Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03654/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03654-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3654

___________

Davidson & Associates, doing * 

business as Blizzard Entertainment, * 

Inc.; Vivendi Universal, Inc., * 

* 

Plaintiffs - Appellees, * 

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Tim Jung, an individual; Rob * 

Crittenden, * 

* 

Defendants - Appellants, * 

* 

Intellectual Property Law Professors, * 

* 

Amicus Curiae, * 

* 

Internet Gateway, *

* 

Defendants - Appellants, * 

* 

____________________ * 

* 

Computer & Communications * 

Industry Association; Open Source & * 

Industry Alliance; Consumers Union; * 

Public Knowledge; Intellectual * 

Property Law Professors; The Institute * 

of Electrical and Electronics * 

Engineers, Inc., * 

* 

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
-2-

Amici on Behalf * 

of Appellants, *

* 

Entertainment Software Association; * 

Recording Industry Association of * 

America; Motion Picture Association * 

of America, Incorporated; Data Tree, * 

LLC; First American Real Estate * 

Solutions, LLC; Reed Elsevier, Inc. * 

Twenty-Second Century Foundation, * 

Inc.; Software & Information Industry * 

Association, *

* 

Amici on Behalf * 

of Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 20, 2005

Filed: September 1, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Davidson & Associates, Inc. d/b/a Blizzard Entertainment ("Blizzard") and

Vivendi Universal Games, Inc. ("Vivendi"), owner of copyrights in computer game

software and online gaming service software sued Ross Combs ("Combs"), Rob

Crittenden ("Crittenden"), Jim Jung ("Jung"), and Internet Gateway, Inc. ("Internet

Gateway") (collectively referred to as "Appellants"), for breach of contract,

circumvention of copyright protection system, and trafficking in circumvention

technology. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted

summary judgment in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi, and determined that: (1)

Blizzard's software end-user license and terms of usage agreements were enforceable

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
1

In addition to multi-player play over the Internet via Battle.net mode, the

various games have the capacity for and permit non-Internet multi-player gaming for

a limited number of players who connect to each other via a local area computer

network ("LAN"), such as a home network, via modems connected to telephone lines,

-3-

contracts; (2) Appellants waived any "fair use" defense; (3) the agreements did not

constitute misuse of copyright; and (4) Appellants violated the anti-circumvention

and anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA").

We affirm.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Blizzard, a California corporation and subsidiary of Vivendi, creates and sells

software games for personal computers. This appeal concerns the particular Blizzard

games "StarCraft," "StarCraft: Brood War," "WarCraft II: Battle.net Edition,"

"Diablo," and "Diablo II: Lord of Destruction." Combs and Crittenden are computer

programmers, Jung is a systems administrator, and Internet Gateway is an Internet

service provider based in St. Peters, Missouri. Jung is also the president, co-owner,

and day-to-day operator of Internet Gateway. 

In January 1997, Blizzard officially launched "Battle.net," a 24-hour onlinegaming service available exclusively to purchasers of its computer games. The

Battle.net service has nearly 12 million active users who spend more that 2.1 million

hours online per day. Blizzard holds valid copyright registrations covering Battle.net

and each of its computer games at issue in this litigation. Battle.net is a free service

that allows owners of Blizzard games to play each other on their personal computers

via the Internet. Battle.net mode allows users to create and join multi-player games

that can be accessed across the Internet, to chat with other potential players, to record

wins and losses and save advancements in an individual password-protected game

account, and to participate with others in tournament play featuring elimination

rounds.1

 Players can set up private "chat channels" and private games on Battle.net

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
or by directly connecting two computers together with cables. The features and

functions of Battle.net mode, however, cannot be accessed when players are

connected through those means. 

2

The user of the game must input the CD Key into his or her computer when

installing the game, and it is subsequently stored on the computer for use in logging

on to Battle.net. This is part of an effort to prohibit use of unauthorized or pirated

copies of Blizzard games with Battle.net. 

3

First, the game and the Battle.net server exchange random numbers (one

provided by the game and one provided by the server). The game then takes the

random numbers, as well as information from the CD Key, and calculates an

encrypted alphanumeric sequence that is sent to the Battle.net server. The game

performs this encryption to prevent individuals from stealing the game's CD Key

when it is transmitted over the Internet. The Battle.net server receives the

alphanumeric sequence sent by the game, along with other information sent by the

game, and uses this data to determine whether the CD Key information sent by the

-4-

to allow players to determine with whom they wish to interact online. These

Battle.net mode features are only accessible from within the games.

