copyright infringement
Latest
Blizzard files lawsuit against private server
We've talked about private servers on the site here before, but in case you haven't heard the term: they're unofficial servers, very much against WoW's Terms of Use, that are run by companies other than Blizzard. They're shady as get out -- some make you pay (and these are not people you'd ever want to give any credit card information to), some will delete or change characters on a regular basis, and many times they're created just so whoever's running them can mess around with GM powers, and cheat with any items they want. So you can see why Blizzard would want them shut down, and that's exactly what they're trying to do with this lawsuit filed in the California Central District Court against a company called "Scapegaming" that runs at least one private WoW server (and they've apparently been running microtransactions in-game -- selling in-game items for "donations" of money). The law firm working for Blizzard, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, also worked on the "Bnetd" case, which was another piece of unofficial server software that allowed players to play off of Blizzard's Battle.net setup. The complaint lists copyright infringement as the cause, which means they're probably using the same argument targeted at other private servers in the past. We'll keep an eye on this, but it's very likely Blizzard will win this one unopposed, and Scapegaming (or at least just their WoW server) will get shut down for good. Thanks, Phenom!
Copyright infringement bans upheld, or repealed?
Last week, as you might recall, we covered a tale that really caught people's interests, and warmed the hearts of many a Second Life content-creator; That Linden Lab had run a bit of a sting, which neatly suckered a bunch of copyright infringers, resulting in their banning. In the wake of that, a number of readers (indeed quite a lot of you) wrote in to tell us that you had heard that the bans of most or all of the those involved had been reversed within a day or so. While people do indeed circulate all manner of rumors, that would certainly be quite an interesting turn of events, so we got some legwork done to see if we could get to the bottom of it.
LGJ: 3D Dot Game Infringement
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: If you're like me, then you've likely been following Joystiq's coverage of 3D Dot Game Heroes and thinking "I really, really hope this gets translated and released in the US." After all, if you're a gamer like me then you love the idea of a 3D homage to the 2D games you grew up with. Of course, it's less likely that you're a lawyer like me, and so it's also less likely that you read through the comments and had an immediate reaction to the countless cries of copyright infringement in the game. Those repetitive, vocal cries have brought me to this column, which aims to answer the big question: is 3D Dot Game Heroes copyright infringement? Let me start off by saying the analysis here is just my opinion, and a court could always find otherwise. Where this discussion really needs to start is what elements seem to be infringing. Now would be a good time to view the trailer or some screenshots, if you haven't yet. The main complaints I've heard, and can see from the trailer, are the environments (both overworld and dungeon) bear a striking resemblance to the Zelda universe (The Legend of Zelda and Link to the Past, specifically), while the hero characters bear a striking resemblance to those from the Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior past. Some of the monsters also bear quite a resemblance to Zelda baddies. And, of course, the music is certainly inspired by classic Zelda music. So, case closed, right? Well, no, that's not how copyright infringement works.
Second Life content creators warn about scam site
Numerous Second Life content creators are warning their clientele that the Web-site virtualget.net (which has been apparently been operating for a couple of months now) is a credit-card harvesting scam. Whether that's correct or not, the site appears to be using the product images and product descriptions and trademarks of numerous Second Life content creators without their permission. The original images and text appear on Linden Lab's Xstreet SL virtual goods shopping Web-site. Numerous DMCA notices are reportedly being filed by content creators at present. We attempted to contact virtualget.net (anonymously registered in Singapore) for comment, but none of their email addresses appeared to be functional -- One email address was restored to function when the majority of the site was taken down a short time ago, but we received no response. Linden Lab, who has an intellectual property stake in the matter, was not available for comment either. Users of Kaspersky protection software found the Web-site marked as a phishing site several hours ago, presumably based on user reports. Update: The operation seems to have disabled access to much of the site in the wake of numerous DMCA notices filed by content-creators. Are you a part of the most widely-known collaborative virtual environment or keeping a close eye on it? Massively's Second Life coverage keeps you in the loop.
Linden Lab rounds up and ejects a bunch of copyright infringers
Now, we must admit that we find this one both amusing and appropriate. In short, Linden Lab has sent 50 or more Second Life users who were using the after-market NeilLife viewer on the spank-bus to ban-town. Not just for using the viewer, but for copying content that they shouldn't ought to have. What's clever is how Linden Lab caught and detected them.
LGJ: Fan sequel? Still not legal.
