DMCA
Latest
Amazon suspends Kindle account after too many product returns
The Kindle should be a pretty straight forward proposition, but this just goes to show you how sometimes folks can stir up controversy even with something as innocuous as an e-book reader. First there was the hassle with the Writers Guild over text-to-speech, and then Amazon threatened MobileRead with legal action for merely linking to software they didn't take kindly too. And now we're hearing alarming tales of Kindle owners who have had their accounts turned off when inadvertently running afoul of company policy. Case in point, a user on the MobileRead forums reports being locked out of his account for what was termed an "extraordinary" rate of returns (that is, he returned electronics that arrived damaged or defective). Because of this, our man was unable to purchase new books for his device, or even check out magazine / newspaper / blog subscriptions he had already paid for. Luckily, this gentleman was able to plead his case and get his account reactivated -- but other users haven't been quite so fortunate. We'll be keeping an eye on you, Amazon -- so let's try and play nice for now on.[Via Channel Web]
Amazon using DMCA to restrict Kindle content sources
Oh, Amazon. Just a couple weeks after the Authors Guild's overzealous copyright-maximalist stance forced the bookseller to modify the Kindle 2's text to speech feature, the company's lawyers have had a fit of irony and sent out a DMCA takedown request to MobileRead, claiming that the site's links to a Python script that enables Kindle owners to shop at Mobipocket-format ebook sites constitutes circumvention of the Kindle's DRM. There's all kinds of corporate-lawyer idiocy at play here: MobileRead was just linking out to another site hosting the script, which can't actually be used to break Kindle DRM, and the only people using it are the people who want to buy more books -- not exactly the sort of customers you'd want to piss off. Amazon's sole motivation here seems to be the fear that people might buy Kindle content from somewhere besides Amazon, and it appears to be using copyright law to try and prevent that. Another corporation driven mad with DRM power? Say it ain't so.[Via TechDirt]
LGJ: Unlicensed games and the DMCA
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: Fans of retro games or even just videos about retro games are familiar with the "unlicensed" games that existed on bygone systems like NES and SNES. These titles include a number of "Bible games" and more risque offerings like Bubble Bath Babes (box art pictured above). What's of particular interest to me, though, is how unlicensed games were ever "allowed" in the first place, and how more recent legal requirements more or less eliminate the possibility of new unlicensed titles in the retail marketplace.We can trace unlicensed games back to the US game industry's so-called "crash" in the early 1980s. At the time, the console market was basically an open playing field. If you wanted to make a game for an Atari console, you just made it. This led to the widely publicized over-saturation of low quality titles, which killed consumer confidence in the home games market. Remember, back then, there was no Joystiq.com -- let alone the other copious resources used to research a game before purchasing. So, when Nintendo came to the US and almost single-handedly brought the video game industry back from the dead, the company decided to take certain quality control measures to prevent repeating Atari's mistakes.
Apple says jailbreaking is illegal
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has posted the news that Apple has filed comments with the US Copyright Office stating that the act of jailbreaking your iPhone is a copyright infringement and a DMCA violation, and therefore illegal. The EFF says that Apple is claiming that jailbreak apps still require modified versions of Apple's software, and Apple apparently believes that those versions are infringing on their copyrights. The EFF responds, in turn, that "reverse engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software," saying that yes, even though jailbreakers are using Apple's copyrighted code, they are doing so in a way that allows them functionality that Apple doesn't provide access to on their own.At this point, of course, this is just a complaint in the copyright office, and Apple hasn't made any legal moves yet against anyone responsible for jailbreaking. As the EFF states, it would be extremely hard for them to go after individual jailbreakers -- if you buy an iPhone, it should be your right to "get under the hood," as they say, and do what you want.But (and keep in mind that this is TUAW, not The Unofficial Legal Weblog, and we are not lawyers) it seems Apple may be able to try and make a case against anyone offering software that does modify or otherwise "misuse" their copyrighted code. We'll have to see if they explore that position more in the future. You can read Apple's full response here (27 pages). You can see the EFF's initial filings here.Stay tuned for more news and analysis on the issue.