Like most computer software, Blizzard's games can be easily copied and

distributed over the Internet. Blizzard has taken steps to avoid piracy by designing

Battle.net to restrict access and use of the Battle.net mode feature of the game. Each

time a user logs onto Battle.net, a Battle.net server examines the user's version of the

game software. If a Blizzard game does not have the latest software upgrades and

fixes, the Battle.net service updates the customer's game before allowing the game to

play in Battle.net mode.

With the exception of "Diablo," each authorized version of a Blizzard game

comes with a "CD Key." A CD Key is a unique sequence of alphanumeric characters

printed on a sticker attached to the case in which the CD-ROM was packaged.2

 To log

on to Battle.net and access Battle.net mode, the game initiates an authentication

sequence or "secret handshake" between the game and the Battle.net server.3

 In order

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
game is valid. If the CD Key information is valid, the Battle.net server will determine

whether the same CD Key is already being used by another game that is currently

logged on to that Battle.net server gateway, which includes the eastern and western

United States, Europe, and Asia. If the CD Key is both valid and not currently being

used by other players on the same Battle.net gateway, the Battle.net server sends a

signal to the game that allows the game to enter the Battle.net mode and use the

Battle.net gaming services. The Blizzard game waits for this signal before entering

Battle.net mode. Battle.net uses an encryption algorithm for this process based on a

common encryption algorithm. The standard version of this algorithm was released

by the United States government.

4

The EULA contains the following language: 

YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY READ THE FOLLOWING END USER

LICENSE AGREEMENT BEFORE INSTALLING THIS SOFTWARE

PROGRAM. BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING

THE SOFTWARE PROGRAM YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY

THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO

THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE

UNUSED SOFTWARE PROGRAM TO THE PLACE OF PURCHASE

OR CONTACT BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT CUSTOMER

SERVICE . . . FOR A FULL REFUND OF THE PURCHASE PRICE

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE. 

This software program (the "Program"), any printed materials, any online or electronic documentation, and any and all copies and derivative

works of such software program and materials are the copyrighted work

of Blizzard Entertainment.

. . . .

Subject to that Grant of Licence hereinabove, you may not, in whole or

in part, copy, photocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer, derive

source code, modify, disassemble, decompile, create derivative works

-5-

to play the Blizzard game contained on a CD-ROM, a user must first install the game

onto a computer and agree to the terms of the End User Licence Agreement

("EULA") 4 and Terms of Use ("TOU"), 5 both of which

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
based on the Program, or remove any proprietary notices or labels on the

Program without the prior consent, in writing, of Blizzard.

(Emphasis added.)

5

First-time users of Battle.net are shown the terms of the TOU after a user has

installed a Blizzard game and logs onto Battle.net for the first time to play with a

purchased Blizzard game product. The TOU states: 

Battle.net(R) ("Battle.net") is the copyrighted work of Blizzard

Entertainment(R) ("Blizzard") or its suppliers. All use of Battle.net is

governed by the terms of use provided below ("Battle.net Terms of

Use"). Battle.net is provided "as is" solely for use by end users of

Blizzard software products according to the terms of conditions

contained herein. Any use of Battle.net not in accordance with the terms

of the Battle.net Terms of Use is expressly prohibited.

. . . .

Blizzard hereby grants, and by using Battle.net you thereby accept, a

limited, personal, non-exclusive license and right to use Battle.net using

either a home, work, or portable computer.

. . . .

