DMCA
Latest
Judge in Sony vs. Geohot orders YouTube and others to give up users' personal info
Remember when Sony sued Geohot and demanded that YouTube hand over the user info of all the folks who posted comments to Geohot's PS3 jailbreak video? Well, score a victory for SCEA, as the judge overseeing the case's jurisdictional discovery process has ruled that Sony can get what it wanted -- information from: Bluehost (who hosts Geohot's website) regarding who downloaded the jailbreak, Twitter regarding any tweets made by Hotz, Google Blogspot regarding comments made on his blog, and the aforementioned YouTube user data. Keep in mind that Sony's getting this information to show that many of the downloaders and commenters are from Northern California and that Hotz's hacking efforts were aimed at Californians -- meaning the case should remain in the Bay Area instead of moving to New Jersey where Geohot hacked his PS3. With this new information at its disposal, Sony's better equipped to oppose Hotz's motion to dismiss in a hearing early next month, but this doesn't mean the company will succeed in its bid to keep the litigation a West Coast affair. We'll have to wait and see if this latest victory helps Sony win the war. Stay tuned.
Federal Magistrate allows Sony to look up visitors to GeoHot site
Sony was recently awarded another minor victory in its continuing legal action against George "GeoHot" Hotz and his distribution of a workaround allowing users to jailbreak their PS3s. Federal Magistrate Joseph Spero decided Thursday to allow Sony to subpoena Hotz's web provider to acquire the IP addresses of any of GeoHot.com visitors from January 2009 through present day. Sony was also given subpoenas for information from Google, YouTube and Twitter. Magistrate Spero explained the information obtained by the subpoena would be used to measure the extent of the "defendant's distribution" of the jailbreak files, as well as settle whether Sony must sue Hotz in New Jersey or San Francisco -- the former being Hotz's home state, and the latter being the region in which Sony argues the files were most downloaded. The jurisdiction of the suit will be settled in court during a hearing in San Francisco next month.
Sony vs. Geohot litigation heats up, SCEA demands YouTube give up Hotz and Fail0verflow's personal info
Now that Sony has started gathering the evidence it needs via discovery in the lawsuit over Hotz and friends' PS3 jailbreak, the company has dropped a hammer by moving to reduce the amount of time the hackers have to get Sony the information it wants. Sony filed the motion -- which will be heard by the court tomorrow -- to better arm itself with information to oppose Geohot's motion to dismiss, scheduled to be heard in early March. Casting its evidence-gathering net far and wide, SCEA has demanded that YouTube surrender not only information for Hotz's account where his jailbreak video was posted, but also how many users accessed the video, the usernames of those with access to the video, and all usernames and IP addresses of everyone who posted or published comments to the vid. In addition to hitting up YouTube for dirt, Wired reports that Sony has demanded Twitter hand over the personal info of fail0verflow's members -- we're waiting for Sony's lawyers to don TSA gear as the next step in their search. Geohot's attorney thinks the requests seem a bit much, but we think they make sense given Sony's strategy of going after the entire fail0verflow team. While these goings-on make for fairly standard legal tactics, they won't do much for Sony's public image.
Github removes PS3 jailbreak files after Sony sends DMCA takedown notice
Removing files from the internet is about as difficult and futile a task as trying to remove an upsetting mental image from your thoughts -- elephants with spider faces! (Boom! That's in your mind now.) This isn't stopping Sony from trying its darndest to keep the PS3 jailbreak files from circulating. The company recently sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice to Github -- a site for hosting super efficient Git files, designed to assist coders in collaborating over the web -- to remove the "Custom Firmware" files authored by George "GeoHot" Hotz. Github acquiesced, removing the files in accordance with its policy concerning DMCA notices. Of course, in doing so ... the site also highlighted the filenames of each of the removed Custom Firmware components!
