Glider, he or she is breaking those terms; ergo, absent of their compliance with the EULA, copying the game into RAM is then unauthorized and an infringement of Blizzard’s copyrights.

Both MDY and copyright-reform action group Public Knowledge attempted to refute that claim, citing the so-called “section 117 defense,” which allows “owners” of a computer program to copy it freely for the purposes of executing the software – regardless of whether or not the developer authorizes it. An amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) letter from Public Knowledge (PDF) called Blizzard’s claims unjustified, accusing the game developer of “[attempting] to use contract to alter and displace those aspects of copyright law it does not like, while using copyright penalties to … enforce the terms of that alteration.”

Campbell’s rejection (PDF) of MDY’s “section 117” defense notes two important points: first, that the Arizona district court’s hands are tied due to Ninth Circuit precedence, and secondly, WoW users do not “own” the copy since the game’s license agreement enforces strict limitations on how the game can be used.

The decision sets a bold precedent, augmenting the power of copyright holders. Since nearly all software sold enforces limitations on how it can be used via a lengthy EULA – as does most open-source software, via the GPL and similar licenses – software users may lose their entitlement as “owner” of that copy and be strictly bound to its terms. According to Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, this is directly contrary to the intent and writing of current copyright law.

“As Public Knowledge explained in its brief, Blizzard's theory confuses a copyright holder's intellectual property rights in the software it develops with a buyer's rights in the actual copy of the software,” reads a blog entry at the EFF’s website.

“The logical implication of the holding is that any time you buy software … [developers] can always use license agreements to prevent you from ever having full control over your software and taking advantage of standard copyright limitations (such as the right to sell your copy [Section 109 of the Copyright Act] or the right to make copies necessary for use of the software [Section 117]). You can buy it, but you can’t own it.”

While Campbell appreciated and recognized PK’s arguments, his order flatly states that he is “not free to disregard Ninth Circuit precedent directly on point.”

It is unknown as to whether or not MDY will attempt to appeal the decision – although the EFF expects an appeals court to address the issue “in the near term.”

At the time of this writing, an evaluation version of Glider remains freely downloadable from its website.