Slashdot Mirror


Copyrights, Videogames, and LAN Parties?

mse61 writes "I'm currently the sole organizer for what will hopefully be a large gamer club/LAN party on the campus of Bowling Green State University in Ohio. While booking the room for our next event (March 4th 2004) I was casually informed that I had to secure permission from the copyright holders for the games we would be playing. I was quite confused as to why they needed this, and their only answer was that it would be considered a 'public showing of copyrighted work', and therefore I must secure permission. I asked a lawyer about the policy and his best advice was to get a hard copy of their policy and then comply to the bare minimum. The University was unable to provide much hardcopy, but largely referred me to the University rule that all State and Federal laws were in effect. Have any Slashdotters ever run into this problem, and would they have any advice for a gamer lost in the mire of copyright laws?"

84 comments

  1. i'll support you! by cybin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i'm a grad student at BGSU in the music department -- let me know if you need help with this.

  2. Actually... by gamgee5273 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I contacted the companies years ago when I organized a "LAN Day" sort of thing at Wayne State up in Detroit. It wasn't for clearance (nothing of that type was requested of me by the university) but all the companies I contacted responded and some even sent along doorprizes and gifts to be raffled off.

    Call the companies. If there are any public performance issues they're the best ones to tell you if you need clearance. I suspect you don't, but it's always possible that if there is a audience (let's say you have a large bracket tournament for the best Halo player at BG), that the company might want you to get clearance, dictate that no cameras be present, etc...

    1. Re:Actually... by Operating+Thetan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Call various hardware companies as well if you need to defray costs. I know several of them will sponsor LAN parties

      --
      Worried you might not keep your virginity forever? Try new Linux(TM), guaranteed twice as effective as LARPing
    2. Re:Actually... by eviltommy · · Score: 1

      WSU lan party = elite idea! howeverm what building would it be in? parking at school is teh sux. contact me if you want to persue this idea later in the year. im down for getting organizing and sponsors.

  3. Copyrights by atomic-penguin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Our LUG has a monthly LAN party. We picked a LAN game that was easy enough for everyone in the group to afford: Unreal Game Of The Year -- Retail $10.00 at our local Wal-Mart. We temporarily store it on lab computers as necessary, and remove it after the game is over.

    We require everyone present to have a licensed copy to play. Most people bring in their own boxes, and each have their own copy.

    I suppose it depends on whether the players are using College property or their own personal property to play the game. It is in no way infringing for a group of people to bring in their own personal computer along with their own licensed copy of the game to have a gathering.

    Check the license agreement, for example you don't need a licensed "standalone" game server for Unreal Tournament. The standalone server is publicly licensed, because nobody is using it as a client.

    --
    /^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
  4. Yes I have by Prien715 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hi, I was in charge of LAN parties for ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) at the University of Delaware. We had similar issues to the same ones you did and there's multiple ways to resolve it.

    1) Some games have implied licensing. For example, say a certain game allows you only one copy of a key per internet server, but 4 copies of a given license per LAN server. Since this was done deliberately, it can be seen as an implicit contract since surely this was no accident.

    2) I did multiple LAN parties. One of the things I realized reading the EULAs was that it was for one copy of the game to be "installed and played on one system". I then thought of the word "and". What I ended up doing, is making a contract (doc format sorry) through which people gave us permission to use a copy of their game for our events. Given the above "install and use" restriction, the person isn't required to attend the event, merely not be using their copy of the game at the same time. From there, I noticed I had large pools of licenses for two games and simply split each LAN party into two parts (one playing each game). I'm fairly certain the general idea is kosher. I talked to our University's computer ethics advisor and a professional IP lawyer and both thought it sounded great.

    I had further ideas, but since I graduated, I never got a chance to implement them. One was to buy copies of a game that for extra licenses and then sell them (at no profit) to people who attended the parties who liked the games (I got a lot of approval for this, but no funding in time for me to implement it before graduation).

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:Yes I have by Bobulusman · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Given the above "install and use" restriction, the person isn't required to attend the event, merely not be using their copy of the game at the same time. From there, I noticed I had large pools of licenses for two games and simply split each LAN party into two parts (one playing each game).
      That's...that's...brilliant. I'm sure the company lawyers wouldn't like it too much, but it would certainly get you around such university problems.
      --
      Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
    2. Re:Yes I have by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had a similar idea a while back... the difference being that in mine it combined the "I'm not using it at the moment" idea with the "time shifting" idea. That is, you can use it for as long as I haven't used it. It's been a week or two since I've used it, so you should be good for well over two-hundred hours.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    3. Re:Yes I have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A computer person that doesn't know that both conditions must be met in an and statement? You should read it as "installed on one system" (Assuming you correctly copied the EULA.) If both machines had it installed you violated the licensing agreement.

      Not that I really mind.

    4. Re:Yes I have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately your LAN parties violated at least the UT2003 EULA. The UT2003 EULA specifies that it can only be installed on one hard drive and only played on the system with that hard drive. It further goes onto say that you cannot sublicense the game. In a long winded sentence with a bunch of other things you can't do, public display is listed. I am guessing you didn't provide all the EULAs to the ethics advisor or lawyer since your contract is not clearly not a legal way to play at least UT2003. By the way all of those licenses were void when sublicensed.

    5. Re:Yes I have by Prien715 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um...if you can "install and use it" on one system, you can install it as many times sas you want and as long as you don't use it on any of them you're not satisfying the conditional. As long as you're using it on one system at a time, the game is only "installed and used" on one PC. I think you mean "install or use" which is not what the EULA said at all.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    6. Re:Yes I have by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      But who cares about the EULA? Take the road so many of us are taking and just dont agree to them. EULAs, in the incarnation they take with most commercial software, are atrocious. Decline them and stick to the rights granted you by the law. The only reason to accept an EULA is in return for considerations or rights that the law restricts, like accepting the GPL so you can redistribute modified code.

    7. Re:Yes I have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could if need be just play an demo therefore you would have nothing to fear about any liscenses :)

    8. Re:Yes I have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um no, it is installed on more than one and used on more than one. No where is a conditional stating that you can install it as many times as you want (It specifically states one system) as long as you guarantee it is not played at the same time.

      Here is another way to look at it.

      Is it installed on more than one machine? Yes

      Is it used on more than one system? No

      Switch the yes and no to true and false and we get this.

      True && False = True

      So the answer to the question are we in violation is (Switch the true back to yes) um, yeah you violated the license agreement.

    9. Re:Yes I have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way that looks wrong, but it is right since I really should have made yes = false and no = true, since a yes causes the clause to fail.

    10. Re:Yes I have by castlec · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, for your argument anyway, it comes down to the exact wording of the eula. The and of the English language is both a mathematical or and a mathematical and. Final meaning must be interpreted. In the particular case sited, the and is inclusive, not exclusional. This makes it a mathematical or, not a mathematical and. If it had said "installed on one, and only one computer, and played on that same computer" then there would be no doubt of the intention; however, human languages are ambiguous and as stated previously, it can be interpreted as a mathematical or rather than a mathematical and. This is why contracts used to be in multiple languages, to counter the ambiguities of one language with the strengths of another.

      true||false = true

      Now, you may attempt to counter my statements by saying that if that was their intention, they would have used an or. The or of the English language is, however, a mathematical xor. This would create a purchase that would result in no playing because if you install, you no longer have the option to play. If you don't install, you have the option to play but how are you going to play if you don't install?

      Always remember, mathematics and language don't always match. Just because you think you can prove language with mathematics doesn't mean you're correct. Languages are not logical.

      --
      When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
    11. Re:Yes I have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is true. However of the three EULAs I looked at last night, they all made it abundantly clear that you could only install it on one machine. The language I read in the EULA of one of the products in his agreement says roughly... The software can be installed on one hard drive and played on the machine that hard drive is installed in. The point is pretty much moot anyhow since all the licenses I read specifically prohibit sublicensing to third parties.

    12. Re:Yes I have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, if you downloaded his agreement you would have seen that UT2003 was on the list. Even if UT2003 was never played at any of his LAN parties, as soon as someone signed that document sublicensing their copy of UT2003, they voided their license. So maybe you should read all the pertinent info before you reply.

    13. Re:Yes I have by kgbkgb · · Score: 1

      The very act of buying the product and installing it is entering in an agreement... specifically the EULA. You can't just say "I decline this" and not be legally bound to follow it.

    14. Re:Yes I have by imidan · · Score: 1

      In that case, how about, "I'm going to be using it at the same time as you, but I won't use it while I'm sleeping next week, so that's 40 hours." Or, even, "That program was already out for a couple of months before I bought it, so we can both use it concurrently for one month." I'm not sure that many publishers would smile upon this "time shifting" idea.

    15. Re:Yes I have by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      Of course you can, by doing precisely that. They are offering you a contract, you are completely within your rights to decline to accept it.

      PS: By reading this comment you agree to paypal me $50. You cant decline, since you already read it.

    16. Re:Yes I have by kgbkgb · · Score: 1

      Do you know anything about the law, or are you completely talking out of your ass? I wager it's the latter. The only way to decline to accept the EULA is to not buy the product, or to return it. When install the product, you are effectively signing a contract. Your statement boils down to "You can decline the contract after you signed it". Sorry, but you're wrong. If you disagree with this, then that's fine, you can have your own interpretation of the law... but the fact is your interpretation is wrong and a court will go by their interpretation, not yours, when deciding your punishment.

      And your PS is a sad attempt at making a point, because I never engaged in any clear action that is evidence I agreed to your contract.

    17. Re:Yes I have by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      So somehow you replied to my post without having read it? And commented on the PS without reading it... I would say you just proved it for me. The fact is that there is no law against using software, no matter what the situation (cept for anti-hacking laws, i mention this only for thoroughness as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand). Once you have physical posession of a copyrighted work you can do anything you want with it, including USING it, as long as you dont break copyright law (that list I linked to above). A license gives you rights held by someone else. The right to play/watch/run/read the work is not a right the law reserves for them, they dont have the authority to deny/grant it to anyone else.

    18. Re:Yes I have by kgbkgb · · Score: 1

      Why are you brining laws into this? Who said there was a law against using software? I never claimed claimed that EULAs have anything to do with some particular law, only that THE LAW states that when you enter in an agreement, you are bound by that agreement.

      You are saying that you can continue to use that software without agreeing to its EULA, and that therefore you wouldn't be bound by its terms. You're 100% wrong. In the eyes of the law, the very use of the software implies agreement with the EULA and thefore you are bound by its terms. You can't just say "Oh, I'm going to continue to use this but I don't really agree with the EULA, so..."

      And no, I didn't reply to your post without having read it. But I had no way of knowing that by reading it I was entering into a contract, so that's a ridiculous example (as I've already pointed out). That's not the case with software. When you install it, you're prompted very clearly with the EULA. You then can agree with it or not.... but if you install, then you are agreeing. If your post had given a link, and said "Click here, and you agree to do this or that"... then perhaps your example would be worth something.

    19. Re:Yes I have by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      so, youre basing your 'if you install it then you agree' on what exactly? did the contract fairy bring you a note from god saying thats how contracts work now? there is no legal connection between installing the software and agreeing to the contract. they are completely seperate. i can think of a dozen ways to install any particular piece of software without ever having to deal with the agree/decline dialog, or to continue installing after declining. or, better yet, to amend the agreement (see here for something along these lines) before agreeing to it. or are you saying people dont have the right to modify contracts before they sign them any more (every person i know who has ever accepted a job will be sad to hear this).

    20. Re:Yes I have by mausmalone · · Score: 1
      I then thought of the word "and". What I ended up doing, is making a contract ...

