Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

argument as insufficient, noting that Perfect 10 had pled no facts suggesting that the defendantshad promoted their payment system as a means to infringe, nor had they promoted the purchaseof specific infringing goods. Accordingly, the facts as pled evidenced no clear expression of aspecific intent to foster infringement, and thus there could be no liability for inducement. 1574The court’s rulings with respect to vicarious liability are set forth in Section III.C.3.(g)below.(h) Parker v. GoogleIn Parker v. Google, 1575 pro se plaintiff Gordon Parker was the owner of copyright in ane-book titled “29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy.” He posted Reason # 6 on USENET. Parkerasserted that Google’s automatic archiving of this USENET content made Google contributorilyliable for copyright infringement because it facilitated users to make unauthorized distributionsand copies of his copyrighted material through the “author search” feature on Google’s web site.The district court rejected this argument for two reasons. First, Parker failed to allegeinfringement of a specific copyrighted work in his claim for contributory infringement. Andsecond, he had failed to allege that Google had requisite knowledge of a third party’s infringingactivity. 1576 On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion on the ground thatParker had failed to allege that Google had the requisite knowledge of a third party’s infringingactivity. 1577 (i) MDY Industries v. Blizzard EntertainmentIn MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment, 1578 the defendant distributed bot softwarecalled “Glider” that was able to play Blizzard Entertainment’s multiplayer online role-playinggame known as World of Warcraft (WoW) for its owner while the owner was away from his orher computer, thereby enabling the owner to advance more quickly within WoW than wouldotherwise be possible. Glider also enabled its user to acquire an inordinate number of gameassets, with some users even selling those assets for money in online auction sites. Both the useof bot software to play WoW and the resale of game assets were prohibited by the Terms of Use(TOU) that governed the play of WoW, together with an End User License Agreement (EULA).The EULA and TOU were displayed on a player’s computer screen when the game clientsoftware was loaded and the player sought online access to Blizzard’s game servers. Playerswere required to agree to the terms of the EULA and TOU before proceeding to play the game.Blizzard alleged that users of WoW were licensees who were permitted to copy the copyrightedgame client software only in conformance with the EULA and TOU, and that when userslaunched WoW using Glider, they exceeded the license in the EULA and TOU and created1574 Id. at *26-31.1575 422 F. Supp. 2d 492 (E.D. Pa. 2006), aff’d, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16370 (9 th Cir. July 10, 2007).1576 Id. at 498-99.1577 Parker v. Google, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16370 at *9 (3d Cir. July 10, 2007).1578 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53988 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2008).- 345 -