Apple and EFF spar over iPhone jailbreaking and the DMCA
Uh oh, Ashton, it looks like Apple might have a thing or two to say about that jailbroken iPhone of yours. Every three years the Copyright Office asks for proposed exemptions to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's rules against breaking access protections, and this time around the lovable scamps at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have asked that jailbreaking phones -- like, yes, the iPhone -- be classified as one of those exceptions. As you might have guessed, Apple's response to the EFF isn't exactly supportive of the idea: it says the proposed rule will "destroy the technological protection of Apple's key copyrighted computer programs in the iPhone device itself and of copyrighted content owned by Apple that plays on the iPhone." Both sides have filed long briefs supporting their positions with extremely detailed legal arguments, but the main takeaways are that the EFF thinks that allowing jailbreaking will result in more apps and innovation, and Apple points out that the App Store is already hugely successful and that jailbroken phones are technically running unauthorized modifications of Apple's copyrighted iPhone code that allows them to run pirated applications. Interestingly, Apple's convoluted App Store approval process is the center of a lot of discussion, and Apple is totally disengeniuous about it, saying there's no "duplication of functionality" rule and as proof claims to have allowed "multiple general web browsers... and multiple mail programs." Note to the Copyright Office: if you believe this we have a very nice bridge to sell you. Now, let's be clear: while we're definitely hoping the EFF pulls this one out, the worst thing that can result of all this is the status quo -- Apple isn't asking for jailbreaking to specifically be ruled illegal, it's just asking that it not be specifically ruled legal. If that sounds like a fuzzy distinction, well, it is, but that's the sort of gray area that keeps everyone else out of court for the time being. We'll find out more in the spring, when the Copyright Office holds hearings -- final rulings are due in October. Read - EFF page on the jailbreaking debate Read - EFF's brief (PDF) Read - Apple's reply (PDF) Read - EFF's second brief (PDF)
Blizzard responds to the Glider decision
Blizzard (via Nethaera) has released a nice long statement on the Glider outcome over on the forums. She basically runs through the history of the case and why Blizzard is against what Glider is doing, and why going through the courts was the only route left to them. She says that Warden (though called only "security measures") was enabled in response to player concerns about bots, and that when the MDY/Glider people circumvented Warden, their only recourse was to seek an injunction through the courts, which, as we've reported recently, they plan to have soon.She does say that Blizzard won based on the judge's decision that MDY did violate the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but Neth doesn't go any further into the issue, and doesn't elaborate at all on what might happen if this case is used as a precedent against other types of Terms of Use violations. As you might expect from an official Blizzard telling of the tale, the case is seen as a victory for Blizzard and their players -- for them, it's all about keeping bots out of Azeroth, and this decision will definitely help them do that.And that's obviously not a bad thing -- most players will agree that MDY was allowing players to cheat (by letting the game play automatically without them in control), and thus preventing the client from being used in-game is a good thing. It's just that DMCA issue that might be a nagging problem -- we'll have to see what happens with that in the future.
The Glider outcome and copyright law
Well, as you may have heard, Blizzard has all but finished off Glider -- pending one more appeal (which doesn't seem likely to win), Glider is getting shut down for good next week. Good news for Blizzard, but not so good for copyfighters? Blizzard used a controversial argument for copyright in its case -- they claimed that by circumventing the ToS, the Glider folks were actually breaking copyright law, and an interest group called Public Knowledge didn't take kindly to that. They argued that a decision for Blizzard would mean that any software developer could then prevent any customer from doing anything they didn't want to do, just by calling it a copyright infrigement. Blizzard responded that "buying" your WoW software was actually "licensing" it, but of course that didn't settle anyone down.And now, Glider has lost -- so what next?
Blizzard legal targets private servers
var digg_url = 'http://digg.com/gaming_news/Blizzard_legal_targets_private_servers'; Privately run WoW servers have been dropping like flies in the last day or so after receiving letters from Blizzard's lawyers under the DMCA. They've been shut down so quickly and rapidly that it's being heralded as "the end of private servers" by quite a few people. The biggest and most well known servers such as Toxic WoW and Ani-WoW are more or less all gone already, and it seems that it's only a matter of time before the smaller ones go down as well. Supposedly, this letter has a pretty long list of sites and servers that are to be taken down.Some of these sites have just called it a day, shut down their servers and will move on with their lives, but a few others are already talking about starting them back up elsewhere, 'underground.' It's the internet, and at this point, that just seems silly. Blizzard is watching, and it seems this issue has moved up a notch on their priority list. My advice? Don't tempt fate.
