The EFF's Fred von Lohmann just sent round a note on an email list about the summary judgment briefs in the WoW Glider case. I've mirrored the briefs here and here for those who are interested, and below the fold I'm gonna engage in rampant copyright infringement by reposting all of Fred's message. He sums it up too well to bother trying to explain any better, and I'm sure that he'll forgive the infringement...
Glider lets WoW players play on "autopilot" in order to maximize in- game experience and loot. Blizzard has not been able to successfully stop players from using it, despite the deployment of technical countermeasures (i.e., "Warden").
Blizzard is arguing direct copyright infringement by WoW players who
use Glider (because they breach the EULA term that says "no bots!" and
copy the WoW software into RAM), and secondary liability for MDY, the
maker of Glider. Blizzard's argument is built expressly on the MAI v.
Peak's "RAM copies" doctrine, plus the argument that any contractual
breach of a EULA term creates an infringement claim, at least where
the license grant is expressly conditioned on compliance with the
contractual restriction (apparently the WoW license grant is
contingent on compliance with **all** the terms of the EULA, a typical
drafting approach in modern EULAs).
Blizzard also argues 1201 liability, on the view that Glider evades
Warden. There is an interesting question here as to what copyrighted
work Warden restricts access to -- Warden blocks access to Blizzard's
WoW **servers**, not the client-side game software itself. Blizzard
seems to argue that certain client-side game assets -- i.e., graphics
-- are rendered inaccessible when Warden blocks an account for
cheating. But it's fair to say that this is not the typical
"encryption" or "password" 1201 terrain.
Finally, Blizzard argues tortious interference with the EULA, premised
on the same EULA whose breach is supposedly also a copyright
Fred von Lohmann
Senior Intellectual Property Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation