CopyrightInfringement
Latest
The Lawbringer: Purchase vs. License cage match
Welcome to The Lawbringer, WoW.com's weekly tour of the intersection between law and the World of Warcraft. I am a new law school grad, acting as your crossing guard. Ladies and gentlemen, gnomes of all ages, welcome to THE CAGE! In our first corner, we have the provider of countless yachts to copyright lawyers, with the power of the contract, the big bad himself, the License! And in our second corner, it's the plucky defender of consumers' property rights, the champion of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the curse of the big bads everywhere -- let's give a big welcome to the Purchase! Now let's go to Bob for tonight's rules. The rules of tonight's fight are simple, Jim. These two contenders are fighting over who best describes World of Warcraft players' relationship to Blizzard. There will be three rounds, during which each fighter will present a case to persuade our judges. After three rounds of presentations, our judges will decide who really embodies the relationship between Blizzard and its customers. Why is this so important, Bob? Well, Jim, a license can contain pretty much any rights, but the EULA for a piece of entertainment software with a subscription like World of Warcraft is going to only give the bare minimum of what Blizzard is willing to allow. They can't be too stingy, or they'll go down like Linden Labs to an unconscionability claim, but they're much more worried about protecting their interests than allowing the customers to get all licentious. Licentious, Bob? Read a book, Jim. Anyway, if plucky little Purchase wins, then players get to be subject to the firmly defined laws instead of a mushy, Blizzard-defined license. The law regarding copyrighted copies allows them to make backup copies, get first sale doctrine protection and not be subject to copyright law for breaking the rules defined in the EULA.
NEC tech detects illegal video uploads in seconds, MPAA swoons
Surely by now you've come across something on YouTube that was flagged for copyright infringement, a process that's surely powered by massive teams of elves and other mystical creatures who watch each and every video uploaded to the site. NEC is looking to put them all out of work with a system that, with just 60 frames worth of video (about two seconds, typically) can identify copyrighted video with 96 percent accuracy and a false alarm rate of one in 200,000 -- even if it was copied from digital to analog or had captions added. This process is now part of the MPEG-7 Video signature tool, apparently the international standard, and works by creating signatures for copyrighted video that are just 76 bytes per frame. That's small enough for a desktop with a single core, 3GHz processor to churn through 1,000 hours of questionable video in one second, looking for matches all the while. Unless you freelance for the MPAA this isn't software you'll be running, but if you're a fan of the torrents there's a good chance that someone you know very indirectly will be.
RealNetworks to stop selling RealDVD, your copyrights are safe -- for now
Remember when RealNetworks said it wasn't giving up on RealDVD, that it would fight the good fight and appeal the August ruling finding its DVD copying application wasn't quite legal. Well, a lot of things can change in five months and now it seems Real is caving in to the inevitable crush of the movie industry, setting the lawsuit filed by the MPAA for $4.5 million and instantly turning existing copies of RealDVD into collectors items. (Hope you kept those boxes in mint condition!) What's next for Real remains to be seen, as the company just spun off Rhapsody to be its own thing, but surely whatever it comes up with will not involve the copying of copyrighted things onto other things.
Psystar to shut down 'immediately,' world shrugs
Has the saga finally come to an end? Dow Jones is reporting that Psystar will be firing its eight employees and then "shutting things down immediately," in the words of the company's attorney with the bad-ass name, Eugene Action. Besides, after the latest round of losses at the hands of Apple, this should come as a shock to nobody. Now that we've put all that behind us, can we concentrate on something of importance -- like Tweeting swears from the Zune HD Twitter app?
