Intellectual Property

It must be spring, and a delightful spring at that. Like swallows to Capistrano, numerous pigeons created by the IP mafia over the years are at last coming home to roost. Today’s NYT provides the most recent returning pigeon dropping its unintended consequence out of a clear blue sky.

The producers of World of Warcraft may not like gamers using automated “bots” to play the game, but the company can’t ban the practice under copyright law, Public Knowledge has told a federal court in Arizona.

In a brief filed Monday (May 5) with the U.S. District Court in Arizona, Public Knowledge said that Blizzard Entertainment, which produced the game, misinterpreted copyright law in its suit against MDY, which produces the “Glider” software that plays World of Warcraft while the owner is not even at the computer. Blizzard claims Glider infringed on the game’s copyright, arguing that by breaking the rules in a license agreement, the players are violating copyright each time they load the game into computer memory in order to play it.

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.

One of the biggest problems in public advocacy is translating abstract policy issues into the sort of concrete realities that bite the public on the rear end and get them to care. Happily, the RIAA and its ridiculous insistence on the most secure DRM imaginable — no matter how impractical, expensive, or user unfriendly — provides an endless series of such “teachable moments.” The recent announcement by MSN that it will shut down its music service and will therefore no longer refresh DRM keys is just such a moment.

MS found itself in a hard place. To offer the service it wanted, it needed to make commitments to the music industry about DRM. I do not think at the time MS understood this to mean that it would have a perpetual expense to maintain the service no matter what. Generally, if you decide the headaches aren’t worth it, you shut down.

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.

NOTE: My original blog post on this topic stated that the Tennessee state legislature was on the verge of passing SB 3974, a copyright industry-supported higher ed filtering bill. As discussed below, SB 3974 has been replaced with a different (and weaker) version. I regret the error.

Georgetown University
Washington, DC

Nelson Pavlosky, founder of Students for Free Culture, will be speaking to the group’s Georgetown University chapter. His talk will cover free speech, the DMCA, open source, fair use and the Free Culture movement.

For additional information about this event please visit: http://georgetown.freeculture.org/2008/04/10/nelson-pavlosky-speaks-at-georgetown/

In re Bilski is a case before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that could, if decided properly, prevent patents on business methods and other abstract ideas. The case came out of Bilski’s challenge to the Patent Office’s rejection of a patent application on a method of managing investment risks due to weather changes.

Public Knowledge, along with Consumers Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief with the Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic, arguing that non-technological inventions, like abstract business methods, should not be patented. The brief also sets out a five-part test to help courts determine whether or not an invention is technological, as opposed to an abstract idea only marginally connected to technology.

Yale School of Management
New Haven, CT

PK President Gigi Sohn will participate on a panel at the Yale School of Management Arts and Culture Club Issues in the Arts Conference. The conference is intended to serve as a forum to bring together artists and professionals to share perspectives and ideas on the challenges arts organizations and artists face today.

For schedule and registration information please visit: http://students.som.yale.edu/clubs/arts_culture/Schedule.html

UMUC Inn and Conference Center
Adelphi, Maryland

Join the University of Maryland University College’s Center for Intellectual Property for its annual symposium exploring the relationship between the U.S. copyright monopoly, technological innovation and higher education institutions. Featured speakers include PK President Gigi Sohn.

For additional information please visit: http://www.umuc.edu/mkting/cip/index2.shtml