laws
Latest
E-reader privacy policies compared: Big Kindle is watching you
It's definitely shaping up to be the year of e-book readers: the Amazon Kindle is flying off (virtual) shelves, and we'd expect the Barnes & Noble Nook to start moving at a decent clip once the kinks get worked out. But any device with an always-on 3G connection to a central server raises some privacy questions, especially when it can broadcast granular, specific data about what you're reading -- data that's subject to a wide spectrum of privacy laws and regulations when it comes to real books and libraries, but much less so in the digital realm. We'd say it's going to take a while for all the privacy implications of e-books to be dealt with by formal policy, but in the meantime the best solution is to be informed -- which is where this handy chart from our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation comes in. As you'd expect, the more reading you do online, the more you can be tracked -- and Google Books, the Kindle, and the Nook all log a ton of data that can be shared with law enforcement and various other third parties if required. Of course, we doubt the cops are too interested in your Twilight reading habits, but honestly, we'd rather users weren't tracked at all. Check the full chart and more at the read link. [Thanks, Tom]
The Daily Grind: Should game bloggers disclose gifts?
Yesterday, the US Federal Trade Commission unanimously ruled that all press outlets be held to disclose any "material connections" to the products they review. This basically means that if you review a product that was given to you for free by the company, you must now disclose that fact in your review. Interestingly enough, this ruling also dictates bloggers as well.As part of the Joystiq network of blogs, Massively is actually held to an integrity policy that prevents us from accepting gifts valued over $20. This includes everything from airfare for studio visits to the games themselves -- we must turn them down. And while this new FTC ruling is not actually a law, we are excited to see that our long-standing policies safeguard us from any integrity issues. Plus, we simply don't review MMOs.So now we're curious to hear what you think of this decision by the FTC. Do you think this will bring about a drastic change to all MMO reviewers out there? Can you trust a reviewer, knowing they were given a free game or travel expenses to visit a studio? Let us know what you think about this entire issue in the comments below!
1 vs. 100 prizes unavailable in certain states and Quebec
There's going to be some drama when folks really start to catch on, so let's get it out of the way now: residents of Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Vermont, and the great province of Quebec, are not eligible for Xbox Live Primetime's 1 vs.100 prizes. This isn't spite on Microsoft's part, because, according to the company there are laws.The statement from Microsoft's lawyers is that "due to gaming laws, which vary from state to state, '1 vs 100 skill-based prizes' cannot be offered in every state." The response neglects to provide any concrete reasoning why those four states and Quebec were unique, but does mention that players can participate through a sweepstakes.We contacted Joystiq's Law of the Game columnist, Mark Methenitis, to see if he could give us a clearer explanation regarding the exclusions. The attorney -- who just happens to have gambling law as one of his practice areas -- explained, "When you see restrictions like these, it's either because Microsoft's legal department or the contest administrator isn't comfortable with some aspect of the state law. Taking Iowa as an example, their laws are such that many scholars believe participation in a game for any property of value would be illegal gambling. There's also a provision that if, for a fee, anything of value is delivered, and given that this is limited to Xbox Live Gold members, it may be the wording of the statute that leads them to believe the paid membership plus the game may be problematic."Methenitis expresses that it's difficult to conclude why Microsoft chose those particular locales, but that it's "the direct result of the patchwork legislation among the states." If this seems unfair, then might we suggest contacting your congressman or, um, member of parliament? Something spooked Microsoft's lawyers into excluding those particular states. Find the full statements from Microsoft and Methenitis after the break.[Thanks, Justin F]
Apple building server farm, secret lair in North Carolina
As Mike mentioned in the news roundup yesterday, word is going around that the corporate overlords at Apple are planning to build a massive server farm in the state of North Carolina within the next decade or so. How do we know? Because the company is working on getting a few nice tax breaks to go along with the deal, eventually worth about $46 million if Apple fulfills their end of the agreement. Their end of the agreement being a huge investment of a whopping $1 billion (that's over 333,000 Xserves, if that is indeed what they're installing -- and we bet not) into an economy that could probably use it. What exactly will go in there? We aren't sure -- lawmakers say the investment is worth it, and obviously Apple isn't showing their cards. [Note: the $1B investment figure is not an upfront number, but rather a total investment over the first 9 years of operation. –Ed.] But the facility, once up and running, will start by employing at least 100 people, so that's a nice start. Google has apparently gone through the same deal with North Carolina recently, though their deal was a little smaller: $600 million investment for a server farm that opened last year. More backend for Mobile Me? More power for the App Store or a project like it? A giant building full of Cubes running 24 hours a day? Or something we haven't even dreamt of yet?