You are entitled to use Battle.net for your own personal use, but you

shall not be entitled to[:]

(i) sell or grant a security interest in or transfer reproductions of

Battle.net to other parties in any way, nor to rent, lease, or license

Battle.net to others without the prior written consent of Blizzard; 

(ii) copy, photocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer, modify,

disassemble, or de-compile [sic] in whole or in part any Battle.net

software; 

(iii) create derivative works based on Battle.net; 

(iv) host or provide matchmaking services for any Blizzard software

programs or emulate or redirect the communication protocols used by

Blizzard as part of Battle.net, through protocol emulation, runneling,

modifying, or adding components to the Program, use of a utility

program, or any other technique now known or hereafter developed for

-6-

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
any purpose, including, but not limited to, network play over the

Internet, network play utilizing commercial or non-commercial gaming

networks, or as part of content aggregation networks without the prior

written consent of Blizzard or exploit Battle.net or any of its parts for

any commercial purpose, including but not limited to, use at a location

such as a cyber café, arcade, or other location where users are charged

a fee, whether hourly or otherwise to use Battle.net; 

(v) use any third-party software to modify Battle.net to change game

play, including, but not limited to cheats and/or hacks; 

(vi) use Blizzard's intellectual property rights contained in Battle.net to

create or provide any other means through which Blizzard entertainment

software products, including, but not limited to, StarCraft, StarCraft:

Brood War, Diablo, Diablo II, Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, Warcraft II:

Tides of Darkness, Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal, Warcraft II:

Battle.net Edition, and Warcraft II may be played by others, including,

but not limited to, server emulators.

(Emphasis added.)

-7-

prohibit reverse engineering. At the end of both the EULA and TOU, Blizzard

includes a button with the text, "I Agree" in it, which the user must select in order to

proceed with the installation. Users are also required to enter a name and the CD Key

during installation of Battle.net and Blizzard games.

The outside packaging of all Blizzard games, except for Diablo, contains a

statement that use of the game is subject to the EULA and that use of Battle.net is

subject to the terms of the TOU. The terms of neither the EULA nor the TOU appear

on the outside packaging. If the user does not agree to these terms, the game may be

returned for a full refund of the purchase price within thirty (30) days of the original

purchase. Combs, Crittenden, and Jung installed Blizzard games and agreed to the

terms of the EULA. Crittenden and Jung logged onto Battle.net and agreed to the

TOU. 

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
6

Blizzard has also received complaints about user profanity and users who win

games by modifying Blizzard's software ("client hacks"). In response, Blizzard has

added additional server capacity, banned cheaters, and provided for private channels

and games. 

-8-

The users of Battle.net have occasionally experienced difficulties with the

service.6

 To address their frustrations with Battle.net, a group of non-profit volunteer

game hobbyists, programmers, and other individuals formed a group called the "bnetd

project." The bnetd project developed a program called the "bnetd.org server" that

emulates the Battle.net service and permits users to play online without use of

Battle.net. The bnetd project is a volunteer effort and the project has always offered

the bnetd program for free to anyone. Combs, Crittenden, and Jung were lead

developers for the bnetd project. 

The bnetd project was organized and managed over the Internet through a

website, www.bnetd.org, that was made available to the public through equipment

provided by Internet Gateway. The bnetd.org emulator provides a server that allows

gamers unable or unwilling to connect to Battle.net to experience the multi-player

features of Blizzard's games. The bnetd.org emulator also provides matchmaking

services for users of Blizzard games who want to play those games in a multi-player

environment without using Battle.net. Bnetd.org attempted to mirror all of the uservisible features of Battle.net, including online discussion forums and information

about the bnetd project, as well as access to the program's computer code for others

to copy and modify. 

To serve as a functional alternative to Battle.net, bnetd.org had to be

compatible with Blizzard's software. In particular, compatibility required that

bnetd.org speak the same protocol language that the Battle.net speaks. By speaking

the same protocol language, the bnetd programs would be interoperable with Blizzard

games. Once game play starts, a user perceives no difference between Battle.net and

the bnetd.org. 

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
-9-

By necessity, Appellants used reverse engineering to learn Blizzard's protocol

language and to ensure that bnetd.org worked with Blizzard games. Combs used

reverse engineering to develop the bnetd.org server, including a program called

"tcpdump" to log communications between Blizzard games and the Battle.net server.

Crittenden used reverse engineering to develop the bnetd.org server, including using

a program called "Nextray." Crittenden also used a program called "ripper" to take

Blizzard client files that were compiled together in one file and break them into their

component parts. Crittenden used the ripper program to determine how Blizzard

games displayed ad banners so that bnetd.org could display ad banners to users in the

format that Blizzard uses on the Battle.net service. Combs tried to disassemble a

Blizzard game to figure out how to implement a feature that allowed bnetd.org to

protect the password that a user enters when creating an account in Battle.net mode.

