Blizzard sued by unofficial WoW guide author
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Mar 28th 2006 at 3:25PM }
Brian Kopp, author of The
Ultimate World of Warcraft Leveling & Gold Guide, along with public-interest advocacy group Public Citizen, have filed a lawsuit
against Blizzard after the company successfully barred the sale of Kopp's unauthorized guide on eBay. Kopp and Public
Citizen contend that the guide does not violate copyright and trademark laws, and that Blizzard, Vivendi, and the ESA
violated Kopp's First Amendment rights by repeatedly issuing complaints to eBay about the book's sale, eventually
prompting its removal from the online auction site and the suspension of Kopp's eBay account.The lawsuit seeks monetary compensation to cover lost profits, an injunction preventing Blizzard, Vivendi, and the ESA from interfering with future sales, and a judgment that the guide is protected by the First Amendment and doesn't interfere with intellectual-property rights. Currently, Kopp is selling the guide (using PayPal) on a personal website.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Game Artist @ Mar 28th 2006 3:36PM
Wow.... Blizzard is clearly in the wrong here. There is plenty or prescedent set for unofficial guides being just fine. Like many corporations they hope to make him just go away through fear of lawsuits.
pete @ Mar 28th 2006 4:07PM
Though I'm not on Blizzard's side by any measure, it's absurd to say Kopp (one private entity) sued Blizzard et al (private entities) for "violat[ing] Kopp's First Amendment rights."
Joshua Ochs @ Mar 28th 2006 4:20PM
Blizzard's case is likely that this is in violation of their terms of service, and encourages others to do the same.
Given that Blizzard and eBay are private entities, I don't see how a First Amendment case will stand up. It's well established that private entities can restrict speech in their own domains; free speech is something that is protected in the public domain only.
For example, the government cannot stop you from saying something, but that doesn't mean a newspaper or magazine is obligated to publish it.
XGM @ Mar 28th 2006 4:44PM
Oh Blizz, you just got yourself into more sh*t. Not only as the company small, and there slow to do anything, but now risking to lose even more money they dont have... Im sorry but its thinga like that that made me hate EA and Blizz. THX again for ruining yourselfs by stupid actions of the sort.
greatslack @ Mar 28th 2006 4:55PM
I assume to write the guide, Kopp had to use names copyrighted by Blizzard, and so if he is publishing their copyrighted names and making a profit without Blizzard's permission, this is a copyright infringement, and Blizzard deserves a cut of the profits from the book. I think Blizzard was wrong to ban the book, but should have simply asked for a share of the profits.
Bob S. @ Mar 28th 2006 5:11PM
The law gives the creator -- here, Blizzard -- the right to control derivative works. This guide is a derivative work; it wouldn't exist without Blizzard's creation. This is nothing new. (It's in the DMCA, but it's been part of copyright law for a long time.)
The next tin shield used by the copyright-ignorant is fair use, so I assume there'll be a lot of blather about that soon. Maybe someone will look it up and explain how it could possibly apply, but I doubt it, because it probably doesn't.
If you dislike the laws (and as a digital appropriation artist, they affect me), instead of whining about them on blogs, drop your elected representatives a note.
jabbertrack @ Mar 28th 2006 5:13PM
greatslack do you have any concept of copyright law or are you just talking out of your ass
Erik @ Mar 13th 2008 11:45PM
That something "would not exist" without the original's creation is not the definition of "derivative work." Referring to the name of a company or product when discussing the product is not trademark infringement. This has been discussed thousands of times, and even a passing knowledge of the video game field would make one aware of countless unofficial game strategy guides for nearly every console and PC game. The author makes a good point in his defense. If his guide is illegal, then every book and web guide on how to use Microsoft Word not published by Microsoft is illegal. I wonder how many auto guides would be rendered illegal under this ruling should Blizzard win.
Blizzard likes to sue people. See the BNETD lawsuit, which incidentally they won due to the DMCA, a law specifically crafted to de facto override fair and free use. That is to say, a law that was crafted because companies tend to lose lawsuits like this one. But then, they don't really even have to win. They just have to harass and threaten, or as a last resort simply outspend their target in frivolous legal challenges.
That said, commercial speech such as this guide is most certainly not protected under the first amendment. And his claim that the guide's not commercial but "educational" is pretty lame too.
Thomas @ Mar 28th 2006 5:51PM
Umm.. Jabber.. Greatslack does have a point.. It is the UnOfficial WoW bla bla bla.. Just using the products name without their consent in the Title of the book is Infringment of itself, aint it..
I mean Im not one to take sides on this, IMO Blizzard is running the fine line.. If there is Infingment it really isnt a whole lot, but on the other hand its there.. This is one of those where they should just look the other way, but they are a money hungry company, just like most companies..
TeddyN @ Mar 28th 2006 6:24PM
What I'm wondering is whether the guide's any good. It's only $15... Anyone here tried it out yet? It made me so curious when he writes about 'secrets' lol...