LGJ: More game laws?
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: It's early 2009, we've just elected a new President, and there are quite literally a mountain of problems to be addressed on Capitol Hill. Our economy has been in substantial turmoil for roughly six months, with some problems stretching back for years. Many states are at or near bankruptcy. This economic crisis has, by now, hit every country on the planet to some degree. So, our legislators have spent the last two months rushing to put together proposals to regulate video games. No, no one's undivided attention has been on the economy during this complete mess. Instead, since the start of the year, it seems there has been an explosion of potential new video game regulations, from Jack Thompson's bill in Utah, to New York, to the US Congress, to Australia -- just to name a few. And that's in addition to issues like the FTC's rumblings about DRM, which I've mentioned previously. While this boom in regulations and potential enforcement may be great news for sites like GamePolitics, it's potentially bad news for game developers and consumers, not to mention the taxpayers who are footing the bill for all of this. Of course, these laws are also coming from a number of different directions and under different theories, so I thought it might be a good time to give a short take on each and predict which directions things could be going.
WoW still on store shelves in Australia
Our good friend Tateru Nino (who is in fact an Aussie herself) has a followup over at Massively about the report that World of Warcraft was no longer legally available in Oz earlier this week. The issue isn't in the rules -- those are the same: unclassified games like World of Warcraft are held to the same rules as banned games -- but in the lack of enforcement. Since the issue has gone public, stores are continuing to sell the game (though some have removed larger sale displays of the games), and law enforcement has made no moves to try and get the games off of store shelves.The real problem here, of course, isn't that Australia wants to ban these games, but that they're falling through the cracks of what seems to be an extremely lax rating system. There's really no rating assigned to these games, so according to the rules, they can't be sold. But the rules make no sense in this case: no one, as far as we've heard, actually wants to ban these games in the country, and no one cares whether they're being sold on store shelves or not.Still, Massively does expect action, eventually, even if it's an apparently much-needed rejiggering of the ratings system to include these "unrated" games. Bottom line right now is that if you want to buy or sell World of Warcraft in Australia, no one's stopping you from doing so.
Game revenue taxation begins spread to Sweden and South Korea
They always say the two things you can't avoid in life are death and taxes. Yet, being an MMO player, death always just seems to be a part of life. And now, governments around the world are beginning to become interested in putting in the other unavoidable part of life in our gaming experience -- as if we had enough of death.As in-game transactions and RMT are beginning to become major boons to business the government is getting interested. And, of course, like any good government, they want their share. China was only the first, now Sweden and South Korea are interested in getting their tax laws straight as well.Taxing game transactions, however, isn't as easy as making laws that tax a physical currency. There's the issues of relative value, constantly diminishing returns as more money flows into virtual economies without enough monetary sinks in the game, and the whole issue if the game goes out of business.We tend to believe that worlds like this should avoid colliding, but it seems that as we begin to mesh our virtual currencies and begin to value them as much as our real world ones, paths like these seem inevitable.
What rights should we have to our virtual goods?
Are you aware of your property rights as they pertain to the virtual goods in your favorite MMO? Are you aware of the laws in your country as they pertain to virtual goods? Heck, do you even read the EULA?It seems like these lawyer-speak agreements are becoming more prevalent lately, as we impatiently click the 'agree' button in anticipation of playing the latest MMO. In fact, even older games are reinstating their EULA on the loading screens, forcing players to click through before entering their world. The reason for this basically boils down to inevitable litigation as gaming grows in popularity.
Interest group speaks up against Blizzard on Glider case
Blizzard's lawsuit against the Glider folks (who were trying to sell a bot that was used to play the game while /afk), has a new wrinkle in it. According to PC Gamer, an interest group called Public Knowledge (they're funded by a variety of creative arts foundations) has filed a brief in the case accusing Blizzard of overstepping their rights under copyright law. In the brief, and an accompanying blog post, they say that while what Glider is doing in-game may be wrong, it isn't actually copyright infringement, because the Glider software doesn't actually infringe on any copyrights that Blizzard holds. And they're worried that if Blizzard wins this case, it could set a precedent strongly in favor of copyright holders, to the point where any misuse of the software at all, from using bots to using the wrong name, would be interpreted instead as copyright infringement.They kind of have a point here -- Blizzard just used all the tools they had in this case to try and send a clear message to anyone out there trying to sell automation software that what they were doing would get them in trouble, and they may have thrown copyright infringement on the menu when it didn't really belong. For Blizzard's part, they claim that making a copy in RAM of the game's information constitutes copyright infringement, but again, that's only because Glider is misusing those RAM files -- every user everywhere needs to copy parts of the game into RAM in order to run it.At any rate, Public Knowledge has filed their brief and had their voices heard. It's up to the judges in this case to decide what comes out of it.