Psystar banned from copying any version of OS X, helping others install it
And it's all over, folks: The US District Court for the Northern District of California has just permanently forbidden wannbe Mac cloner Psystar from selling modified versions of OS X, providing any tools that enable users to bypass the OS X kernel encryption, and / or intentionally aiding anyone else from infringing Apple's OS X copyrights in any way. We knew this was coming following Apple's decisive victory against Psystar last month -- the only open questions were whether the court would include Snow Leopard and Psytar's Rebel EFI software in the ban, since the lawsuit was specifically about Leopard and Rebel EFI wasn't the subject of any proceedings. Both issues were predictably resolved in favor of Apple: the court specifically included Snow Leopard and any future versions of OS X in the scope of the injunction, and while Judge Alsup couldn't address Rebel EFI directly, he did expressly forbid Psystar from "manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking" in anything that circumvents Apple's OS X hardware locks -- which we'd say covers Rebel EFI's functionality pretty thoroughly. Psystar has until December 31 to comply, and the Judge Alsup isn't kidding around: "Defendant must immediately begin this process, and take the quickest path to compliance; thus, if compliance can be achieved within one hour after this order is filed, defendant shall reasonably see it done." Psystar can still appeal, obviously, but it's already got its own hefty legal bills and a $2.67m fine to pay to Apple, so we've got a feeling this one might have reached the end of the line. P.S.- Amusingly, Judge Alsup appears to be pretty sick of Apple's shenanigans as well: in the section discussing Snow Leopard, he says Apple first tried to block any discovery of Snow Leopard before the OS was released, and then pushed to include the software in the case after it launched. That's why the Florida case over Snow Leopard wasn't merged into this case -- Alsup thought it was a "slick tactic" that "smacked of trying to 'have it both ways,' and offended [his] sense of fair play." Ouch.
Apple wins copyright infringement case against Psystar in California
Well, well. Apple's won its copyright infringement claim against would-be Mac cloner Psystar in California. Anyone surprised? As we've been saying all along, the key argument wasn't the OS X EULA or Psystar's failed monopoly claims, but pure, simple copyright infringement, since Psystar was illegally copying, modifying, and distributing Apple's code. Psystar was also dinged for circumventing Apple's kernel encryption in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but that's just another nail in the coffin, really. There's still some legal fireworks to come, as Apple's various other claims like breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair competition weren't addressed in this ruling, but those are all secondary issues now -- and we'd expect this decision to have quite an impact on the other case currently ongoing in Florida. We've broken down the highlights after the break, hit up the read link for the PDF and follow along.
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.
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.
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.
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]
ZOMG MySpace vs iTunes
Ohai ZOMG. Realz! MySpace can has fab nu Music cheezburger. Wurks with iPod, all 4 awzom Muzik labels! Dayz wil haz MP3 for $$. "MySpaceMusic" so kyoot! Universal Music/MySpace fwends -- bai bai "copyright-infringement lawsuit" for realz. iTunes ftl. MySpace ftw. kthxbai.
Keepin' it real fake, part CIV: BlueBerry gets blatant on RIM's trademark
Sometimes a picture really does say a thousand words. BlueBerry, the cease-and-desist is on the way!
Microsoft hit with $2.4 million copyright suit in the Philippines
In an unusual situation for a company so vocal about protecting intellectual property rights, Microsoft is being sued for allegedly distributing material copyrighted by a Philippine college -- despite the fact that the material in question seems to have only been given to fellow educational professionals. Southeastern College in Pasay City is suing Microsoft and Microsoft Philippines for 100 million Filipino pesos ($2.4 million) for handing out at least 700 CDs in 2005 and 2006 containing the 379-page "SEC Microsoft Office XP Manual," which had been copyrighted by SEC director Conrad Mañalac in 2005 (although work on it reportedly began in 1999). Apparently 10,000 copies of this same manual had previously been licensed from the school by the company in 2004, and retitled for use in a program to train high school teachers. For its part, Microsoft Philippines denies having "improperly distributed additional copies of the curriculum," although it's a little unclear what the company's actual position is, with the following statement -- emailed to the Inquirer.net -- seeming to indicate that the primary concern right now is protecting the mothership: "They brought this matter to our attention a year ago and we worked hard to resolve it, but without success. For all intents and purposes, this is a purely local matter which does not involve Microsoft Corporation." Um, okay, whatever you say. We'll be interested to see if / how Redmond responds to this one...[Thanks, Mark]Read - Microsoft suedRead - Microsoft issues response
The first iPod nano clone rears its fat head
Of course, we all know that the knock-off producers in China never rest, but this new iPod nano clone you're looking at was definitely turned around in an impressively short period of time. Right now we have only this photo -- apparently taken at a Shenzhen factory for use in piquing importer's interest -- to go on, but it certainly isn't any kind of surprise that the copy-cats have already put the dirty deed in motion. Just remember guys, you're taking food off of Steve Jobs' table... which is made of diamond-studded platinum.[Via GenerationMP3, thanks BrianB]
NMPA suing XM Radio for copyright infringement
Just about the time that XM Radio was finally able to sit down and hammer out some figures for the upcoming merger, the poor satellite radio firm has hit yet another legal snag, and this time it's care of the NMPA. The National Music Publishers Association have officially filed suit against XM, claiming that the "XM + MP3" music service bypasses copyright laws by giving users the ability "to make permanent copies of on-air tracks" with units like the hotly-debated Inno. Quite similar to other gripes brought against the outfit in the past, this dispute claims that XM's service "constitutes pervasive and willful copyright infringement to the overwhelming detriment of copyright holders, legitimate online music services and, ultimately, consumers," but we're still scratching our heads on the "consumers" bit too. Nevertheless, the NMPA is requesting demanding a maximum of $150,000 in "damages" for each work purportedly infringed by XM, but the sat radio company seems to be brushing this one aside as it claims that "the lawsuit is without merit." These guys just can't do anything right, eh?
