Sued Freelancer Allegedly Turns Over Contractee Source Code In Settlement 130
FriendlySolipsist writes: Blizzard Entertainment has been fighting World of Warcraft bots for years. TorrentFreak reports that Bossland, a German company that operates "buddy" bots, alleges Blizzard sued one of its freelancers and forced a settlement. As part of that settlement, the freelancer allegedly turned over Bossland's source code to Blizzard. In Bossland's view, their code was "stolen" by Blizzard because it was not the freelancer's to disclose. This is a dangerous precedent for freelance developers in the face of legal threats: damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Sue Blizzard (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Bossland, meanwhile, says it will sue Blizzard in Germany next week hoping to get a copy of the deal the company made with its freelancer, and under what terms the code was shared.
Presumably once the terms of the deal are disclosed further suits will follow. Personally, I'm with the bot maker on this one. Blizzard is entitled to take action against the bot maker within the bounds of the law, but it is not entitled to steal the source code. If it's okay for Blizzard to steal other people's intellectual property, then I hope they're okay with people pirating their games.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
most likely they took it as a way to implement security against the same sort of code in the future. it would be like the government forcing someone to give up their malware code as a part of a plea deal and then using it to create more security. i dont see anything wrong with this as long as they arent using the source code to do its intended purpose.
Re: (Score:3)
i dont see anything wrong with this as long as they arent using the source code to do its intended purpose.
So you think that fences should never be prosecuted for handling stolen goods?
The contractor had no rights to the code, and so could not legally hand it to Blizzard. Blizzard will have known this. As a result they may be guilty of coercing someone into breaking the law.
What they use the code for is utterly fucking irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In any case Blizzard doesn't intend to [totally irrelevant shit]
Blizzard can ask for what they like, but if they accept code that doesn't belong to the contractor then they're misbehaving. Why are you struggling to comprehend that the reason they want the code does not alter that simple fact?
Re: (Score:3)
At first blush, I don't think there's much to be done with Blizzard without making the freelancer also *more* guilty due to copyright infringement. So far, Blizzard just has a copy which they've neither distributed nor published or anything.
Besides, this is Slashdot. It's just a copy and information wants to be free. Up above, you mentioned theft. Copyright violations aren't theft, according to most folks here.
Re: (Score:3)
Quick question.
What makes the way Blizzard obtained this copyrighted material any different than you or I downloading Blizzard's copyrighted material from some torrent site or something? I mean in both situations, the distribution was not authorized by law.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a whole lot? Neither of which is theft by definition, though I suppose I could argue that it was deprivation of business potential but that's not too important. Either way, 'tis copyright infringement. More importantly, in neither of these actions are the third party any less guilty, they're not indemnified by our guilt but made more culpable because of it.
Re: Sue Blizzard (Score:2)
The contractor was probably ordered by a court order to hand over the code. The contractor cannot be penalized for following a legal court order. I don't know if Bossforce even has a claim to any supposedly illegal property that changed hands by legal order.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless a contract has very specific provisions for transfer of copyright, a freelancer/contractor retains the copyright of the source code. In many cases, what the clients receive as part of the contract is a license for use or distribution, sometimes an exclusive license.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure about Germany, perhaps that is why they are suing in a German court rather than US (the original suit was in CA.) In the US the contractor would own the code even if the contract specified a number of hours and not a specific deliverable unless:
1) It was a contribution to an existing work
or
2) The copyright was transferred after the software was written by specific assignment.
As long as the contractor wrote all of the code in question he likely owns the US copyright (which may or may not be th
Re: (Score:2)
it would be like the government forcing someone to give up their malware code as a part of a plea deal and then using it to create more security. i dont see anything wrong with this
Blizzard is NOT the government. They are a company, nothing more.
Re: (Score:3)
Blizzard is entitled to take action against the bot maker within the bounds of the law
Really? Is there any law against bots, can Blizzard do anything?
They can ban players if they put it in the Eula, but I don't see how they can do anything against the programmers.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been a few attempts to apply the basic idea of copyright to lock down derivative works, APIs, and other oblique uses of the original material. If you're not careful you can run into trademark issues as well. These suits tend to rely on dubious legal technicalities, but the trouble with dubious legal technicalities is that they are still what the letter of the law actually says, so a lot of things that seem like they shouldn't be affected by intellectual property laws as originally envisaged can i
Re: (Score:2)
While this is not really a big enough deal to interest the feds... not only is there a law, it is among the oldest of laws related to computers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
Violations of the following parts would likely make it past a grand jury (although it would not exactly be the most solid case.)
