Blizzard suing StarCraft II hackers

By Oli Welsh Published 18 October, 2010

After the bans, the courts.

Blizzard isn't stopping at wholesale bans of players using hacks to cheat at StarCraft II. It's going after the authors of the hacks themselves – in the courts.

GameSpot reports that the developer has filed suit against three offenders in the Los Angeles District Court. Two of them are Canadian, while the third lives in Peru. Blizzard claims that their cheat programs are in violation of the user licence agreement and Battle.net terms of use, as well as infringing copyright.

The cheats, it said in the suit, were available "just days after release" and were "designed to modify (and in fact destroy) the StarCraft II online game experience". Blizzard feels that the StarCraft II hacks damage the experience to such an extent that legitimate users grow dissatisfied with the game and communicate their displeasure – therefore resulting in lost sales.

Blizzard is therefore demanding damages and wants the hackers to surrender any profits from the sale of the hacks, which, it claims, also induce others to infringe copyright.

"When users of the Hacks download, install, and use the Hacks, they copy StarCraft II copyrighted content into their computer's RAM in excess of the scope of their limited license, as set forth in the EULA and ToU, and create derivative works of StarCraft II," reads the suit.

This is a similar, if less obscure, intellectual property argument to the one Blizzard used to shut down the World of Warcraft Glider bot, a program that automated levelling and farming in the MMO. That case won the developer $6 million in damages.

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (32) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • levitate #1 2 years ago

    No wonder Blizzard has truckloads of money, the sue each and every person not playing the game properly. With that said, it's good they make sure the hacks and cracks disappear. It really spoils the sportsmanship of the game.

    Edit: Jesus Christ, 9 negs?! Grow a brain with humour please. Idiots.
    Edited by levitate at 18/10/10 @ 11:39

  • layleeloo #2 2 years ago

    GOOD ON YA Blizzard! Sue the scummy cheating bastards!!!

  • SbEguy #3 2 years ago

    Yeah, the truckloads of money have nothing to do with the superb quality of each and every one of their games, but instead the comparatively trivial amounts they've gotten from a few lawsuits over the years. Oh please.

  • Doctor_What #4 2 years ago

    It'll be interesting to hear if they can get that to stick with the international laws. What's Peru's law on IP like these days?

  • InfiniteFury #5 2 years ago

    I don't understand why people are pointing the litigious finger at Blizzard (alright I do understand and the reason begins with a B and ends in a K).

    If this kind of action makes others think twice before trying to profit out of ruining *your* game experience, the beneficial knock-on effect will spread beyond just Activision products.

  • Shikasama #6 2 years ago

    Lets hope to god this fails. Read the wording of their complaint, thats a complete joke.

  • SuperBas #7 2 years ago

    If they don't go after people making trainers for singleplayer purposes, good. Destroy these cheating assholes.

  • butler` #8 2 years ago

    I too find this a little tenuous. But let's face it, the ActiBlizz coin can buy some serious lawyers.

  • djed #9 2 years ago

    They appear to be serious about battle.net 2 integrity. Gotta protect the future cash-cow.

  • Radish #10 2 years ago

    Or perhaps they're just protecting the people that play SC2 legitimately? I have no idea if I've played against someone cheating but I'd hope that Blizzard would actively seek to stop them rather than just ban them X amount of time later, after the damage has been done. I don't see how this is a problem.

  • Silvervein #11 2 years ago

    I wonder if someone will fill a lawsuit against blizzard, for infringing on private property rights of the players, and/or misdirection surrounding the sale of their product. Which, apparently, isn't a purchase, but lease.

    If SC2 is how games in the future will look like, we are in for one wild ride...

    And to think I used to have some small measure of respect for blizzard.
    Edited by Silvervein at 18/10/10 @ 10:23

  • NimbusTLD #12 2 years ago

    What's Peru's law on IP like these days?

    If there is one, it is not enforced... piracy in all digital media reigns supreme.

  • fluxdeluxe #13 2 years ago

    @silvervein

    What you do with your local copy at home is your own business nobody has ever contested that. Howver in a multiplayer experience on a platform paid for by a community as a whole and administered by blizzard they are entirely justified. You seem to be confused that people who mod their game to cheat in a competive arena, where people pay for, and expect a level battlefield is the same as modding or cheating at home. Nobody is disputing the right to hack your game, they are disputing the deployment of those hacks in a live environment which gives undue advantage to the hacker.