Apple piles on Psystar, wins trademark suit
In yet another new facet to this already-draining legal battle surrounding Psystar's sales of non-Apple hardware that runs Mac OS X, Apple has amended its original suit after it discovered "additional information," according to Computerworld. Apple now claims Psystar circumvented Apple's copyright protection code, in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Apple said in its original filing that Psystar was in violation of the Mac OS X End-User License Agreement, but tacked on this additional charge last week. The amendment also names 10 "John Does" -- persons who were not part of the Psystar company, but broke the copyright protection scheme. Apple doesn't know who they are yet, but plans to name names when its lawyers find out who they are. In other Apple legal news, Apple won a trademark infringement case in China against New Apple Concept Digital Technology Co., Ltd., based in Shenzen. Judges decided that the Chinese company had a logo too similar to Apple's. New Ap -- aw, eff it -- NACDTCL was ordered to pay 400,000 yuan (≈ US$58,000) to Apple, Inc. [Via Cult of Mac.]
DMCA notices in Second Life: A practical example
Earlier this year, we made a number of attempts to determine how Linden Lab handled DMCA notices on content in their virtual environment, Second Life. Linden Lab declined to answer at the time, however, the owners of a clothing and accessories store ~*Fresh Baked Goods*~ (whom we will call FBG for brevity) were recently the recipient of one such DMCA action, and have documented the whole process from their end of things. It all started on Tuesday, 19 August 2008, when an email arrived from the Removals Department at Linden Research Inc (the proper name for Linden Lab). Citing three sets of necklaces as the offending articles, the owners of FBG were asked to disable or remove access to the content and were given two days to fax a formal DMCA counter-notice to Linden Lab, including their physical identities and contact information, which Linden Lab would then pass on to the person or organization who filed the original DMCA notice. 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.
Peering Inside: The rights of creators
On 14 November, 2003 Linden Lab caused quite a stir by announcing that users who created or published content via the Second Life service would "retain full intellectual property protection for the digital content they create, including characters, clothing, scripts, textures, objects and designs." Essentially, the same rights that they'd have anywhere else (barring assorted terms of use/service to the contrary). It seems obvious, in many ways, but ultimately it's actually very rare. Terms of use/service which express a contradictory position are in the majority. In fact, go to the filing cabinet and pull out the contract for your current RL job. Odds are, there are a whole slew of creator rights that you've already signed away that have little or nothing to do with your job. That, unfortunately, is the normal condition. When it comes to the new, novel, or creative -- almost everyone wants a piece of your pie, and few want to leave a slice for you, if they can avoid it. Even taking Sturgeon's (second) Law into account, competition for the remaining portion of human content and pop-culture is quite stiff.
Linden Lab responds to DMCA concerns
After taking a working day to mull over and polish a response, Linden Lab has posted it to their official blog. The net result of the post unfortunately, judging by responses and discussion elsewhere appears to inflame and annoy involved consumers and creators, as users claim that the response is tangential and evasive.
Linden Lab's big content takedown
There are widespread reports today that Linden Lab has removed all content from Second Life (from in-world, and from user inventories and object contents) that were the work of a small number of users, apparently over DMCA issues. Hitherto, Linden Lab has a reputation for only taking down specific, identified items in-world -- stuff that you could point to. Indeed, it attracted criticism for not also removing other copies of such items from in-world and from user-inventories. Now, it seems the Lab is going large, and doing just that.
Peering Inside: Linden Lab, the DMCA, and content
Linden Lab reports that it is putting more 'resources' on to DMCA duty to deal with improper duplication of content in Second Life. This would be a significant improvement over reports of one person, not even performing the DMCA processing full-time. We don't think the new people will be full-time either, but more person-hours either way. Well, that's all assuming that 'resources' means people. Maybe it means the rumored part-time DMCA processor is now full-time.
Second Life tool suspended, author blames Linden Lab's DMCA procedures, mentor piracy
Cel Edman (aka Elout de Kok outside of Second Life) has withdrawn his popular, and free displacement map creation tool Sculptypaint for several days citing piracy of the packs of textures that he sells as the root cause, as well as slow and half-hearted response to DMCA notices by Linden Lab. While Edman doesn't name specific names of those stealing the texture packs that he sells to fund development and distribution of the popular tool, he does finger one specific group for distributing his commercial products, a group called the Mental Mentors.
Is it legal to unlock your iPhone?