18 U.S.C. 1030
(2) (c)
(4)
(5) (b)
(5) (c)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The original suit filed by blizzard was in the US, but they cannot file suit using that law as it is criminal. They would need to get a prosecutor to take it up on behalf of the state, and it is likely not a big enough deal to do that (nor should they, this is better handled as a civil suit.)
They may have some difficulty in Germany, as while I am not familiar with German law it is usually required that the issue the court will decide has taken place in that country. It is my understanding that all of this
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes me curious is why the JUDGE signed off on it in the first place. It obviously had an adverse effect on a third party's legal rights and you'd think the judge presiding over the settlement would know that.
Re: (Score:2)
For copyright infringement
Recursive copyright infringement, no less.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I avoid interacting with one or two individuals and a few corporations. Not playing certain games does not diminish my experience of life (on the contrary).
It is your choice and you may have you reasons to do so, but despite being easier in the short term, limiting your social interactions is likely to impact your personal growth.
Re: (Score:1)
Is violating game's TOU is a civil offense, let alone, crime?
IANAL, just wondering...
Re: (Score:2)
Is violating game's TOU is a civil offense
It's a violation of contract law, which is a civil dispute, and the courts can have jurisdiction over it. Which isn't to say that everything in the TOU is enforceable.......
Re: (Score:2)
> No more than a prenup, or a restraining order.
Not sure what you're trying to say, as laws vary wildly from locality to locality.
The concept, in California, is called "severability". This describes the condition. Invalidating one part of a mutual contract does not invalidate other parts. Because wording and legal statutes are complicated, this isn't as simple as it seems at a glance.
Re:A bot that flagrantly violated Blizzard's TOU (Score:4, Informative)
Which would made ir OK if the code was handed over as part of a court rulung or court order.
As much as I understood, handing over the source code was part of a settlement to avoid such a court ruling.
So most likely, that guy promised as a settlement something that he already sold to someone else.
OTOH, if this is a case in Germany, this might be something where the difference between Urherberrecht and Verwertungsrecht (ass opposed to the concept of copyright) may become relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally I would agree, but in this case Blizzard owns the server they accessed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
The terms of use may or may not be enforceable, but they definitely constitute what would be considered authorized access to the server owned by Blizzard.
Re: (Score:2)
under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act maybe (Score:2)
under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act maybe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What goods were stolen? We're talking about intellectual property here, so legally speaking a different set of rules applies (even if various propaganda from rightsholders likes to pretend it's the same as real property).
Re: (Score:2)
Different rules do apply when a human being does it. Laws certainly vary from one jurisdiction to another, but I don't know any jurisdiction where infringement of intellectual property rights is treated the same in law as theft of a physical item.
Re: Nope. (Score:2)
Settlements are approved by judges and stand in stead of a final judgment. It's a judgment without the expensive judicial process. Therefore it stands that the transfer was ordered and legal unless a higher court decided otherwise in appeals and I think the time for appeal has long passed. This might not be the case in another jurisdiction (Germany vs USA) and that is the interesting part about international agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
You're standing by a button. If you press the button, a million puppies will be dropped into a blender. It would be very bad for you to press that button and you shouldn't do it. The consequences will be dire. For fuck's sake, you shouldn't ever press that button!
I walk up, and point a loaded gun at your face. "Push the button," I say. I say it very seriously, too.
If you don't push the button and kill a million puppies, I will kill you (whether the puppies will remain safe or not, you simply don't kno
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the Auschwitz defense?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You probably would have pressed the button yourself after shooting me.
Well, not quite (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a dangerous precedent for freelance developers in the face of legal threats: damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Well, not quite. I'm a freelancer. Would I work for a client that is a bad citizen in their particular niche? No, I don't think so.
I'm not a gamer, but if I understand correctly these bots give you an unfair advantage and are forbidden by Blizzard. Yeah well, don't look surprised if the shit hits the fan at some point.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, if you are going to base your business model on doing something even borderline questionable ... do the work yourself. Don't hire freelancers. Don't outsource development.