Court grants Sony's temporary restraining order against Geohot, PS3 jailbreak still available everywhere
It looked for a moment like Geohot and fail0verflow might beat Sony's DMCA lawsuit over the PS3 jailbreak on a jurisdictional technicality, but things didn't go their way: the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted Sony's request for a temporary restraining order forbidding Mr. Hotz and his merry men from distributing or linking to the jailbreak, helping or encouraging others to jailbreak, hacking into the PS3 or PSN, or distributing any information they've found while hacking. What's more, they've been ordered to turn over any computers or storage media used to create the jailbreak to Sony's lawyers -- although we've got a feeling Geohot's attorneys will raise a bit of a fuss about that. Of course, this doesn't mean that Sony's won anything substantive -- it's just proven to the court that the jailbreak will cause it ongoing harm while the case continues, and it still has to actually win its formal lawsuit to collect any damages or a permanent injunction. And let's not forget that forcing Geohot to stop distributing it won't stop anyone else -- in almost an exact mirror of the deCSS case, we're already seeing the jailbreak mirrored all over the internet. Way to learn from history, Sony. [Thanks, Henry]
World of StarCraft modders clash with Activision Blizzard
Last night, we brought you the news that a talented StarCraft II modder had begun developing a full MMO based in the StarCraft II engine. World of StarCraft, as the mod came to be known, used the game's open modding and map-editing tools to produce some pretty impressive MMO-style mechanics. But the project has not been officially endorsed by Activision or Blizzard Entertainment, who own the rights to the StarCraft intellectual property. Given the huge popularity of both StarCraft and StarCraft II, an MMO based in that setting would be a sure bet to attract a lot of interest. There has even been speculation that Blizzard may be planning to develop an official StarCraft MMO in the near future -- a move that, after the rampant popularity of World of Warcraft, would seem like a no-brainer. Today brings some bad news for fans of the World of StarCraft mod and its development, as Activision has finally taken notice. The alpha trailer released on YouTube has been removed at the request of Activision, the reason being cited as copyright and intellectual property violations. This may pertain to the use of StarCraft II material in a game trailer, the similarity of the name to World of Warcraft's, or something else entirely. Whatever the reason for it, it's clear that it won't be plain sailing for the development of this popular StarCraft II mod.
Sony follows up, officially sues Geohot and fail0verflow over PS3 jailbreak
We figured Sony would follow up last night's temporary restraining order against Geohot and fail0verflow for distribution of the PS3 jailbreak with a copyright infringement lawsuit, and well, here it is. It's actually pretty straightforward, as far as these things go -- Sony alleges that George Hotz, Hector Martin Cantero, Sven Peter, and the rest of fail0verflow are: Violating §1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which forbids bypassing access control measures; Violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which forbids accessing computers without authorization; Guilty of contributory copyright infringement for encouraging and helping others to crack PS3s as well; Violating the California Computer Crime Law, which is the state computer fraud act (think of this as a backup fraud claim); Violating the PlayStation Network's Terms of Service (which feels meaningless, really); Interfering with Sony's relationships with other PSN customers (also meaningless); Trespassing on Sony's ownership right to the PS3 (this one feels weak) and; Misappropriating Sony's intellectual property (another weak argument, but there in case the copyright argument fails). Sony's asking the court to forbid Geohot and fail0verflow from distributing the jailbreak and turn over all computer hardware and software that contain the jailbreak code, as well as unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. Yep, these boys done got sued -- and we're sure there'll be some serious fireworks once they lawyer up and fight right back. Update: And here we go -- Carnegie Mellon professor David Touretzky has posted up the first mirror of Geohot's code as a First Amendment protest, openly challenging Sony to take action. That's moxie -- we love it. [Thanks, Pedro G]
Tweaked iPhone 4 parts video pulled from YouTube 'due to a copyright claim from Apple, Inc.'
There's not much more to say here -- that crazy video we saw earlier today of what appeared to be tweaked iPhone 4 parts has been pulled from YouTube "due to a copyright claim by Apple, Inc." Obviously we still have the screenshot above, which tells the whole story, really -- these parts point to a variant of the iPhone that's the same, but different. Exactly why it's different is still up for debate -- the CDMA iPhone for Verizon is obviously everyone's first guess, but until Steve speaks we won't know for sure. P.S.- We suppose it's also possible that Apple wasn't actually responsible for the removal -- someone could have punked YouTube's copyright cops, and there is that odd double-period typo after "Inc." But that seems like someone's playing a particularly insane game, no?
