3 ms·

[EDIT - removed - it seems I couldn't tell the difference between what was being overturned and the actual decision] This is a case where being able to provide

• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
• jasonlotito 16y ago
  > If another party markets green shirts to users of this progam, they would under this case be liable for contributory infringement. No. This is not accurate. It's not even close. The "shirt maker" would have to be making shirts specifically to violate the agreement of the customer. Blizzard isn't going after software that could potentially infringe. Rather, it's going after software that was specifically designed to infringe. Indeed, to make the software, the developer would have to infringe. Whether this is fair or not is up for debate. But don't mischaracterize it as something it's not.
  • trotsky 16y ago
    Well, I had meant to characterize the shirt as having been specifically made for the software users who wished to violate the license agreement. But never the less the court didn't actually hold this - the lower court did. This document says that no copyright infringement happened.
• trotsky 16y ago
  Ah, it seems I needed to keep reading... It appears this court makes a distinction in whether the license term violated by the user was included to prevent copyright infringement. Because violating the 3rd party software covenant did not directly enable infringement, the user may not be considered to have violated blizzard's copyright simply by copying it into RAM.