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: Lots of news has been popping up lately about fan-made sequels to some of the most beloved games of bygone days, Chrono Trigger and Star Fox being just two of the more notable examples. As most of you have likely noticed, these games follow a pretty predictable pattern: a bunch of fans put in a ton of work on a sequel to their favorite game, those fans tell other fans until that project ends up getting noticed by the blog-o-sphere, and then the lawyers of the original game maker eventually squash the project to an often loud outcry from the fan community. It's the 21st century re-telling of the fan fiction legal drama, and when it comes to copyright law, the story really hasn't changed.This all relates back to those rights that make up copyright, which we've discussed on a number of occasions in this very column. In fact, the primary right is the control over derivative works, the very same right that is often cited in the machinima realm. In short, the holder of a copyright has the right to control works based on the work protected by copyright, such as sequels and prequels. That would seemingly address all fan sequels, correct? If the issue were that cut and dry, I likely wouldn't be taking the time to write a column on it.
LGJ: If 24 songs = $1.9 million, then 1 game = ?
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: Maybe you heard about the verdict that just came out in one of the music file-sharing cases: $1.9 million for 24 songs. So, what does this have to do with gaming? More than you would probably imagine, since this gets to the root of copyright and statutory damages. In fact, EFF legal scholar Fred von Lohmann posted an interesting piece on whether the penalty is even Constitutional. Whether this is the suit that breaks the back of statutory damages has yet to be seen, but it's something that any media producer or consumer should be keeping an eye on.Of course, much of that may be getting ahead of the issue of explaining this decision in greater depth so that everyone can understand what the actual problem is. We've talked about copyright infringement and piracy at length on LGJ, and the issue here is what comes after someone is found to have infringed on a copyrighted work: damages. Specifically, we're talking about statutory damages, which something a lot of people may not be very familiar with at all.
[UPDATED] Playtime over for You Play or We Pay
In what seems to be an inevitable move, Blizzard has ordered the controversial and too-good-to-be-true services of You Play or We Pay to stop operations. According to their website, Blizzard found YPOWP's offering to be a violation of their intellectual property rights. You Play or We Pay, which stirred up a bit of controversy and a lot of skepticism when it first launched, aimed to compensate players whenever the World of Warcraft had unscheduled downtime. Essentially, it was insurance for WoW game time.Initially, the site planned to charge for their service but eventually moved to a free model after some mysterious downtime of their own. It was such a novel idea that WoW Insider even interviewed the site's founders, George Tung and Milos Golubovic. It seems that this bizarre saga has at last come to an end, and questions of whether the site was for real or not (did anyone ever get compensation?) will never be answered. [UPDATE: Several readers chimed in to answer that question -- apparently YPOWP sent its members 30-day game cards as compensation for lost play time. This indicates that the service, even after going to the free model, was for real. It also isn't against the TOS. That service was frowned upon by Blizzard legal, though, and YPOWP was taken down because of intellectual property rights issues instead.]
Linden Lab's collective copyright conundrum
Over the last few months, there's been an increasing amount of talk about the modified Second Life viewer being used with Open Life Grid (a third-party virtual environment based on reverse-engineered and open-source systems and protocols). Most of the talk centers around copyright infringement -- or license violations, if you prefer. It's claimed that the operators of Open Life Grid are failing to comply with the source-code licenses (the GPL with FLOSS exceptions) under which the Second Life source code has been made available. Now, while the issue has been reported to Linden Lab's license-infringement hotline, the issue is actually a bit trickier for the Lab than it would first appear. You see, the viewer code contains contributions from a number of third-party contributors, each of which retains their copyright, intellectual property and rights to their contributions under the terms of the contribution agreement. All of whom have the right to commence their own actions.
Microsoft settles Paltalk copyright infringement suit
While we were gearing up for an epic, The Firm-esque judicial showdown, it seems Microsoft has settled the lawsuit filed against it by PalTalk Holdings, who claimed certain components of Xbox Live infringe upon two of their patents. Neither company announced how much Microsoft forked over in the settlement -- we assume it was significantly less than the exorbitant $90 million in damages PalTalk was seeking. While we don't know the particulars of how money changed hands in the settlement, a Microsoft spokesperson confirmed it was an "amicable agreement," so it's pretty safe to assume that hugs were exchanged.[Via CVG] [image]
PalTalk suing Microsoft for $90 million for copyright infringement
Two-and-a-half years ago, online communications company PalTalk announced it would be suing Microsoft for infringing on two of its online gaming patents. PalTalk claimed that Halo's online component and the Xbox and Xbox 360 consoles themselves clearly infringe on technology relating to "controlling interactive applications over multiple computers" which was developed by MPath Interactive, then acquired by PalTalk Holdings for a sum of $200,000.Recently, PalTalk decided to move foward with the case, and is attempting to seek $90 million in damages from Microsoft for the "tens of millions of dollars" the company lost as a result of Xbox Live's online offerings. PalTalk lawyer Max Tribble claimed Microsoft met with MPath to look at their online gaming technology, and "found the technology to be very valuable." Afterwards, they supposedly yoinked it.Microsoft's lawyer, David Pritkin, confirmed the company met with MPath, but decided to "go in a different direction and work with a different company," which he says upset PalTalk, and could be one of the main reasons for the suit. He added that the patents aren't incredibly valuable, and that the $90 million in damages sought by PalTalk is a fairly exorbitant sum. The trial is set to take place in a U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas, with a verdict likely to surface in the coming weeks.