Gov. Schwarzenegger distances self from Conan games
While he might be a big shot politician these days, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will always be associated with his breakthrough movie role as Conan the Barbarian. So it's not horribly unfair for the ABC7 Sacramento news team to ask the Governor's office how his public opposition to video game violence gels with THQ's new, extremely gory Conan video game. "The Conan character existed far before the governor portrayed him in the movies, and it still exists in different forms of entertainment," said Aaron McLear, the governor's press secretary. "The governor has no association with that game."Fair enough, but we're a little disappointed the ABC7 reporter didn't go the extra step and ask Schwarzenegger how he felt about the violence in the Conan movie -- the one he was associated with. Surely some children were exposed to the movie's wonton brutality and turned into broadsword wielding murderers, right? So why the double standard? And why no Kindergarten Cop video game? Inquiring minds want to know![Via GamePolitics]
Schwarzenegger signs ban on teen cell phone use while driving
Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't as much fun as a Governor as he was in The Terminator... just ask California's teen drivers. The former action movie star has signed a new bill -- which we told you about in August -- into law, making it illegal for anyone aged 16 or 17 to use a mobile phone, pager, laptop, or handheld computer while driving a vehicle. Effective July 1, 2008 (the same day that California's ban on non-hands-free mobile-use while driving takes effect), the state will begin to fine offenders $20 for their first incident, and $50 for each recurrent violation. The law is targeting teen drivers due to the wealth of statistics that demonstrate young motorists are more likely to end up in car accidents which result in death. According to reports, 13.6-percent of all fatal accidents are caused by teenagers, and studies show that car crashes are the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 16-19. "The simple fact is that teenage drivers are more easily distracted," said Schwarzenegger in a statement, adding, "We want to eliminate any extra distractions so they can focus on paying attention to the road and being good drivers." He then paused and remarked, "We just don't want to say 'Hasta la vista, baby' to young drivers anymore."
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.
Mitt Romney cleaning up dirty video game water
Former one-term governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney is starting his campaign off on the great motivator of fear. Using the ocean as a metaphor based off something Columbine related, he speaks of how "deeply troubled" he is by the culture our children grow up in today. Romney says, "I'd like to see us clean up the water in which our kids are swimming. I'd like to keep pornography from coming up on their computers. I'd like to keep drugs off the street. I'd like to see less violence and sex on TV and in video games and in movies. If we get serious about this we can actually do a great deal to clean up the water in which our kids and grandkids are swimming." Senator Brownback of Kansas says Romney is just a little late to the culture wars.Brownback, who's already busy with his own battle on video games, says that Romney is a hypocrite because while he was on the board of Marriott International (hotel chain) he was paid $100,000 a year by a company that makes millions of dollars a year from in-room pornography rental. Raise your hand if you like yummy gooey irony. As we move into high gear on what will be the longest US presidential election campaign cycle ever, it'll be interesting to watch how many times video games come up as talking points when, well, it's pretty clear there are bigger issues going on. But darn it, video games make for much easier talking points.
Microsoft, Best Buy face revived racketeering charges
Pop quiz: What do Microsoft and Best Buy and John Gotti and Michael Milken have in common? Surprisingly, all four have at one time or another been charged with racketeering under the 1970 RICO Act, with the former two entities facing revived charges surrounding an alleged ongoing fraud that began more than seven years ago. Specifically, San Francisco's 9th US Circuit of Appeals has "reversed and remanded" an earlier dismissal of a suit in which plaintiff James Odom claimed that Microsoft and Best Buy colluded to sign him and other unsuspecting customers up for paid MSN subscriptions when they purchased a PC at the big box retailer. Although Microsoft began doling out refunds to those whose credit cards had been illicitly charged as early as 2003, interested parties still seem keen on winning a verdict against the software giant, and were seemingly unswayed by offers of increased Hotmail storage and free Zunes -- and now, as the case heads to US District Court in Seattle, even the mighty Geek Squad's powers are completely useless.
