Glider Lawsuit And UELA Law

We have reported on the more sensitive points in the Blizzard-Glider lawsuit before, now more of this material has surfaced.

Blizzard argues that although owners of software are allowed to load copies into RAM in order to use the software, it is not selling World of Warcraft software to users, but rather licensing that software, and that (MAI and its progeny accept at face Blizzard Logovalue that where software is subject to a license, the right to copy that software is licensed, not owned, and software developers may restrict the right to copy their software into RAM the same way they may restrict the right to copy in any other manner.)
(…)
This is an important issue with implications that go well beyond this dispute. Although it has not put the issue in quite such stark terms, Public Knowledge is essentially seeking a ruling that says that the sale of consumer software is, in most circumstances, a sale, pretty much regardless of what the agreement that comes with the software says. If the court agrees in spite of MAI and its progeny (and the ruling survives certain appeal) then U.S. copyright law would protect, among other things, making copies of purchased software in RAM in order to use the software no matter what the (license agreement) says. Resolving this issue in favor of Public Knowledge would call into question provisions in EULAs governing nearly every virtual world and multiuser online game, as well as EULAs for other software.

Disturbing implications regardless of who wins.