9th-circuit-court-of-appeals
Latest
Supreme Court delegates Brown v. EMA expenses ruling to Ninth Circuit
Legal representation ain't cheap, especially when your squad of top-notch lawyers are defending your industry/community's constitutional rights of expression. Apparently, setting legal precedent racks up a $1.4 million tab, and the Entertainment Merchants Association has requested that the bill be covered by the state of California, since they lost and everything. Now that all the fun important history making stuff is over, though, it seems the Supreme Court has better things to do with its time than figure out whose millions of dollars belong to which lawyers. As a result, the task of approving/denying the EMA's request has been delegated to the Ninth Circuit Court. Now that we think about it, does California even have $1.4 million to lose at this point? Call us crazy, but dine-and-dashing on the Supreme Court probably isn't possible.
LGJ: Are game resales at risk?
Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: A new decision out of the 9th Circuit court of appeals is potentially bad news for GameStop, eBay, gamers and pretty much anyone who buys software. The full decision in Vernor v. Autodesk is available here [PDF], but this column should provide a pretty good summary and analysis of the case, which deals primarily with a legal concept called the "first-sale doctrine." The doctrine, which falls under copyright law, is what allows libraries to lend books, DVDs, CDs, etc., and what allows for the concept of resale. The first-sale doctrine was added to the Copyright Act of 1976 after being introduced in case law in 1908. In short, the doctrine lets you, as the purchaser of a legal copy of a book, movie, game, or other copyrighted work, resell or give away that legal copy to subsequent owners without permission from the copyright holder. It doesn't give you any rights to the work protected by the copyright, or the ability to otherwise violate the copyright by making copies of the work; it only removes the copyright holder's control over legal, physical copies of the work after they are first sold to a consumer. In other words, GameStop's business owes everything to this doctrine.
