IM 350DRM and Games/VW cases

Day 24November 19, 2015

Plus Quiz 22

I am here, in the count, and quizical

A. TrueB. False

I’m going to spin through first 3

• They are different questions on related aspects

• I’ll come back to each, with time to answer• They won’t be open first time through• Otherwise, we have 3 trick questions

From the perspective of game and VW developers, and the companies they work for as they make and deploy games and VWs, the principal legal mechanisms that control intellectual property rights are:

A. TOS/EULA.B. IP laws covering the

jurisdiction where the company resides/the work is done.

C. Employment law.

From the perspective of game and VW players/users, the principal legal mechanisms that control intellectual property rights are:

A. TOS/EULA.B. IP laws covering the

jurisdiction where the company resides/the work is done.

C. Employment law.

From the perspective of US courts, the principal legal mechanisms that control intellectual property rights are:

A. Valid only within the Magic Circle.

B. Valid only with regard to events outside the Magic Circle.

C. Valid only based on the prevailing TOS/EULA.

D. None of the above.

The principal difference(s) between games and VWs are:

A. VWs have narratives and quests that are unlike those found in games.

B. Games have narratives and quests that are unlike those found in VWs (if the VW has any at all)

C. Players are embodied differently in games than they are in VWs.

D. Players own the IP in VWs; game companies own the IP in games.

Video games can be protect by copyrights covering/focusing on:

A. Literary aspects.B. Code.C. Artistic aspects.D. All of the above

including combinations/compilations of one or more of them.

Copyrights on the music within a game or VW can be held by parties other than the game or VW company.

A. TrueB. False

Misbehavior “within the Magic Circle” is not subject to terrestrial law enforcement.

A. TrueB. False

United States of America v. Elcomsoft Co., Ltd. and Dmitry Sklyarov, Case No. CR 01 20138 (N.D. Cal. 2002).

• The DMCA is confusing

A few DRM casesMostly about the DMCA implications

The Chamberlain Group, Inc., v. Skylink Technologies, Inc., 02 C 6376 (2004).

• The DMCA can apply to aspects other than content media.

• the appellate decision in the Chamberlain v. Skylink case seems to instruct us that liability for the act of circumvention can only be considered if there is an actual copyright violation as well

EFF v. Sony BMG, Cal. Sup. Ct. Los Angeles Cty. (2005).

• It’s probably unwise, from a business perspective, to infect users’ computers or leave them open to attack due to the DRM you use.

• It might also be unwise to hide the DRM such that users don’t know it’s there.– “Companies that want to load their CDs with

software that limits the ability to copy music should fully inform consumers about it, not hide it, and make sure it doesn’t inflict security vulnerabilities on computers” (CA Attorney General)

Gawronski v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-01084-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. No. 1, Jul. 30, 2009.

• 1984 all over again

A few VW/Games Cases

Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc. and Philip Rosedale, No. 06–4925, USDC (E.D. Pa., May 30, 2007).

• Although LL gives in and settles before trial, there IS a decision here.

• The case featured requests for summary judgments in the form of dismissals (LL tried to get the case dismissed before trial).

• THEY LOST– The Judge assailed their ToS– Also dissed their arbitration procedures.

Sex Bed Cases from Second Life

• Eros, LLC, et al. v. Simon, et al., 1:07-cv-04447-SLT-JMA. USDC (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2007).

• Eros, LLC v. Robert Leatherwood and John 1–10 Does, 8:2007cv01158. (M.D. Fla. July 3, 2007).

• Eros, LLC, et al. v. Simon, et al., 1:07-cv-04447-SLT-JMA. USDC (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2007).

• SL/LL allows creators to keep their copyrights, so real world litigation is possible.

Estavillo v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, 2009 WL 3072887 (N.D. Cal.Sept. 22, 2009).

WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT? YOU AIN’T GOT NO STINKING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN MY GAME. WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS IS, ANYWAY, AMERICA?

Abreu v. Slide, Inc., 12 0042 WHA (N.D. Cal.; July 12, 2012).

• You must--- allow me to repeat - - - You must abide by the terms of service in our game. If you do not, we will disable your account, suspend your license/account, ban you, keep your money, and maybe even sue you to recover ill-gained-gains.– And most courts will side with us. It is, after all, a

binding contract.

Student Athlete Cases

• Hart v. Electronic Arts, 717 F.3d 141 (3rd Cir. 2013).

• In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 724 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2013).

• Courts are starting to limit what rights colleges can take, and keep, as part of scholarship agreements.

Student Athlete Cases• Latest rulings• 1. (part of the O’Bannon/In re cases): Schools don’t have to

pay full costs of attendance (up to 5G) for each student, but current arrangements probably DO violate anti-trust laws.– https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/the-obannon-appeal-decision-

buys-the-ncaa-time-a-little-money-and-nothing-else/

• 2. Unrelated issue, related topic: Northwestern football players lost the case to unionize– http://guardianlv.com

/2015/08/no-union-for-northwestern-university-athletes/

Questions about your case drafts and projects? Hang around.