Midway wins Psi-Ops copyright infringement lawsuit
Earlier last year, screenwriter William L. Crawford III sued Midway, claiming they had stolen the plot, characters and designs featured in his 2001 screenplay, titled Psi-Ops, for their 2004 action game ... titled Psi-Ops. We kinda see the similarities therein, and were fairly certain Crawford would leave the courtroom with 1.5 million of Midway's dollars in his pocket.We were wrong. Not only about Crawford's ability to carry $1.5 million in his pants (the logistics of which are, well, impossible), but also about how the presiding judge would rule in the case -- according to Kotaku, federal Judge Florence Marie-Cooper recently decided that there was "minimal evidence supporting a reasonable possibility" that Midway had stolen any ideas from Crawford's screenplay, clearing Midway of the copyright infringement charges. That's $1.5 million that Midway no longer has to worry about paying out. Now, about that other $150 million...[Via Big Download]
Psystar gets countersuit dismissed, case heats up
Yesterday brought about a bit of disappointing news for Mac-clone maker Psystar. Ars Technica is reporting that Psystar's countersuit, which alleged that Apple violated an anti-trust act by tying their operating system to hardware, was thrown out of court. US District Judge William Alsup made the decision, stating that Apple did not, in fact, violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, Clayton Act, or Cartwright Act.AppleInsider notes that crucial to Psystar's claim was the definition of the "Mac OS Market." Judge Alsup agreed with Apple's right to sell their OS to their customers with the understanding that it may only be used with their hardware.Last month, Apple and Psystar were ordered to undergo "private arbitration and mediation" by the court. As far as we know, Apple still has a case against Psystar for violating the shrink wrap license and trademarks. Apple has also alleged copyright infringement.It would appear that Apple has the upper hand at the present time, but it looks like we'll have to wait a bit longer to find out the final verdict.[via Ars Technica]
LGJ: User Content Continued
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: Between Guitar Hero: World Tour and Little Big Planet, user content is king going into this holiday season. Last time on LGJ, we talked about the issue of the rights of the user. This week, I wanted to take the opposite approach and hopefully outline the legal issues that make Microsoft and Sony's lawyers cringe. These are the reasons for the complex terms of use and mildly mysterious disappearances of some content from the sharing servers. While there are a myriad of potential legal theories that could be employed if someone wanted to sue based on user content, I'm going to focus on what I think are the more likely and/or more plausible ones.In case you're still living in a dial-up world and haven't experienced user content, the basics are fairly simple: People who play the game create content and upload it for others to use. In the games I mentioned above, that content is put up on servers for the game maintained either by the network (PSN, Xbox Live) or by the developer/publisher. This content varies by game, but it may be new levels, scenarios, maps, or songs. The content is based on in-game editing tools, and has been really successful in games like Halo 3 with Forge. It can also help develop a community around the game and extend the shelf life of the title.