      Of course, the more practical thing to do is to realize that you're too small to be on the radar, so even if you break the laws, the copyright holders would never notice/give a damn.

      Also, they tend to encourage this sort of LAN party atmosphere. The way they see it, if you play the game at a party and have a lot of fun, you'll probably want to buy a copy for yourself.
      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    21. Re:Yes I have by kgbkgb · · Score: 1

      I'm not basing "if you install it then you agree" on some obscure notion of how contracts work, it's explicit in the license itself. Look at this excerpt from the XP Pro EULA
      "YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND."

      It's clear, plain, and simple. There IS a legal connection between installing the software and agreeing to the contract. And your commend about amending the agreement is ludicrous. Of course you can modify a contract before signing it, but OBVIOUSLY both parties need to agree to the modification. If you don't send a letter to MS saying you're changing the agreement, or if you do and they don't reply to you, then you're SOL. In your example about the accepting a job, the person doing the hiring agrees to any modifications about the contract.

      This is really plain and simple, and you sound like a smart guy, so I don't believe you can't grasp this. Instead I think you're just continuing to argue this point to avoid admitting what you said was wrong. So please stop coming up with examples that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

      I wish someone else would back one of us up on this point so he can stop coming up with meaningless examples and I can stop having to shoot them down ;)

    22. Re:Yes I have by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      You are basing your argument about the validity of the EULA on something IN THE EULA? Bzzt, try again. Anyone can modify a contract before agreeing to it. If both parties dont agree then the contract isnt valid. Which is perfect, the entire goal here is to NOT have a binding contract between me and the software company. I dont *WANT* them to agree to the changes.

    23. Re:Yes I have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was in the middle of typing another long post about your complete stupidity, and then I realized I've been caught by an expert troller.

      You're either an expert troller, or a complete idiot. Either way, I'm done :)

    24. Re:Yes I have by pantherace · · Score: 1
      Basing it on the EULA is not valid, UNLESS it states on the outside of the box (visibly) that you have to agree to an (enclosed) eula. If it doesn't then it breaks down to modification of contract after sale according to at least one Federal Court (if you bought the box of software & they are the copyright holder). You could potentially get into a lot of trouble if you sold a linux distro & didn't mention that the software inside was licenced under various terms (see inside). Because without the Licence: GPL, LGPL... etc, you are in violation because you are selling something you don't have the rights to (if you don't accept the GPL (or other licence), it's a copyright violation, if you do, just print it visibly.

      Please note that the use of it is now covered by copyright, and fair use applies (which also implies that it can be installed to a computer to use it). Which means that copying it & selling it (etc) are not legal, but things that take away fair use in the EULA (or any good permissions that aren't fair use are taken away with the usually bad restrictions).

      Microsoft, Red Hat, and any software company with a legal department worth 0.02USD who wants to be legal (Linux distros, see above) or enforce the EULA (Microsoft for example) has it on the outside of the box, in which case it is mostly valid (a person would have to challenge it for what it says, such as one software company that put in your firstborn (pretty open & shut case of that part or whole of that EULA being invalid.))

    25. Re:Yes I have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you provide it for entertainment, and you charge people to play it, (or use it as a selling point for other services) than there is nothing to discuss. You cant get out of stuff like that easily.

    26. Re:Yes I have by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      Well, I have had an idea for a while about a system through which "donations" are given, and when enough to acquire a product are had, the product is bought, then destroyed. All people making donations are still doing something illegal, but still there is money given to the creators.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  5. I am a grad student in the Coll of Tech at BGSU by heldlikesound · · Score: 4, Informative

    Talk to Dr. Paul Cessarini and Dr. Chase Wilson, both very interested in copyright law and digital rights.

    Also, why don't you post some details about the club online?

