So...Blizzard suffers $18 million loss per annum....and the 'guilty party' is worth 2.8.
Looks like he's going to have to be melted down for Yak Fat to get much more than that....
That $18 million is only what they estimate from people quitting in disgust. If you add in lost revenue from banned players and money spent combatting Glider, it's closer to $30 million.
This has to be the worst of all, total speculation how someone can claim this is beyond me. So they are assuming that all these subscribers that were to damn lazy to play the game and cheated would have played it for seven more months with out Glider? I somehow find that unlikly some yes but not all. Unless you can prove it sorry Blizzard no money for you!
That number was based on the average amount of time to get a level 50 character. By Blizzard's estimate, it takes a typical player 8 months to reach level 50, compared to the bot doing it for you in less than one month.
This seems inflated to me, as well - simply because it doesn't account for what percentage of those banned bought another copy and got right back into it.
Well I would believe that if I couldn't do a google search and find loads of cheats and bots for WOW. Some expert that guy was must not have heard of Google. Also correlation does not equal causation, I saw nothing in there where Blizzard showed anything other than wild speculation in regard to this point. Sounds like they are trying to get all there losses covered by this guy whether or not he caused them.
First, not all data is being released to the public.
Second, the expert was commenting on USABLE bots - ones that are nearly undetectable.
Third, MDY agrees that Glider is responsible for most of Blizzard's bot-related expenses. When even the offender admits they're causing the problem, the facts aren't really in dispute any more.
WIlly,
What on earth does the EULA have to do with the copyright? Maybe I'm missing something; honestly, I don't read EULAs very much. Nevertheless, I don't see how a violation of a ToS or EULA constitutes a breach of copyright law, and that was my original point regarding the question of copyright law.
Legally, the act of loading a game from your hard drive into RAM constitutes copying the game. Under normal playing conditions, the user has the company's permission to do this, so the copying does not constitute infringement.
However, if the EULA has been broken the user no longer has the company's permission to copy the game in this manner. Once the user's EULA-granted privledges have been revoked, loading the game becomes an act of illegal copying. This is not new to this decision, there are several precedents on exactly this issue.