Crittenden made an unauthorized copy of a Blizzard game in order to test the

interoperability of the bnetd.org server with multiple games.

Blizzard designed its games to connect only to Battle.net servers. To enable a

Blizzard game to connect to a bnetd.org server instead of a Battle.net server, bnetd

had to modify the computer file that contained the Internet address of the Battle.net

servers. As part of the bnetd project, Combs participated in the development of a

utility program called "BNS" to allow Blizzard games to connect to bnetd.org servers

more easily. Through the BNS program, the game sends the bnetd.org server

information about its CD Key. An individual can thus play one of the Blizzard games

at issue over the Internet via bnetd.org rather than Battle.net. According to Blizzard,

the EULAs and TOUs prohibit this activity.

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
7

The bnetd.org server program is highly configurable, which means that much

of the operation of the server is under the control of the administrator running the

server. The bnetd.org server allows users to become server administrators and not just

players on another server, giving them the ability to allow or deny access to various

features of bnetd.org or to modify the computer code of the bnetd.org server. This

allows the administrator of bnetd.org to create a gaming environment with different

options from those presented to Battle.net users. In contrast, Battle.net is operated

solely by Blizzard.

-10-

Bnetd.org has important operational differences from Battle.net.7

 When

bnetd.org receives the CD Key information, unlike Battle.net, it does not determine

whether the CD Key is valid or currently in use by another player. The bnetd.org

server computer code always sends the game an "okay" reply regardless of whether

the CD Key is valid or currently in use by another player. The bnetd.org emulator

always allows the Blizzard games to access Battle.net mode features even if the user

does not have a valid or unique CD Key. Blizzard did not disclose the methods it used

to generate CD Keys or to confirm the validity of CD Keys.

Combs, Crittenden, and Jung used Blizzard games to log into bnetd.org.

Crittenden was aware that unauthorized versions of Blizzard games were played on

bnetd.org. Jung knew that the bnetd.org emulator did not require that Blizzard games

provide valid CD Keys. Combs suspected that the bnetd.org emulator would not

know the difference between a real game and a pirated game. Combs and Crittenden

either sent portions of the bnetd software to Jung to place on the www.bnetd.org

website for download or put the software on the website themselves. Combs made the

bnetd software available on his website located at www.cs.nmsu.edu/~rcombs/sc/.

Also distributed was the BNS utility program which allowed Blizzard games to

connect to bnetd.org. The source code was made available as an "open source"

application, meaning that others were free to copy the source code and distribute it

with or without modifications. Because the bnetd.org source code was freely

available, others developed additional Battle.net emulators based on the bnetd.org

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
8

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-11-

source code. Binary versions of the bnetd.org were distributed which made it more

convenient for users to set up and access the emulator program. Internet Gateway has

donated space on its computers for use by the bnetd project. Internet Gateway also

hosted a bnetd.org server that anyone on the Internet could access and use to play

Blizzard games in Battle.net mode.

B. Procedural Background

Blizzard and Vivendi brought suit in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Missouri. The second amended complaint alleged copyright

infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501; circumvention of copyright protection

systems and trafficking in circumvention technology in violation of 17 U.S.C. §

1201(a); federal trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); federal

false designation of origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); common law

trademark infringement and unfair competition claims; and breach of the EULA and

TOU. Appellants counterclaimed, requesting declaratory relief as to non-infringement

under 17 U.S.C. § 501, non-circumvention of copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a),

the unconstitutionality of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a), and unenforceability of Blizzard's

EULA and TOU.

The district court8

 entered a consent decree and permanent injunction which

constituted the full and complete relief on the claims of copyright infringement,

federal trademark infringement, federal false designation, and common-law trademark

and infringement. The consent decree also provided complete relief on the

counterclaim for declaratory judgment for non-infringement and unconstitutionality

of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a). The consent decree resolved all claims except for the claims

of circumvention of copyright protection systems and trafficking in circumvention

technology under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a), breach of the EULA and TOU, and the

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
-12-

counterclaims for declaratory relief for non-circumvention and unenforceability of the

EULA and TOU. 

