MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
629 F.3d 928
9th Cir.2010Background
- Blizzard created World of Warcraft (WoW), a MMO with client and server components; players authenticate to play online.
- MDY developed Glider, a bot that automates early WoW play, which MDY sold to users.
- Blizzard argued Glider violated WoW's EULA/ToU and harmed WoW by enabling unfair progression and bot activity.
- Blizzard launched Warden to detect bots; Glider was updated to evade detection, including a paid 'Elite' version.
- MDY faced district court judgments for copyright infringement, DMCA violations, and tortious interference; MDY appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, ruling no secondary copyright infringement under § 1201(a)(2) for certain elements and remanding on tortious interference; affirmed liability under § 1201(a)(2) for WoW’s dynamic non-literal elements and vacated related injunctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MDY's liability for secondary copyright infringement | MDY did not infringe because users copy WoW into RAM under license. | Blizzard contends MDY contributed/vicariously infringed via Glider. | MDY not liable for 1201(a)(2) copyright infringement for literal/individual elements |
| DMCA § 1201(a)(2) liability as to WoW's dynamic non-literal elements | MDY's Glider enables circumventing Warden; liability ensues. | Warden effectively controls access to dynamic elements; Glider circumvents. | MDY liable under § 1201(a)(2) for WoW's dynamic non-literal elements |
| DMCA § 1201(b)(1) liability | MDY trafficked in circumvention devices that bypass Warden. | Warden's protections do not implicate Blizzard's rights under § 106; no § 1201(b)(1) liability. | MDY not liable under § 1201(b)(1) for Glider's circumvention of Warden |
| Tortious interference with contract under Arizona law | MDY intentionally interfered with Blizzard's contracts by aiding bot use. | MDY's conduct may be legitimate innovation; factual disputes remain. | Summary judgment vacated; issues of material fact remain; remand for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010) (distinguishes owners vs. licensees for the essential step defense)
- MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) (essential step defense framework)
- Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 1999) (distinguishes license covenants vs conditions)
- Grokster, Ltd. v. MGM, 545 U.S. 913 (U.S. 2005) (contributory/vicarious liability framework for intermediaries)
- Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (infringement nexus requirement for 1201(a)(2) (Federal Circuit view))
- Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Eng'g & Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (contexts for copyright preemption and contract rights)
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) (authentication/access control scenario; controls access reasoning)
- Sun I, Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 1999) (discusses license scope and exclusionary terms)