Italy rules YouTube and other video sites are like TV stations, are liable for content
Strange policy changes are afoot in Italy, where the government's Communications Authority has just issued two resolutions that effectively turn YouTube and other video services into TV stations subject to stricter regulation -- and stricter liability for the content they host. Under the new rules, any site that exercises even the smallest amount of editorial control over its content will be considered an "audiovisual service," and have to pay additional taxes, take down videos within 48 hours if anyone complains of slander, and -- most oddly of all -- somehow refrain from broadcasting videos "unsuitable for children" at certain times of the day. (No, we have no idea how that works with an online video site.) Making matters worse, the new rules give creedence to the notion that video service providers are somehow directly responsible for what their users post to the site -- even if the only "editorial control" they exercise is automated and not overseen by actual humans. We'd expect it the new rules to be challenged in Italian court sometime soon, since they effectively make it impossible to run an online video service in the country, and seem to be in opposition to EU rules that protect internet service providers -- and we'll see if YouTube remains available to Italian IP addresses for very much longer. Oh, and if you're worried this sort of insanity will cross over to the US, you should chillax -- the laws you love to hate are on your side. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and Section 512 of the DMCA provide "safe harbor" to internet service providers, making it extremely hard to go after them for the actions of their users. You might remember Section 512, actually -- it played a starring role in knocking down Viacom's lawsuit against Google and YouTube back in June. You, the DMCA and the CDA, all hanging out and watching YouTube together -- sounds like a lovely afternoon, doesn't it? [Thanks, Matthew]
Viacom files appeal in YouTube copyright case, continues to 'drag it out'
Don't worry -- that "drag it out" bit belongs to Google, not us. If you'll recall, the suits in Mountain View threw an underground party back in June when the federal court ruled that YouTube fell under the "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA which protects service providers from liability for user content. In essence, this ensured that Google couldn't be sued or held liable for damages caused by some prankster uploading a ripped episode of 30 Rock to the site, being that Google has promised to yank it post-haste if notified by the copyright owner. That essentially puts the burden of policing on the content creator, but (sensibly) frees Google from the impossible feat of looking at every single clip that gets uploaded before making it live to the world. Just to give you a little perspective, 24 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, and that's expected to become even greater as time passes. Despite the logic (and the ruling of the court), Viacom has today filed a 72-page appeal in a likely futile attempt to fight back. All Things D highlights a killer quote from Viacom in the report -- apparently it thinks that if the ruling stands, it'll "radically transform the functioning of the copyright system and severely impair, if not completely destroy, the value of many copyrighted creations." As for Google's response? "We regret that Viacom continues to drag out this case. The court here, like every other court to have considered the issue, correctly ruled that the law protects online services like YouTube, which remove content when notified by the copyright holder that it is unauthorized. We will strongly defend the court's decision on appeal." We doubt anything will turn out differently the next go 'round, but obviously we'll be watching with great interest. Now, back to that clip of 30 Rock we were enjoying quite legally on Hulu...
Accused Xbox 360 modder finds case pleasantly dismissed
The case of 28-year old CSU student Matthew Crippen has come and gone. Arrested last year on Digital Millennium Copyright Act violations -- specifically, for modding Xbox 360s to enable them to play pirated games -- federal prosecutor Allen Chiu announced on the third day of trial that the government was dropping its case against him "based on fairness and justice." It's not a complete surprise: according to Wired, on the previous day (Wednesday), an undercover agent testifying against Crippen claimed the defendant used a pirated game to test a modded console in his presence. That detail, required for the prosecution's case (the use of pirated software), was never mentioned in any of the previous reports or sworn declarations, so once the judge dismissed it as evidence, the case against Crippen hit a snag. Source link's got the full, very interesting tale, but if you're patient, there's always a chance one of the Law and Orders will pick up the story in the years to come.
Xbox-modder trial underway, no plea bargain offered [update: case dismissed!]
The landmark jury trial of Matthew Crippen, indicted on two federal counts last fall for running a side-business in which he modded Xbox 360s at his home, began yesterday with opening statements in a Los Angeles court. Wired's colorful report of U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez's colorful reaction to the prosecution's case suggested that the government could be headed toward a deal with Crippen during an early-afternoon recess. "I really don't understand what we're doing here," Gutierrez apparently "roared," as he ripped into the prosecution. The judge questioned government prosecutors' use of two witnesses who may have broken the law themselves and prosecutors' instructions to the jury that it was unnecessary to prove Crippen had knowingly breached the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The judge apparently backtracked on an earlier ruling that had prohibited a "fair use" defense (i.e., modding for back-up or homebrew purposes). "The only way to be able to play copied games is to circumvent the technology," Gutierrez said. "How about back-up games and the homebrewed?" However, prosecutors returned from recess yesterday determined to convict Crippen, 28, on two counts of violating the DMCA (for a maximum sentence of ten years) by proving he knew he was breaking the law. ESA investigator Tony Rosario was called to the stand to recount how he had visited Crippen's Anaheim, Calif. home in 2008 and paid the defendant $60 to mod an Xbox 360. Rosario secretly videotaped the procedure -- which the defense argues is a violation of the state's privacy law -- though he did not capture video evidence of Crippen allegedly playing a pirated game on the modded console (nor did he include this supposed fact in his original report or sworn declarations). Still, the prosecution offered up a pile of a 150 pirated games, apparently seized by authorities from Crippen's home, which it hoped would show jurors that the defendant had a clear understanding that he was involved in illegal activity. Rosario is expected to return to the stand today, followed by two additional prosecution witnesses: a federal agent, who also allegedly paid Crippen to mod a 360, and a Microsoft employee, a so-called expert on Xbox security (and self-admitted modder in his younger days). The defense is scheduled to begin its case tomorrow. Follow the drama on Wired's Threat Level blog. Update: Prosecutors dismissed their case today, Wired reports, saying their decision was "based on fairness and justice" (read: they made errors). "It still has not hit me yet," Crippen said outside of the courtroom. [Pictured: Matthew Crippen; photo credit: David Kravets/Wired.com]
Did the Fifth Circuit just make breaking DRM legal? Not quite.