This! (Score:2)
I don't have sympathy for people selling modifications to a game which the maker of the game says are illegal. Hell, if you are found to be using mods many sites ban your account, often permanently and without a refund.
I don't game like I used to, but when I do I refuse to play on-line FPS games. That refusal has at least something to do with the aim bot mods people use to install just to have their name in a high score list somewhere. You could truly be amazingly agile and great at a game, but I have ex
Re: (Score:1)
I refuse to play on-line FPS games... I have experienced cheats so find it hard to assume the best.
Can't you just play with friends you know? And for playing against cheats, you just have to be the best cheat. You can always invoke Captain Kirk...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have sympathy for people selling modifications to a game which the maker of the game says are illegal.
s/game/car/g
Out of curiosity, does your opinion change any?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have sympathy for people selling modifications to a game which the maker of the game says are illegal.
s/game/car/g
Out of curiosity, does your opinion change any?
Why should it? That's already offensive in racing. If someone is using disallowed parts, they're cheaters. On the street, why would anyone care, unless your car is emitting a bunch of nastiness?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a player of Blizzard's games (Score:3, Insightful)
I have about this -->||<-- much sympathy for Bossland.
The code in question allowed users to violate a very reasonable clause in Blizzard's TOS: Don't cheat or use 'bots.
I hope that now Blizz can analyze the code and go after the users of said 'bots, which I'm sure is their intention behind getting the code.
Hopefully they'll go after the freelancers behind the other game's bots.
Re: (Score:3)
You've agreed with him. The game includes the fun competitive part and the bullshit boring repetitive waste of life farming to acquire the resources needed for the competitive part.
It's all the same game. You're arguing that bots enable it to be fun, he's pointing out that if it was fun to start with they wouldn't be required. So you lose the argument, as you've acknowledged that the game isn't fun, because the bots are needed.
Re: (Score:2)
lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas (Score:4, Informative)
I'm 100% with you on that. For 15 years I was kind of a freelancer, runnung a three-person shop most of that time. Certain people we didn't do business with because they were devious or deceptive. Not necessarily -criminal-, but certainly not upstanding citizens who were careful to always do the right thing.
I've seen a lot of people get burned by associating with the wrong people, from business issues related to associates who push the limits of spam to charges of drug dealing against someone who hung around drug dealers and hookers. Sometimes the slimeball burns you, sometimes the slimeball gets involved with another slimeball who burns you, sometimes you're collateral damage when the authorities go after the slimeballs. All too often, when you lay with dogs you wake up with fleas, one way or another.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who was formerly a consultant I was asked to do illegal projects every once in a while (ranging from "go tap and monitor all telecommunications traffic to this address" to "build this sports betting site" to "crack this software" to "lie under oath as an expert" to "retrieve our competitors source code").
Vetting your clients and their projects is part of that line of work, and is the responsibility of the contractor or their organization. You fail to do this at your peril, it can and does end in
Illegal (Score:3)
Re:Illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Is it illegal?
I thought it sounded like a textbook case of tortious interference (i.e. inducing the contractor to breach his contract), which is a civil matter. I expect the contractor could sue blizzard for that if he's sued by his client.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps this settlement was approved by a judge. Wouldn't that be tantamount to a judge's order?
Re: (Score:2)
Bossland should have paid the contractors legal (Score:1)
... Fees and argued it was not his code to disclose instead of leaving him hanging and a forced settlement. Problem solved the 1st time around instead of trying to not spend money in hopes the contractor can spend pay for defense all the way through court.
Defendants screwed up (Score:5, Interesting)
If that's the case, Apoc and Bossland screwed the pooch on this. Because Bossland (and its IP) is the real party in interest in the Apoc case, they had a right to intervene in the Apoc case. The argument boils down to "Hey you can't sue $randomGuy seeking $myStuff without me being involved; I have a right to fight this even though I'm not the original defendant." And likewise, Apoc had the right to try and rope in Bossland, on the flip side argument, "Whoa, I'm not the droid you're after, and what you're asking for isn't even mine."
It would seem that either:
-Bossland didnt know (that a freelancer possessing their entire code base was being sued by the object of all their bot programs??), or
-Bossland didn't want to cede personal jurisdiction in the US (very complex and nuanced, and there are plenty of creative arguments Blizzard could have used to get what it wanted, esp. with the source code stored by Apoc in the US), or, most likely,
-Apoc just freaked out and (too) quickly said "Blaaaaaughhh here take the source code go away!"
