Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { ?s ?p MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc., No. 05-2555, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53988, 2008 WL 2757357 (D. Ariz. Jul. 14, 2008), is a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. At the district court level, MDY was found liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement (EULA) and Terms of Use (TOU) governing the World of Warcraft software.The court's ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court in part, upheld in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals ruled that for a software licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the license condition and the licensor’s exclusive rights of copyright. However, the court also ruled, contrary to Chamberlain v. Skylink, that a finding of circumvention under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not require a nexus between circumvention and actual copyright infringement.. }
Showing items 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 items per page.
- MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzard_Entertainment,_Inc. abstract "MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc., No. 05-2555, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53988, 2008 WL 2757357 (D. Ariz. Jul. 14, 2008), is a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. At the district court level, MDY was found liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement (EULA) and Terms of Use (TOU) governing the World of Warcraft software.The court's ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court in part, upheld in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals ruled that for a software licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the license condition and the licensor’s exclusive rights of copyright. However, the court also ruled, contrary to Chamberlain v. Skylink, that a finding of circumvention under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not require a nexus between circumvention and actual copyright infringement.".