Just in case you missed it, Engadget did a nice little analysis of whether it's legal to unlock your iPhone or not-- a more and more pertinent question as we get closer and closer to having unlocking solutions become available. In short, it is legal... mostly.The main questions of legality lie around an exception to the DMCA, which allows you to unlock your cell phone "for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network." Under that law and that exception, it's perfectly legal to use an iPhone on T-mobile, Verizon, or any other provider that you can get it to work with. Things really only get prickly when you start selling those unlocked phones, or somehow profit off of selling unlocked phones. Then, Apple and AT&T start to have a case against you for honing in on their business.Oh, and the other fun part is that the DMCA exemption that gives you an out on this one actually expires in November of 2009. So if nothing is done on that front, unlocking phones will be illegal within a few years. Still, Engadget makes the same conclusion that I would-- unlocking your iPhone for personal use on another network very likely won't bring AT&T's legal goons to your doors. It likely will void your warranty, and while some unlocks brag that they'll stay after updates, a future update may undo the unlock.
Nintendo teams up with customs to crack down on Wii modders
Hide away that soldering iron, Nintendo is on to you crazy kids. The company has issued a press release "in support of" recent raids by US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents, which executed 32 search warrants in 16 states to weed out those responsible for the distribution of "illegal modification chips." Apparently this is the largest enforcement action taken against video game piracy, and Nintendo has been working hand in hand with the Department of Homeland Security to pull it off. Since April, Nintendo claims to have seized more than 91,000 counterfeit (er, "backup") Wii discs globally. Of course, the whole issue of whether mod chips, when used harmlessly to enable homebrew and backups, should be illegal in the first place is still a sticky issue (the DMCA seems to frown on the idea), but it looks like if you are indeed trading in the illicit stuff, Nintendo and the fuzz are hoping to track you down for a little chat.Update: Looks like Wii modders aren't the only ones on the run. No console is safe!
Apple and friends hit with C&D for "actively avoiding" use of DRM tech
Here's a new one on us. Instead of suing companies for infringing on its patents, like all the cool kids are doing, Media Rights Technologies has sent cease and desist letters to Apple, Microsoft, RealNetworks and Adobe for "actively avoiding" the use of its technology. According to MRT, the DMCA's language on copyright protection circumvention -- defined as "to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." -- requires those companies to use its product, since its X1 SeCure Recording Control technology has been proven to plug the "digital hole," and therefore allows them to uphold the DMCA. "We've given these four companies 10 days to talk to us and work out a solution, or we will go into federal court and file action and seek an injunction to remove the infringing products from the marketplace," says CEO Hank Risan. RealNetworks spokesman Matt Graves calls the letters "a rather novel approach to business development," and lawyers are calling the effort "out there" and "a play for publicity." We call it a riot, and while it's not likely to go far -- not even the far-reaching and vaguely worded DMCA is likely to hold this one up for long -- we're at least grateful to MRT for mixing things up a bit in the boring old tech lawsuit game.
Pondering UMD's value on sale
Legitimate sister site, PSP Fanboy, ponders the whimper-like end status of the UMD format. After finding Stomp the Yard as the last UMD available for pre-order through Sony Style, and Amazon listing a few others with a release date of 2025 (read: they may be canceled), PSP Fanboy takes a moment to mourn these movie discs.But we wonder, having bought a fire-sale Virtual Boy after it was discontinued, is now the time to scoop up UMDs on the cheap? Or should we put our money into Memory Stick and copy our own movies over, DMCA be damned?Update: Dave Karraker of Sony wrote to remind us, "There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that we are discontinuing the UMD format for PSP." Fair enough. MiniDisc is still around, too.
BackupHDDVD slapped with DMCA takedown notice
It's roamed relatively unscathed for a few months now, but it appears that BackupHDDVD -- the app that helps bypass the AACS copy protection on HD DVDs -- has been hit with its first major setback, drawing a DMCA takedown notice and vanishing from its perch at SourceForge as a result. Speaking to Wired blog 27B Stroke 6, SourceForge parent company VA Software's General Counsel Jay Seirmarco revealed that the AACS's complaint centered on copyrighted cryptographic keys allegedly contained within BackupHDDVD, which he says was verified to be true, giving SourceForge reason to remove the software. He added, however, that SourceForge would be willing to host a version of BackupHDDVD that did not contain the keys in question. This course of events will no doubt be familiar to anyone's who's followed the FairUse4WM saga, in which Microsoft issued a similar notice demanding that the software be taken down from its host site. Of course, BackupHDDVD isn't the only bit of software that messes with the copy protection on HD DVDs, although, as of yet, it's main rival AnyDVD HD remains untouched and readily available, albeit for a price.[Via Slashdot]