In any case, Bossland's claim of copyright infringement seems tenuous against Blizzard. If anyone, it was Apoc who infringed (and maybe broke non-disclosure) by distributing a copy of the code to Blizzard. But there's little point in Bossland suing its freelancer. Blizzard did probably make copies of their own, and so there's an interesting question as to whether Bossland could get them for infringement there.
Also, contrary to TFS, settlements may set behavioral precedents, but they don't set legal precedents.
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, Bossland's claim of copyright infringement seems tenuous against Blizzard. If anyone, it was Apoc who infringed (and maybe broke non-disclosure) by distributing a copy of the code to Blizzard. But there's little point in Bossland suing its freelancer. Blizzard did probably make copies of their own, and so there's an interesting question as to whether Bossland could get them for infringement there.
If they made copies, then yes. Copyright is a strict liability offense in the US, even if you can prove you had good faith reason to believe you weren't infringing it only reduces damages, it's not a defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They also can't claim copyright infringement unless Blizzard actually uses their code.
Not quite true. They can pursue Blizzard for making unauthorized copies of the source code, which can include not only addition CD/hard drive copies, but perhaps even "copies" loaded into RAM.
Even assuming that Bossland could win that, it might be a Pyrrhic victory if they infringed Blizzard's code as Blizzard claims. (Side question for someone more informed than I: some German company got ahold of Blizzard's source code how?)
Re: (Score:2)
No, US copyright law has an explicit exception for that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, US copyright law has an explicit exception for that.
Unless the progeny of MAI v. Peak have all been overturned while I wasn't looking, that is incorrect [mondaq.com].
Copyright law requires fixation, and purely transitory phenomena won't qualify, but RAM copies can certainly exist for more than a transitory period. A couple minutes is enough. The subsequent carve out Congress enacted in the wake of Peak was specifically to protect computer repair activities, which may be the part of the law you were thinking of.
In the case at hand, the most likely way that Blizzar
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit, you made me go look it up!
I'm talking about 17 U.S.C. section 117:
Re: (Score:2)
Um.. why the heck did he have the code... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is an interesting claim. Please help me understand how the contractor is supposed to work on the codebase without access to the source?
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of ways, from operating on an NFS or remote FUSE mount of some type (like SSHFS).
In any case, I'm SURE when my contracts are over that my code is deleted because I don't want to be the source of a leak.
Re: (Score:2)
You listed various ways that the contractor can access the source. Each example you provided proves my point rather than contradicting it. Now, off you go
Re: (Score:2)
It depends entirely on the contract. Unless the contract has specific provisions for transfer of copyright, as a freelancer you generally retain copyright of your work and the client receives a license to use and/or distribute, sometimes an exclusive license. So no, it does not have to be illegal.
Actual employment changes things, however, because then you are working as part of the legal entity that hired you, and the work you do is considered the property of the legal entity.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're a freelancer... (Score:2)
Depends. (Score:1)
If there were material agreements in place att he signing of the freelance work, then that is not anything new.
However, if there was no agreements in place with regards to material ownership and the court is forced to interpret, yeah...that could be a problem.
No, it's not damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:1)
If the code wasn't his, or he was under contract to keep it secret (NDA for example), then the court can either, UNDER ITS OWN COGNIZANCE, break the contract or force giving up the code. So the contractor is in the clear, AS LONG AS THE COURT ASSERTS IT MUST.
Blizzard may, being the recipients of someone else's code without license (and the court cannot grant that license without explicitly granting that license from the owner to Blizzard) are in trouble, though, since they are now in copyright theft trouble
No Sympathy (Score:1)
I think that it is really good news. (Score:2)
Any freelancer should know that signing an NDA and touching any proprietary code puts him in danger.
And better do not work with companies which want to keep their code secret.
There should be big difficulty for the companies that do not publish their code under some kind of OpenSource license to get skilled developers.
Of course this case doesn't place employed developers in danger. They cannot disclose the code, which they touch only in the office.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people, almost invariably, try to make a physical item analogous with intangible property? It doesn't work - the two are simply so dissimilar that it doesn't really help.