Both sides motioned for summary judgment. The district court granted

summary judgment in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi and determined that: (1)

Blizzard's software end-user license and terms of usage agreements were enforceable

contracts; (2) Appellants waived any "fair use" defense; (3) the agreements did not

constitute misuse of copyright; and (4) Appellants violated the DMCA's anticircumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA. Appellants brought this

appeal, disputing violations of the DMCA, and now argue that the state breach-ofcontract claims were preempted by federal copyright law.

II. Discussion

We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, applying the

same standard as the district court and may affirm on grounds supported by the

record. Bechtold v. City of Rosemount, 104 F.3d 1062, 1068 (8th Cir. 1997).

Summary judgment is appropriate where the record shows that no genuine issue as

to any material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. Dorsey v. Pinnacle Automation Co., 278 F.3d 830, 834 (8th Cir. 2002).

A plaintiff may not merely point to unsupported self-serving allegations, but must

substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding

in the plaintiff's favor. Wilson v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 62 F.3d 237, 241 (8th Cir.

1995). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's

position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could

reasonably find for the plaintiff." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252

(1986). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the

governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Id. at 248.

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
9

In their briefs, Appellants argued that the TOU and EULA were statutorily

preempted by the Copyright Act and/or impermissibly conflicted with the fair use

defense contained in the Copyright Act. However, at oral argument, Appellants

conceded that the only remaining issue was whether the breach of contract claims

conflicted with the interoperability exception contained in the DMCA. 

-13-

A. Preemption

The Copyright Act provides the exclusive source of protection for "all legal

and equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the

general scope of copyright as specified by . . . [§] 106" of the Copyright Act. See 17

U.S.C. § 301(a). The Copyright Act preempts state laws that attempt to protect rights

exclusively protected by federal law. See Nat'l Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer

Assocs. Intern., Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 428 (8th Cir. 1993). Conversely, the Copyright

Act does not preempt state law from enforcing non-equivalent legal or equitable

rights. Id. A state cause of action is statutorily or expressly preempted if: (1) the work

at issue is within the subject matter of copyright as defined in §§ 102 and 103 of the

Copyright Act, and (2) the state-law-created right is equivalent to any of the exclusive

rights within the general scope of copyright as specified in § 106. Id. at 428–29

(citing Harper and Row Pub., Inc. v. Nation Enter., 723 F.2d 195, 200 (2d Cir.

1983)). Express preemption is no longer at issue in this case.9

This case concerns conflict preemption. Conflict preemption applies when

there is no express preemption but (1) it is impossible to comply with both the state

and federal law or when (2) the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment

and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Pacific Gas & Elec.

Co. v. Energy Res. Conservation and Dev. Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190, 204 (1983); Jones

v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977). Appellants, relying upon Vault v.

Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 268–70 (5th Cir. 1988), argue that the federal

Copyright Act preempts Blizzard's state law breach-of-contract claims. We disagree.

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
-14-

In Vault, plaintiffs challenged the Louisiana Software License Enforcement

Act, which permitted a software producer to impose contractual terms upon software

purchasers provided that the terms were set forth in a license agreement comporting

with the statute. Id. at 268."Enforceable terms [under the Louisiana statute] include

the prohibition of: (1) any copying of the program for any purpose; and (2) modifying

and/or adapting the program in any way, including adaptation by reverse engineering,

decompilation or disassembly." Id. at 269 (citation omitted). The Louisiana statute

defined reverse engineering, decompiling or disassembling as "any process by which

computer software is converted from one form to another form which is more readily

understandable to human beings, including without limitation any decoding or

decrypting of any computer program which has been encoded or encrypted in any

manner." Id. (citation omitted). The Fifth Circuit held that the Louisiana statute

conflicted with the rights of computer program owners under the Copyright Act,

specifically 17 U.S.C. § 117, which permits a computer program owner to make an

adaptation of a program provided that the adaption is either created as an essential

step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine or is

for archival purpose only. Id. at 270. 