Dylan @ Mar 28th 2006 6:41PM
To be honest, I agree with XGMand Thomas. I mean, i play WoW and I love the game, but I can't stand Blizzard. They can be total morons at times. And another thing, they realy should have just "looked the other way," I mean, how much money are they realy going to "loose" if a few people buy that guide instead of one of their's? They charge you to buy AND play the game. Look at Guild Wars, you buy the game and then it's free (I personaly don't play it though). They don't seem to be money-hungrey. OK, ost companies are but i haven't seen them suing people for making guides. Just for thr record, hass Nintendo sued people for making guides? If so, I haven't heard of it. Oh well, I guess we'll all just have to see how this turns out. *sigh*
LaughingTarget @ Mar 28th 2006 6:56PM
The first amendment only protects your freedom of speech being restricted by government, private entities can restrict your speech all they want, especially if it involves their intellectual property (satire excepted). Mr. Kopp has no case and it will be thrown out. End of story.
jp007 @ Mar 28th 2006 7:59PM
They threatened the guy with legal action. Of COURSE it is a first amendment issue. This isn't like Blizzard censoring themselves or something. They're using the threat of legal reprecussions, sanctioned and enforced BY THE US GOVERNMENT (you know, the SOURCE of the laws like copyright, etc.) in order to stomp out this guide. Blizzard wouldn't be able to do anything about this if it weren't for the government creating an environment that induces fear of government sactioned reprecussions.
Knox @ Mar 28th 2006 8:03PM
I don't think it's the fact that the author created the guide, but that he sold it for a profit. If it had been distributed for free, Blizzard likely wouldn't have cared, as it would have been free publicity. But since Kopp is making a profit off of copyrighted materials, a cease and desist order from Blizzard should be applicable.
Also, remember that Blizzard is not the one filing the suit, but rather Kopp. I feel that it is very likely he will lose this suit, and if he makes BLizzard mad enough, they could countersue for a reimbursement off of the profits he made.
Alkaiser @ Mar 28th 2006 8:59PM
It's pretty clear to me that Blizzard's in the right here. The "fair use" provision doesn't allow for the profiting off of another's work. BNetD had a legit case, because they weren't trying to make money off of it. This guy clearly is. It's like selling fansubs on eBay, versus just downloading them to watch. The resale for profit violates "fair use" so his grabbing the screens for the guide was in no way legitimate.
The is probably going to be Blizzard's easiest court victory to date. I imagine this will just end up getting thrown out, and the guide creator knows it and is just trying to buy as much time as possible to sell the guide for the limited window he has left.
matt w @ Mar 28th 2006 9:35PM
Blizzard is not at all in the right here people. Tons of games and software programs have had unauthorized guides released for them. I have an unauthorized guide to Doom II in my basement, along with some of those old school paperback guides to NES games. Both of which you could buy in any bookstore back in the day.
I fail to see how this is any different, with the exception that the WOW guide probably uses more screenshots.
Why should Blizzard care anyway? People who but a WOW guide are obviously WOW players, so they're not losing any money, and may in fact gain if players purchase a guide in lieu of cancelling their account.
That being said, I have no idea why anyone buys game guides at all, since gamefaqs is free.
Enigma @ Mar 28th 2006 10:17PM
#16
Then all those "dummies" guide books and every other generic windows guide books cant make money either.
Blizzard is NOT in the right, because the guy followed publishing and copyright laws (not to mention it is unauthorized). They are being a bully, and for the guy to have a lawsuit, some lawyer out there knows this is legit enough to take his case.
TC @ Mar 29th 2006 6:58AM
Well, the guy's a jerk, anyway - right-click on his page and it pops up an alert threatening to sue you for infringing his copyright.
Pot, kettle.
Incidentally, could someone *please* fix the "remember my personal information" option so that it sets its cookies for the whole of Joystiq rather than just the path of the current article? It's totally useless as it is...
LaughingTarget @ Mar 29th 2006 9:39AM
17-
All those "Dummies" books either pay royalties to the group the IP belongs to or are in agreement with the company to sell the books. It is beneficial to Microsoft to have an easily accessible help manual to further penetrate Windows and Office sales in homes.
The author of the aforementioned WoW guide made no agreement with Blizzard nor is paying them any royalties on the sales of the guides. Companies like Vivendi enter into lisencing agreements with guide authoring companies like Prima which guarantees them exclusive rights to sell guides. The information is then entered into the ToS, a legally binding contract that cannot be ignored because the end user doesn't agree with a part of it. Like all contracts, you either accept it in full or reject it. The ToS states you will not use any information in the game for profit, something this guide is in direct violation of.
Again, this is not a first amendment issue. Anyone who says so clearly hasn't actually read it. "Congress shall pass no law infringing..."
Blizzard and the US court system is not Congress. Laws are not being passed. Furthermore, freedom of speech does not protect taking someone else's property and selling it as your own if we really want to get into the details.
Dan @ Mar 29th 2006 12:43PM
Wow -- I'm shocked at all the crazy IP theories I'm hearing here today. Not to spend too much time on it, but let's quickly look at the concept that by simply using the "World of Warcraft" name, or discussing details of the game, you're infringing in some way.
Ever read a movie review? Especially a bad one? Could a film's producer stop a newspaper from publishing a bad review by "withdrawing" permission to use the title of the film or publicity shots from it? I think not.
Another great example -- the documentary "Super Size Me." Plenty of use of famous trademarks, both names and images. Legit? You bet.
Hope this helps clear the air a little.