  • vijay_UK #14 2 years ago

    It's irrelevant how much money Blizzard has. They are successful because they make excellent games that people play for years. Now, if people want to mess around and try to ruin the game, Blizz are entitled to take any legal action they want. It is the normal players who is protected. MP is an area that must be protected, it is the public domain and I didn't pay for SC2 for a couple of months play, and then have to leave because of cheaters. Hopefully Blizz's actions will deter some players for trying to hack anything they can.

  • sink257 #15 2 years ago

    I appreciate a move like this. It's not so much to do with the money being earned, but rather as a warning and deterrent for other hackers to hack the game.

  • sneetch #16 2 years ago

    @silvervein

    Read the licence agreement you have to accept before it installs next time. It explains the terms of use (that you have to agree to before you use the software) quite clearly there. If you don't agree, don't accept it.

  • Spekingur #17 2 years ago

    I wonder how much money Blizzard spends on lawyers these days?

  • linksdad #18 2 years ago

    Are they suing activision as well? Their current owners cost them a lost sale from me.

    I really dont like the route they are taking, and the ramifications it will have for the modding community.

    EULA are not worth the paper they are writen on.
    Ask a child to install your game for you. How can any software company have a legally binding contract with a minor? Hell get your dog or cat to press 'next' or 'I agree'

  • TheBoyChris #19 2 years ago

    Good on them.

  • levitate #20 2 years ago

    @SbEguy:

    Obviously you left your brain outside somewhere. I play and love their games and there was a hint of irony in what I said, something that you didn't pick up.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #21 2 years ago

    The EULA and Terms of Usage are fairly questionable but I trust (hope) that Blizz/Acti will only use that to combat hackers. Simply banning people is not enough, let's see how this developes if they now start to go after the hack developers as well.

  • sneetch #22 2 years ago

    @link'sdad
    EULA are not worth the paper they are writen on.
    Ask a child to install your game for you. How can any software company have a legally binding contract with a minor? Hell get your dog or cat to press 'next' or 'I agree'

    Well if you do that then it's not your game, you do not have any rights to use the software, I'm sure your catdogchild will love it though, it's theirs now.

    I've been a software engineer for 14 years and the only real defence we have against pirates and other sundry assholes are licence agreements and copyright laws and I applaud Blizzard for protecting themselves and their property like this.

  • chrisjm #23 2 years ago

    catdogchild

    half cat, half dog and half child.

    this is super serial guys.

  • UsernamePending #24 2 years ago

    @levitate - I negged you ironically. Grow a brain with humour please, idiot.

  • levitate #25 2 years ago

    I'll neg you back for that, douchebag.

  • UsernamePending #26 2 years ago

    Language please levitate! Don't let your -12 get to you.

  • levitate #27 2 years ago

    What gets to me is when complete douchebags, like yourself, are allowed to roam free on the Internet. Someone should put a restraining order on you and lock you up somewhere underground. Sitting in your parents' basement isn't secluded enough.

  • rojjer #28 2 years ago

    Bobby loves lolly. You can just picture him rubbing his sweaty mits - More $$$

  • Stop-gap #29 2 years ago

    Wait, i thought ToA and EULAs were in no way legally binding contracts, so saying "as outlined in the ToA/EULA" is complete crap?

  • Skinme #30 2 years ago

    @Stop-gap

    Was thinking the same thing. However, I believe that is only true in the EU and the situation has become somewhat muddied with the requirement of online access for certain games. Basically, if you're in your own home and bought the software legally, you can do with it as you please. That's why NO-CD patches are legal to use in this country. The problem lies with accessing Battle.Net servers. Blizzard are under no legal obligation to let you access their servers if they don't want you to.

    The argument put forward in the press release seems a bit misguided. Blizzard are suing the creators of the hacks for copyright infringement, not because of breaching the EULA. If it was, they'd be suing everyone they recently banned, not 3 hackers.

  • E_Goldstein #31 2 years ago

    All your base are belongs to Blizzard

  • Optyk #32 2 years ago

    Why does everyone complain when someone breaks the rules and then gets punished for it?

    Dems the rules for a reason.