Guidelines for autonomous killbots proposed
Suggestions in regard to robotic rights seem to be flying off the shelves these days, but an engineer at the Naval Surface Warfare Centre has concocted an interesting set of guidelines catering to autonomous killbots of the future. Most likely, it's just a matter of time before machine-on-machine violence becomes commonplace, and John Canning's "Concept of Operations for Armed Autonomous Systems" outlines just how lethal robots should handle themselves when faced with potentially deadly conflicts. Interestingly, the document suggests the the bots should be allowed to make their own decisions when it comes to blasting or forgiving fellow robots, but before they pull the trigger on a human, it should request guidance from a flesh 'n blood friendly. Still, a definite loophole exists in the fact that these simple-minded killers could aim for a "human's weapon" without asking permission, and when his awful auto-aim programming leads to a costly casualty, it'll simply be deemed "collateral damage." Can't say we like the sound of that. [Warning: PDF read link] [Via El Reg]
Talking on the phone + riding your bicycle in NJ = $250 ticket
Here at Engdaget we completely support laws that make the roads a safer place for everyone, but this is a little ridiculous. Legislators in New Jersey are trying to pass a law where it would be illegal to talk on your cellphone and ride your bike. No, not a motorcycle, a bicycle. (Yeah, we know what you're thinking.) The rider would get a ticket for doing such and the fine would range from $100 to $250. We guess it could be worse -- we could live somewhere like Lawrence, Kansas or Honolulu, Hawaii where your cell phone can get you a all all types of trouble with the law. [Via Textually]
Segways now banned on British sidewalks
Ah, Segways -- some love 'em, some play polo with 'em, and still others prefer to ban 'em, courtesy of a 171-year-old highway law. That's right, last month, the British Department of Transportation said "no, sir" to the good 'ol go-go gyroscope. In fact, the DoT went so far as to issue "Regulations for Self-balancing Scooters", citing non-compliance with European safety laws and with the Highway Act of 1835. Apparently riding your Segway on private property is cool, but on public sidewalks -- or to use the British spelling, footpaths -- is a big no-no. Upset about it? Go write your MP! Or better yet, hand-carry your letters direct to Parliament. Surely, as we write, Dean Kamen himself must be rallying the infuriated legions of British Segway riders to storm the Palace of Westminster -- that is, assuming they're not waiting to be armed with the intimidating power of the Centaur.
Pols want "Truth in Video Game Rating Act"
The ever vigilant Game Politics brings word of yet another video game bill (YAVGB), this one brought to you by a bipartisan group of Congressman spearheaded by Florida Republican Cliff Stearns, seeking "truth in video game ratings." Of course, Stearns is also the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, the same Subcommittee that The Daily Show's Jon Stewart teased for being out-of-touch in June. So what are they seeking with bill HR 5912: "Rating games on only partial content: Unlike the present system, the ESRB would be forced to play games in their entirety." This will immediately become the dream job of gamers everywhere. "Withholding content: Publishers would be on the hook for failing to completely reveal content to the ESRB." Also known as Hot Coffee and Orc boobies are bad. "Gross mischaracterization of content: Although not specifically named, the ESRB would be barred from 'grossly mischaracterizing' (as defined by the FTC) game content." So wait, it wasn't coffee? Check out Game Politics for some more on the bill and their adroit analysis of these politician's motivations: all three sponsors are running for reelection this fall.
UK set to de-criminalize FM transmitters
Even though most FM transmitters barely have enough signal strength to reach the head unit of your car, a post-World War II-era English law that's still on the books has made these devices illegal for Brits to own and operate, as they could possibly interfere with other, legal broadcasts in some sort of Bizarro world. Well now it looks like the UK's Office of Communications, or Ofcom, has finally wised up and is poised to give the transmitters an exemption from 1949's Wireless Telegraphy Act (geez, even its name is antiquated), which currently threatens scofflaw music lovers with up to two years in prison. Ofcom is holding a "public consultation" on the matter until September, so if you're British and sick of being unable to share your Spice Girls and Gnarls Barkley tracks with pedestrians and other motorists, speak up and let your voice be heard.
Spain cracks down on file sharing
It's a sad day for Spanish content pirates, as formerly lax laws allowing P2P file sharing for personal use have just been overturned in favor of strict new rules that make file swappers financially liable for any unauthorized downloading they partake in. Furthermore, the new regulations -- which, unsurprisingly, have been blessed with the MPAA's seal of approval -- also hold ISPs accountable for the P2P activity of their customers, which could be seen as an incentive for service providers to block what they consider suspicious traffic. Even regular law-abiding citizens will be affected by the recent crackdown, as a small tax will now be levied on all blank media to reimburse copyright holders for earnings lost to piracy. While we're totally in support of intellectual property owners getting paid for their content, we worry that these tough new rules will discourage and even prohibit the many legitimate uses of P2P networks that have nothing to do with stealing movies and music -- as usual, a few bad apples (well, maybe more than a few) have caused everyone else to suffer.[Via Slashdot]
