Policy Blog Entries by Sherwin Siy

Yesterday, a federal court in Arizona decided MDY v. Blizzard, finding that violators of any licensing terms of an End User License Agreement (EULA) are liable for copyright infringement.

MDY sold Glider, a software program that let players of Blizzard’s World of Warcraft game automate their play in violation of the game’s EULA. Blizzard contended that, since every user of the game must copy the game (or at least portions thereof) into RAM in order to play it, these copies would be copyright infringements but for the existence of the EULA. If the EULA then says you don’t get this license unless you don’t use a bot, then using a bot is copyright infringement.

Even though I was in Seoul a little less than a month ago, I would be remiss if I didn’t take note of the nightly protests that were occurring there. For one thing, they were impossible to miss—the convention center where the OECD Ministerial was held had a small phalanx of orderly protesters and riot police outside it during the days—a scene mirrored in vastly greater numbers each evening downtown. But another reason for me to pay attention to the protests was an issue that touched on media and even copyright issues.

On June 18, the front page of the Korea Times covered a speech given by President Lee Myung-Bak at the OECD Ministerial. The headline?

In its “Declaration on the World Economy”, the G-8 included an endorsement of ACTA and ongoing efforts to “standardize” IP enforcement through customs organizations. “We encourage the acceleration of negotiations to establish a new international legal framework, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and seek to complete the negotiation by the end of this year,” the statement says.

So we have a major endorsement of ACTA from the leadership of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. And pressure to have this international legal agreement ready to roll at the end of the year. So what’s going to be in this critically important, possibly binding international agreement, to be completed in less than six months?

We have no idea.

The reason, incidentally, that I was in Korea last week wasn’t just to attend the Seoul Ministerial, but to moderate a panel at the Civil Society Stakeholder Forum this past Monday. Due to the vagaries of the air transport system, I arrived a bit late to my panel—by about twelve hours or so.

I had been asked to introduce the topic of convergence, open standards, and network neutrality—a broad topic—and had prepped a short piece to open the panel and introduce the panelists—who, by all accounts, gave fascinating presentations that I would gladly have given up my hotel and meal vouchers to have seen.

Recently, I was in South Korea, attending the OECD’s Ministerial on the Future of the Internet Economy. Rather than try to give a blow-by-blow account, I’ve tried to package some of my thoughts in a series of posts. Here’s one:

A few days ago, I picked on Chairman Martin’s speech at the plenary session of the OECD Seoul Ministerial. Among the various deregulatory policies Martin cited as enhancing competition (and thus the United States’ position in terms of broadband pricing and deployment) was the removal of unbundling requirements for broadband.

Martin used the removal of unbundling requirements as one of many examples in creating a (false, I think) dichotomy between competition and regulation.

For the past couple of days, I’ve been in South Korea, attending the OECD’s Ministerial on the Future of the Internet Economy. Rather than try to give a blow-by-blow account, I’ve tried to package some of my thoughts in a series of posts. Here’s one:

The OECD Ministerial has ended with the signing of the Seoul Declaration, a document signed by the member nations of the OECD, as well as the European Community and observer countries Chile, Egypt, Estonia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Latvia, Senegal and Slovenia. The Declaration sets out the international organization’s general policies for ensuring the future of the Internet Economy—including policies they believe will encourage creativity, support convergence, and promote confidence online.

For the past couple of days, I’ve been in South Korea, attending the OECD’s Ministerial on the Future of the Internet Economy. Rather than try to give a blow-by-blow account, I’ve tried to package some of my thoughts in a series of posts. Here’s one:

Video sharing sites hit mainstream a long time ago—by the time a technology is feted as part of a presidential debate, it's no longer got that same early-adopter cachet. That doesn't keep it from being useful, though.

Right now, for instance, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is asking for your input on a key meeting this month.

Today, PK asked a federal court in Arizona to accept our “friend of the court” arguments in MDY v. Blizzard, a case pitting distasteful gaming behavior against an unsavory over-assertion of copyrights.

The basic details behind the story are here.

MDY, Inc. makes a program called Glider that plays World of Warcraft automatically. Players using Glider can gain experience points in WoW while not at their computers. This causes a number of gameplay issues for Blizzard, the makers of WoW. It also violates their Terms of Use (“TOU”), which are incorporated into their End User License Agreement (“EULA”).

So Blizzard sues MDY. Ok. For copyright infringement. Less Ok. Here’s why.

We’re now accepting nominations for our annual IP3 Awards. Each year, Public Knowledge singles out three people who have advanced the public interest in one or more of the “three IPs”: Intellectual Property, Internet Protocol, and Information Policy.

As technology advances, the roles of users, content creators, and service providers expand and blur. This year, more than ever, the areas have overlapped in debates around patents, copyright, net neutrality on the Internet and on other networks, the use of spectrum, and many others. As new questions arise at the intersection of law and technology, certain individuals come forward to advance to public interest in each of the three types of “IP”.

As always, we need your help in choosing this year’s winners. So please send your nominations to IP3nominees@publicknowledge.org, or post your picks in the comments below.