Blizzard owns a valid copyright in the game client software, Blizzard has granted a limited license for WoW players to use the software, use of the software with Glider falls outside the scope of the license established in section 4 of the TOU, use of Glider includes copying to RAM within the meaning of section 106 of the Copyright Act, users of WoW and Glider are not entitled to a section 117 defense, and Glider users therefore infringe Blizzard's copyright. MDY does not dispute that the other requirements for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement are met, nor has MDY established a misuse defense. The Court accordingly will grant summary judgment in favor of Blizzard with respect to liability on the contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims in Counts II and III.

Because the other requirements for tortious interference have been satisfied, the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of Blizzard with respect to MDY's liability on this claim.

Although Blizzard contends that scan.dll and the resident software prevent a user from accessing the non-literal elements of the game, as noted above, Blizzard and MDY have failed to address this aspect of the case in their statements of fact. Because there appears to be a factual dispute with respect to the extent to which Blizzard's protective software protects against the copying of software code to RAM, and because the parties have not submitted sufficient facts from which the Court can decide whether these protective measures protect Blizzard's rights in the non-literal elements of the game, summary judgment on this claim will be denied.

The act that violates the EULA and TOU and takes Glider users outside the scope of Blizzard's limited license is the use of Glider to play WoW, and the use of Glider to play WoW necessarily includes copying the game client software to RAM. Thus, the act that exceeds the scope of the license and the act that violates Blizzard's copyright are the same.