The world of digital copyright law is a busy place this morning -- not only did the Library of Congress hand down new exemptions to the DMCA that allow smartphones to be jailbroken and short portions of movies to be ripped, but a new decision out of the Fifth Circuit has caused some major waves because it seems to say breaking DRM is legal. Except, well, maybe not. Here's the deal: an uninterruptible power supply company called MGE sued GE in 2004 for using hacked-up copies of its software to maintain its clients' power systems -- the software was only supposed to work when a hardware dongle is plugged into the system, but GE engineers were using cracked software. After a lengthy trial, the jury awarded MGE $4.6m in damages for copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and -- you guessed it -- violating the DMCA by circumventing the protection on the software. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit -- which was reviewing this kind of DMCA claim for the first time -- noted that MGE's hardware dongle only protected access to the software, not copying it, and that the DMCA is only effective when the protections in place guard something more than simple access. Here's the money quote from the decision: Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners... The owner's technological measure must protect the copyrighted material against an infringement of a right that the Copyright Act protects, not from mere use or viewing. Broadly read, this means that breaking DRM just to look at or use a copyrighted work is fine -- it's when you break DRM that expressly protects activities reserved for copyright owners (like, say, making copies) that you get into trouble. That's a tiny little step back from other DRM-related decisions in other circuits, which have generally held that any DRM-breaking is illegal, but it's not completely without precedent -- since this was the first time the Fifth Circuit looked at this type of lawsuit, it looked to decisions from other appellate courts and found similar rulings on which to rely. Let's get back to what this means in practical terms, though -- although many are breathlessly reporting this to mean that breaking DRM is now legal, that's actually not the case at all. First of all, Fifth Circuit rulings are only directly effective in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, so this isn't the law across the US yet -- that's going to take a Supreme Court decision. (We'll get to that in a second.) Second of all, the crux of the decision is that DMCA lawsuits are only valid if the DRM systems actually protect against copyright infringement, as opposed to merely controlling access, and that's only a slight narrowing of the law. Think about it: the number one thing forbidden by copyright law is making unauthorized copies. There's nothing in this ruling that suggests anyone can make copies of works without the explicit permission of the copyright owner -- it's still very much illegal to strip copy protection DRM off a video in order to transfer it to a portable media player, for example, since you're making an unauthorized copy. It's a subtle, but extremely important distinction. All that said, most of the other appellate courts in the US that have looked at DMCA issues have generally found that breaking DRM for any reason not covered in the exemptions is illegal, so the Fifth Circuit's decision here has set up what's called a "split in the circuits" -- different interpretations of the law in different parts of the country. That's the sort of situation the Supreme Court is there to resolve, so it's possible we'll see MGE appeal this one all the way to the top and DRM law will drastically change in one way or another. In any event, it's clear that the legal tide is slowly starting to turn against DRM, and that's definitely a good thing -- regardless of how small each individual step might be.
Library of Congress rules in favor of jailbreaking
Today, the Library of Congress has ruled in favor of both jailbreaking and unlocking phones according to an Associated Press Statement published on the New York Times. The Library of Congress statement can be found here if you'd prefer to read the original. The Washington Post has also picked up this story. This ruling responds to an EFF petition, one opposed by Apple, that maintains the current status quo, allowing iPhone owners to continue both practices, and pushes things even further. Jailbreaking allows iPhone owners to download third party applications outside of Apple channels and unlocking offers a way to use iPhones on third party GSM networks, typically T-Mobile.
