Re: Blizzard v. Glider v. Public Knowledge

> From: Matthew J. Agnello
> 
>But in the Blizzard vs. Glider  
>case, the law is being used to uphold the game designer's artistic  
>choices. 

No it isn't. An unethical law is being abused to protect a revenue stream
supposedly dependent upon no mechanical assistance being utilised by human
players in their mechanical 'play' (because it upsets all the other members
of the chain gang who have to use brute force to crush rocks in the
penitentiary yard).

The game designer's artistic choices remain unaffected - unless you include
"And this will be played by people without computer assistance" as an
'artistic choice'. That's more of a naïve wish than an artistic choice. As
for a virtual treadmill, this isn't really an artistic choice either, but a
commercial choice informed by player psychology.

>Knowing that laws are insufficient, should a social  
>construction, or a respect for the game designer's intentions, or  
>something else, replace that law?

If you have a theme park, perhaps you can police it and require that no-one
picnics on the grass but utilises restaurants instead (or gets ejected).

If it's your space you can choose who is permitted to enter or remain, but
really, it's a folly of the highest conceit to demand that people 'enjoy'
the space in the way the designer intended and abstain from any thought or
action that might detract from the purity of their vision and its proper
appreciation by the visitor.

Respect cannot be demanded, for it is then no longer respect but obeisance.

An artist does not have a right to control how their published work is
utilised.

Perhaps you are thinking of an artist's natural right to the integrity of
their works? This doesn't elevate the works to the status of living beings,
as in a person's natural right to the integrity of their bodies. Nor is it a
proprietary right as in a person's natural right to protect the integrity of
their private property. It is a moral right that published works attributed
to them may not be modified without their authorisation. This doesn't mean
you can't modify an artist's work, only that if you do, you cannot indicate
the work remains original or entirely the original author's work.

However, World of Warcraft is a private work and is only modifiable via a
publicly exposed API (implicitly authorising any modifications it permits).
This is utilised by the software client sold to players. Blizzard cannot
constrain how the API is used. If they attempt to warp or exploit copyright,
DMCA, patent or any other mercantile privilege to control how people use
this API they're being socially abusive (qv bnetd). It is only because
people have come to expect this abusive behaviour from corporations that
they pay little heed to it.

And of course, players can be abusive too (incitement to violence, etc.).
However, utilising computer assistance is not abusive. It may well unbalance
a game that expects players to be unassisted, but this problem has to be
solved by game design, player cooperation, or technological measures, not
legal measures.