Unlike in Vault, the state law at issue here neither conflicts with the

interoperability exception under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(f) nor restricts rights given under

federal law. Appellants contractually accepted restrictions on their ability to reverse

engineer by their agreement to the terms of the TOU and EULA. "[P]rivate parties are

free to contractually forego the limited ability to reverse engineer a software product

under the exemptions of the Copyright Act[,]" Bowers v. Baystate Techs, Inc., 320

F.3d 1317, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and "a state can permit parties to contract away

a fair use defense or to agree not to engage in uses of copyrighted material that are

permitted by the copyright law if the contract is freely negotiated." Id. at 1337 (Dyk,

J., dissenting). See also Nat'l Car Rental Sys., Inc., 991 F.2d at 434 (holding that the

Copyright Act does not preempt a breach of contract action based on prohibited use

of software contained in a license agreement). While Bowers and Nat'l Car Rental

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
10Even before the treaty, Congress considered the problems posed by copyright

infringement in the digital age. Hearings on the topic have spanned several years. See,

e.g., WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act and Online Copyright Liability

Limitation Act: Hearing on H.R. 2281 and H.R. 2280 Before the Subcomm. on Courts

and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (1997);

NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995: Hearings on H.R. 2441 Before the Subcomm.

on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th

Cong. (1996); NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995: Joint Hearing on H.R. 2441 and

S. 1284 Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House

Comm. on the Judiciary and the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. (1995);

H.R.Rep. No. 105-551 (1998); S.Rep. No. 105-190 (1998). This legislative effort

resulted in the DMCA.

-15-

were express preemption cases rather than conflict preemption, their reasoning

applies here with equal force. By signing the TOUs and EULAs, Appellants expressly

relinquished their rights to reverse engineer. Summary judgment on this issue was

properly granted in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi.

B. DMCA Claims and Interoperability Exception

Congress enacted the DMCA in 1998 to implement the World Intellectual

Property Organization Copyright Treaty ("WIPO Treaty"). WIPO requires contracting

nations to "provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the

circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in

connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention

and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the

authors concerned or permitted by law." WIPO Treaty, Apr. 12, 1997, art. 11, S.

Treaty Doc. No. 105-17 (1997), available at 1997 WL 447232.10 The DMCA contains

three provisions targeted at the circumvention of technological protections. 

The first is § 1201(a)(1), the anti-circumvention provision. This provision

prohibits a person from "circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively

controls access to a work protected under [Title 17, governing copyright]." The

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
-16-

Librarian of Congress is required to promulgate regulations every three years

exempting from this subsection individuals who would otherwise be "adversely

affected" in "their ability to make noninfringing uses." 17 U.S.C. §

1201(a)(1)(B)–(E). Section 1201(a)(1) differs from the second and third provisions

in that it targets the use of a circumvention technology, not the trafficking in such a

technology.

The second and third provisions are §§ 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1), the "antitrafficking provisions." These sections are similar, except that § 1201(a)(2) covers

those who traffic in technology that can circumvent "a technological measure that

effectively controls access to a work protected under" Title 17, whereas § 1201(b)(1)

covers those who traffic in technology that can circumvent "protection afforded by

a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under"

Title 17. 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(2) & (b)(1). (Emphases added.) In other words,

although both sections prohibit trafficking in a circumvention technology, the focus

of § 1201(a)(2) is circumvention of technologies designed to prevent access to a

work, and the focus of § 1201(b)(1) is circumvention of technologies designed to

permit access to a work but prevent copying of the work or some other act that

infringes a copyright. See S.Rep. No. 105-190, at 11-12 (1998).

The district court determined that Appellants's reverse engineering violated §

1201(a)(1) as well as § 1201(a)(2). We agree.

1. Anti-Circumvention Violation

Section 1201(a)(1) provides that "[n]o person shall circumvent a technological

measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." The term

"circumvent a technological measure" "means to descramble a scrambled work, to

decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or

impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." 17

U.S.C. § 1201(3)(A). "Effectively controls access to a work" means that the measure,

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
-17-

in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a

process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the

work. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(3)(B). 

 Blizzard games, through Battle.net, employed a technological measure, a

software "secret handshake" (CD key), to control access to its copyrighted games.

The bnetd.org emulator developed by Appellants allowed the Blizzard game to access

Battle.net mode features without a valid or unique CD key. As a result, unauthorized

copies of the Blizzard games were played on bnetd.org servers. After Appellants

distributed the bnetd program, others developed additional Battle.net emulators based

on the bnetd source code. Appellants's distribution of binary versions of the bnetd

program facilitated set up and access to the emulator program. 