Library of Congress adds DMCA exception for jailbreaking or rooting your phone
This is a wild one, and we're still parsing through the announcement, but on the surface it looks like the Library of Congress has added new anti-circumvention exceptions to the DMCA that, among other things, allow people to tweak their handsets for the purpose of installing legally obtained software -- known as jailbreaking in iOS land, and rooting in the Android / webOS world. Check out the full statement from the Librarian of Congress, which is mostly an update of existing exceptions on record, after the break, but here's the primary excerpt: Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset. Now, before all you EFFers go all totally wild (although it's undoubtedly a win for the EFF line of thinking on this issue), you should know that this in no way requires Apple to jailbreak your phone for you, or lay down its arms in this ongoing fight. Basically, they just can't sue you for the specific act of breaking their protections, but there's nothing stopping them from putting those protections in there in the first place, or for suing you for an infringement not covered in this exception -- like distributing Apple code in a non-Apple-approved way, or installing illegal or pirated software. Not that any of you jailbreakers would ever do that. What's more, the DMCA still broadly forbids distributing to the public any "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" that's primarily designed to break access controls, so Apple can always go after the Dev Team directly -- and we'd still keep those dreams of opening Joe's Jailbreak Hut on ice for now. On a more minor note, the language pertaining to unlocking a handset to work on another wireless network has also been expanded from "firmware" in 2006 to "firmware or software" in the 2010 revision. Also, and very exciting for the YouTube set, the section pertaining to cracking a DVD video and excerpting scenes for commentary or criticism has been expanded beyond educational use into documentary and non-commercial applications. [Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Google wins YouTube copyright case against Viacom
The Viacom copyright infringement case against Google and YouTube has been a long strange journey since it started, but it looks like the first major chapter is over: the federal court today ruled that Google falls under the "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA which protects service providers from liability for user content. Roughly, that means Google isn't liable for copyright infringement on YouTube in general: it can only be liable for infringing specific copyrighted works, and since YouTube pulls videos as soon as anyone complains, it can't get in trouble. Of course, Viacom isn't too happy about this decision and has vowed to appeal, but we think it makes sense -- otherwise Viacom could sue and win for things Google didn't even know about, like, say, the music videos Viacom employees covertly uploaded themselves and then demanded be removed. We'll see what happens -- in the meantime, we'll be celebrating by watching as much YouTube as possible.
The Lawbringer: The history of Blizzard and MDY (Glider)
It's a Glider! Sorry, that's as good as the jokes are going to get. Greetings from The Lawbringer, WoW.com's weekly look at the intersection between law and the World of Warcraft. I'm a newly minted law school grad acting as your tour guide between bar prep sessions. In the last two weeks, we looked at the difference between purchases and licenses. This is of vital importance as a major bit of cyberlaw plays out in the Ninth Circuit, namely the next stages of MDY v. Blizzard, Vernor v. Autodesk, and UMG v. Augusto. Today seems like an excellent time to review the case of MDY v. Blizzard, as we've covered the other two a bit. My source for this history will be the excellent collection of files at Justicia.com, which includes all documents filed in the district court of Arizona in this case. Let's get started!
The Lawbringer: Scope of copyrights
Welcome to the Lawbringer, WoW.com's weekly look at the intersection of law and the World of Warcraft. I'm a newly minted J.D. acting as your crossing guard. Greetings from the other side of graduation! The sun is shining, tons of Cataclysm spoilers await and now I don't have to arrange my WoW-ing and writing around my study schedule. Given that, it's time to get back into our examination of copyright law. Two weeks ago, we looked at what can get a copyright, namely: literary works; musical works and accompanying words; dramatic works and accompanying music; pantomimes and choreography; pictorial, graphical and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works. But knowing what can be covered by a copyright doesn't explain what a copyright gives an author. A copyright is actually a bundle of separate rights: right to make copies right to distribute copies right to create derivative works right to perform or display right to anticircumvention of the measures taken to prevent copying moral rights, including rights of attribution and the right to avoid mutilation
Fahy vs Linden Lab: This just gets weirder
The other day we covered a lawsuit by Corey Fahy (AKA Belial Foulsbane in Second Life) vs Linden Lab, various third-party viewer developers, content creators and others. While there doesn't seem to be any case to really answer (because you can't copyright a name, method, process or algorithm, and Fahy seems ineligible for legal costs and statutory damages in any case) things definitely took a turn for the weird last week.
Fahy vs Linden Lab: No case to answer?
Last week, on Thursday 8 April, Corey Fahy in Philadelphia filed a lawsuit against Linden Lab and more than 25 others, in the Pennsylvania East District Court (case number 2:2010cv01561, assigned to judge Joel Harvey Slomsky). Fahy alleges that an algorithm in one of his Second Life products has been subjected to copyright infringement, accompanied by the usual requests for damages, statutory damages, ten times damages, attorney's fees and all that. Where do we even begin? We'll spare you most of the cruft and go straight to the heart of the problems that we can see with this particular lawsuit.