LittleBigPlanet levels being deleted with no warning or explanation
If you've put countless hours into crafting a level in Media Molecule's uber-customizable platformer, you know how terrifying that headline really is -- LittleBigPlanet forums across the web are erupting with angry amateur level designers whose creations were 'moderated' (see: deleted) without explanation or forewarning. You read that right -- the levels aren't being removed from your list of published, downloadable creations. They are being deleted. Permanently. Forever. Gone.Affected parties have noticed that the moderations have erased levels which mention (to varying degrees) copyrighted IPs. For instance, that remarkable God of War level that everyone probably played during beta? It is no more. The gaggle of Super Mario Bros. reimaginings? Yeah, those are gone too. Our personal favorite -- a level titled "Failure to Launch" was deleted, supposedly for using the title of a 2006 McConnaughey-infused romantic comedy. Sadly, our very own magnum opus also fell beneath the axe -- yes, "Maid in Manhattan" is gone, and no amount of protest will bring it back.Moderators of the engulfed LBP forums have promised to implement a stronger feedback system to explain why levels are disappearing -- though their unwavering stance on copyrighted content has officially been displayed. Our lesson has certainly been learned -- we'll be keeping our rom-com-based creations to ourselves from now on.[Via Kotaku]
LGJ: The PRO-IP Act and Gaming
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: Congress has recently passed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act (the "PRO-IP Act"). While it has not been signed by the President yet, it seems as it's only a matter of time before the Act has the force of law. The PRO-IP Act does three things, generally: 1) it increases the penalties for infringement by expanding what is considered a 'work;' 2) it broadens the ability of the government to permanently seize goods; and 3) it creates an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, a new cabinet position whose sole job is to increase intellectual property enforcement. In short, it's a load of bad news for consumers, but really, it's not that much good news for many intellectual property owners either, as I'll explain. Because this act is so broad and will be applied in so many ways, I'm actually writing two articles about it. Here on Joystiq, I will be covering the PRO-IP Act as it relates to gaming while on Law of the Game, my blog, I've (shameless plug) posted an article discussing the act as it applies to other media. I consider myself to be in a pretty neutral position with respect to weighing the pros and cons of various IP regulations. I'm a consumer, I represent producers, and as a writer, I'm a producer myself. Being in that position, I've always admired the game industry for typically not being in favor of or enforcing the most draconian regulations to their fullest extent. In that respect, many game companies and gamers seem to understand that their relationship is symbiotic. Without one, the other would not be able to function. And with that understanding, the majority of gamers and game producers see the need for some intellectual property protection but also see the need for reasonable protection to balance the interests of the producer and consumer. And in that respect, the PRO-IP Act starts to shift the balance in ways that aren't necessarily desirable for either, but are certainly not desirable to the consumer.
Apple files suit against Psystar for copyright infringement, mellow-harshing
C'mon now -- you saw this one coming down the road, didn't you? Apple has officially taken legal action against Mac clone-maker Psystar, according to court documents. On July 3rd, the Cupertino giant filed suit in the federal district court of northern California alleging violations against its shrink wrap license, trademarks, and copyright infringement. Clearly this doesn't look real promising for the Florida-based cloner, but we're confident they'll handle this situation with the tact and aplomb we've come to expect from them. Which is none.Read - Confirmed: Apple files suit against PsystarRead - Apple goes after clone maker Psystar[Thanks, ginger.al]
Blizzard wins lawsuit against bot makers
You may recall the long running Blizzard vs. MDY battle from various reports here on WoW Insider. In short, Blizzard sued MDY, the makers of the MMOGlider bot (formerly the WOWGlider bot), claiming that the bot violated Blizzard copyright by writing portions of the game to RAM in order to work (since you only have a license to run the game files, and do not actually own them, unauthorized copies are against the EULA). They also claimed that the bot tortiously interfered with Blizzard's customer base. MDY sued them right back, claiming they had every right to sell and distribute their bots. MDY received a crushing blow yesterday as the court ruled against them, Virtually Blind reports, declaring them guilty of copyright infringement and tortious interference (Apparently, bots stealing your kills is now a legal issue, which is sort of cool). The ramifications of this decision are still being discussed in various corners of the net and legal world.
Song used in GameCube commercial spurs lawsuit
Another day, another lawsuit.This time, the big N is the one under the legal knife -- or was, since the plaintiff dropped the case a week after filing it for currently unknown reasons. Filed on June 12th and dropped on June 18th, Morgan Creek Productions felt that Nintendo's use of a song in a Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door commercial violated copyright laws, as the song was used without proper authorization.The tune in question is "You're So Cool" by Hans Zimmer, which appeared in the film True Romance. The complaint cites that Nintendo played the commercial "sometime within the past three years," which isn't very specific. This could be one possible reason why the suit was dropped, unless the companies happened to reach a quick, under-the-table settlement.In any case, you can watch the "offending" commercial above.[Via Game Politics]
Law of the Game on Joystiq: May the Enforce Be With You
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: Today we're going to discuss enforcement of intellectual property, which is a much deeper topic than simply "what is it going to cost me?" There are enforcement considerations on both sides of the issue, and it's often a rather sticky situation for the rights holder in a copyright scenario. Interestingly enough, there are some pretty important economic and public relations considerations with regard to enforcement as well as the legal ones.There's a burden trademark owners face that isn't applied to copyright holders, specifically that those who don't protect trademarks lose them. Copyrights, on the other hand, aren't lost in this way. Theoretically, a copyright can only be lost once the time period for the copyright has elapsed, though recovery may soon be limited on so-called "orphan works" whose authors are difficult to locate. Alternatively, a copyright holder can formally release a work into the public domain, which is the equivalent of "abandonment" of a copyright.