Got ripped tunes on your iPod? Go directly to jail, mate
Australia's new copyright bill looks like it could soon be causing sleepless nights for anyone that owns an iPod or other digital audio player if its enacted in its current form, with strict limitations that could seemingly affect individuals whether they know they're infringing on copyright or not. Under the harshest penalty, The Sydney Morning Herald Reports, an individual can face up to five years in jail and a fine of AUD$65,000 if he/she possesses "a device, intending it to be used for making an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter." What's more, under "strict liability provisions", you can be hit with a $6,600 fine or ticketed by police on the spot to the tune of $1320 simply for possessing infringing material, even if you didn't know you were violating copyright. While there were recently exceptions made to permit CD ripping, even those are apparently too limiting to be workable, according to Intellectual Property Research Institute associate director Kim Weatherall, permitting just one "main copy" of a CD -- meaning that you couldn't have a copy on both your iPod and computer. In related news, none other than Bill O'Reilly recently came out against the iPod, and he's got more problems with it than copyright infringement. On his radio show last week, O'Reilly said that he doesn't own an iPod and would never "wear" one, adding that (also referring to his earlier comments the PS3) "if this is your primary focus in life - the machines... it's going to have a staggeringly negative effect, all of this, for America." Some Americans, it would seem, disagree.Read - The Sydney Morning Herald, "The $65,000 question: do you own an iPod?"Read - Think Progress, "O'Reilly: iPods Are Endangering America"[Via Digg]
Blizzard 1, BC rumor sites 0
The pluralization is a bit pre-emptive here, as only one site I know of has had its contents pulled offline due to Blizzard's requests. That site, the Caverns of Time, was a great compilation of rumors and occasionally legitimate information about the upcoming expansion (the screenshot above, pulled from the site, was obviously not an accurate representation of the druid changes). They've received notice from Blizzard giving them 48 hours to remove contents of the site or else face "formal action," and they seem to have complied. You can check the site, still, for a copy of what I assume is Blizzard's complaint. Ah well -- I'm sure three sites will spring up tomorrow to replace it, thus providing us a steady stream of interesting Burning Crusade gossip!
Qtek 8500 / HTC Star Trek gets UK price, launch date, new name
Contradicting an earlier report that the Qtek 8500 / HTC Star Trek smartphone would available in the UK sometime this month, The Register is now citing an official announcement from HTC that claims the Windows Mobile-powered clamshell won't hit stores until "late June." Furthermore, Reg Hardware is reporting that the Star Trek will henceforth be known as the STRTrk, probably to avoid trademark issues with Spock and friends, due to the fact that the internal codename has seen widespread adoption. (Not sure that this will do any good, as now we'll have to include a "the phone formerly known as the HTC Star Trek" every time we mention one of the rebadges). Whatever you want to call it, the music-centric device will supposedly come in black, silver, or pink, and go on sale during the third week of June, at least according to distributor 20:20 Logistics, for around $500 before carrier subsidies.