Relying on Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522

(6th Cir. 2004), Appellants argue that Battle.net mode is a strictly functional process

that lacks creative expression, and thus DMCA protections do not apply. Lexmark

Int'l, Inc., concerned two computer programs: the first was known as the "Toner

Loading Program" and the second was known as the "Printer Engine Program." Id.

at 528. DMCA anti-circumvention claims were brought after Lexmark's

authentication sequence contained in its printer cartridges were allegedly

circumvented. Id. at 528–29. The district court in that case held that Lexmark's

authentication sequence effectively controlled access to the programs because it

controlled the consumers' ability to make use of those programs. Id. at 546. The Sixth

Circuit reversed, holding that it was not Lexmark's authentication sequence that

controlled access to the programs, but the purchase of a Lexmark printer that allowed

access to the program. Id. "No security device, in other words, protects access to the

. . . program and no security device accordingly must be circumvented to obtain

access to that program code." Id. at 547. 

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
-18-

Here, Battle.net's control measure was not freely available. Appellants could

not have obtained a copy of Battle.net or made use of the literal elements of Battle.net

mode without acts of reverse engineering, which allowed for a circumvention of

Battle.net and Battle.net mode. Unlike in Lexmark Int'l, Inc., Battle.net mode codes

were not accessible by simply purchasing a Blizzard game or logging onto Battle.net.,

nor could data from the program be translated into readable source code after which

copies were freely available without some type of circumvention. Appellants misread

Lexmark Int'l, Inc. and we are unpersuaded that summary judgment on the anticircumvention violations was improperly granted in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi.

2. Anti-trafficking Violations

Section 1201(a)(2) provides that: 

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or

otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component,

or part thereof, that . . . is primarily designed or produced for the

purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively

controls access to a work protected under this title; . . . has only limited

commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a

technological measure that effectively controls access to a work

protected under this title; or . . . is marketed by that person or another

acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use

in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls

access to a work protected under this title.

17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2). The bnetd.org emulator had limited commercial purpose

because its sole purpose was to avoid the limitations of Battle.net. There is no

genuine issue of material fact that Appellants designed and developed the bnetd.org

server and emulator for the purpose of circumventing Blizzard's technological

measures controlling access to Battle.net and the Blizzard games. Summary judgment

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
-19-

was properly granted in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi on the anti-trafficking

violations.

3. Interoperability Exception

The DMCA contains several exceptions, including one for individuals using

circumvention technology "for the sole purpose" of trying to achieve

"interoperability" of computer programs through reverse engineering. See 17 U.S.C.

§ 1201(f). Subsection (f)(4) defines interoperability as "the ability of computer

programs to exchange information, and such programs mutually to use the

information which has been exchanged." 17 U.S.C. § 1201(f)(4). Appellants argue

that the interoperability exception applies to any alleged infringement of Blizzard

games and Battle.net. To successfully prove the interoperability defense under §

1201(f), Appellants must show: (1) they lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of

a computer program; (2) the information gathered as a result of the reverse

engineering was not previously readily available to the person engaging in the

circumvention; (3) the sole purpose of the reverse engineering was to identify and

analyze those elements of the program that were necessary to achieve interoperability

of an independently created computer program with other programs; and (4) the

alleged circumvention did not constitute infringement. See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(f).

Appellants's circumvention in this case constitutes infringement. As detailed

earlier, Blizzard's secret handshake between Blizzard games and Battle.net effectively

controlled access to Battle.net mode within its games. The purpose of the bnetd.org

project was to provide matchmaking services for users of Blizzard games who wanted

to play in a multi-player environment without using Battle.net. The bnetd.org

emulator enabled users of Blizzard games to access Battle.net mode features without

a valid or unique CD key to enter Battle.net. The bnetd.org emulator did not

determine whether the CD key was valid or currently in use by another player. As a

result, unauthorized copies of the Blizzard games were freely played on bnetd.org

servers. Appellants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064
-20-

applicability of the interoperability exception. The district court properly granted

summary judgment in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi on the interoperability exception.

Summary judgment in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3654 Page: 20 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947064