Blizzard Entertainment, the maker of the infamously addictive online gaming universe, The World of Warcraft, is suing a man who created a Bot, known as the MMO Glider, which can automate gameplay in the program. According to the BBC, Blizzard has accused the MMO Glider program of violating WoW’s terms of service disrupting gameplay for actual human users. The two parties disagree over whether the software infringes on the copyright of The World of Warcraft. While Michael Donnelly, creator of the MMO Glider, maintains that no copy of the game code is ever made by his Bot, Blizzard Entertainment contends that the Bot copies the game into RAM to avoid detection.

The newly elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, Yusuf Raza Gillani, has already taken steps to liberalize the government’s treatment of Pakistan’s lawyers and judges, despite the fact that he has not yet been sworn into power. Gillani, a member of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), was a strong supporter of Benazir Bhutto and is a leader in the political opposition to President Pervez Musharraf.

In his acceptance speech following his nomination, Gillani stated his intention to immediately free the legal professionals and political prisoners that Musharraf had placed under house arrest after attempts to declare his presidency unconstitutional. Pakistani officials moved quickly to release the judges, including former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, beginning Gillani’s political program before he has even taken office.

Gillani also plans to facilitate a UN investigation into the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, whose family contends that Musharraf’s administration had a hand in her death.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled this week to dismiss the appeal (Fastcase users click for case) of Peter Damon, a former sergeant in the U.S. Army who had sued Michael Moore for libel after Moore used an interview that Damon gave to NBC in the anti-war documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Damon argued that the way in which Moore used the interview, in which Damon discussed his Iraq war injuries and treatment at Walter Reed Medical Center, portrayed him as against the war and critical of the Commander in Chief.

Typically, courts deciding libel suits must judge whether the statement in question could lead “a reasonable [viewer] to conclude that it conveyed a defamatory meaning.” But, Damon argued, as a pro-war veteran active in the armed forces community, the definition of a “reasonable viewer” must be adapted to his personal surroundings.

Nevertheless, the court said that in the context of how his interview was used:

“. . . there is no way for a reasonable viewer to construe Damon as supporting Moore’s ‘agenda.’ Neither may it be reasonably construed as a statement promoting disloyalty or denouncing either the Commander-in-Chief or the medical treatment received by veterans.”

Click for the WSJ Law Blog Story

If Damon gave the interview and Michael Moore had permission from NBC to use the footage, should Damon have a cause of action for what he perceives as distortion of his words? Does libel really cover this cause of action, or is another legal theory better suited to this case?

Feel free to post alternatives in the comments.