    --


    Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
    1. Re:I am a grad student in the Coll of Tech at BGSU by Naffer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm confused as to why this could even be an issue. Aren't lan parties GREAT for companies? I know that if I made a game and a whole bunch of people who didn't know each other got together to play it, I'd be totally psyced. Were there any previous instances where a game publisher took or threatened legal action as a result of a lan party? I really have a hard time beliving that any publisher in their right mind would do such a thing.

    2. Re:I am a grad student in the Coll of Tech at BGSU by GreyyGuy · · Score: 1

      It is very likey an issue the college facilities people brought up. I ran a few different eventlike that used school space while in college and they always brought up every little point they can. I have no doubt that they are trying to cover their asses legally so no one comes back and sues them, but it is still a pain.

    3. Re:I am a grad student in the Coll of Tech at BGSU by mse61 · · Score: 1
      --
      ++mse61--
  6. Permissions by OutRigged · · Score: 5, Informative

    Playing games at a lan party isn't a public showing, unless you're providing both the games and the computers. If the participants are providing thier own machines and thier own copies of the game, then you need no such permission. If you want to play it on the safe side though, just call a few of the games' publishers and ask permission, or ask what you need to do to go about getting permission. My money's on the fact that not one of them will say 'no, you may not play our game at your lan party', and some might even provide cheap door prizes.

    I've been running a LAN party with some friends for the last few years btw, so I'm not completely talking out of my ass. :)

    --
    RaGe
    We're all just noise on the wires..
    1. Re:Permissions by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      You guys apparently never got hit by the Blizzard "buy our LAN license or we will PWN YOU" cease and decist letters for Warcraft 3.

    2. Re:Permissions by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but that is not exactly true. If everyone is providing the games and the hardware, technically you would *all* have to get permission from the copyright holders if there is an audience more than a certain amount [50 if I remember correctly?] and there's a cost involved to get in , OR if one of the displays is over some set amount... 60 inches or some such. [this last provision actually allowed the NFL to prevent the showing of the last Super Bowl in Las Vegas]

      Though most of the lan parties I've been to, everyone is playing, and there is no audience.

  7. Depends on the crowd by superpulpsicle · · Score: 2

    We use to have console parties in college dorms. As long as 100% of the audience were local students, no one cares.

    It's when we turn the parties into a public display with an open invitation to anyone that it might become a legal matter. But still... there were no real paperwork needed. Just make sure all games were legit, non-copies etc etc.

  8. Well by Masami+Eiri · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Chances are you don't, but most of the people I know that run LAN parties routinely contact the companies when they have one coming up. Often times, the companies will supply a few copies of a game or some hardware or other merchandise. I have two heat.net shirts from such parties. Hell, I was at one where they had Razor Boomslang mice provided (when they were new and cost like $100)

    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh, heat.net shirts.. they sent you those free just for creating a free account on their website to play games

  9. Whoever told you that is an idiot by IshanCaspian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously. Think about it this way. Ever been to a public lab? A public high school? A library? They all have computers, all running copies of Windows. Is that a "public performance"? No. As long as you have one license for each computer, you're in the clear. Whoever told you that must have been thinking of movies or music...that's what the legal catch phrase "public showing" comes from. A lan party is no more a public performance than twenty people standing in the same room, listening to the same song on individual cd players with headphones.

    --

    But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
    1. Re:Whoever told you that is an idiot by MMaestro · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Think about it this way. Ever been to a public lab? A public high school? A library? They all have computers, all running copies of Windows. Is that a "public performance"? No. As long as you have one license for each computer, you're in the clear.

      Actually a LAN party could be viewed as a "public performance" because of the broad defination of a LAN party. Theres primarily two types. Theres the 'bring your own computer' system or the cybercafe style of 'walk in, pay and play' system. In a broad defination both are LAN parties, the thing is it only applies for the latter. For the former, yeah you'd need one license for each computer (to be on the safe side.)

      It depends on how you view it. If you invited 20 friends over to your house to watch a DVD, yes that could be considered a "public showing". If you were some rich ass mofo and decided to buy 20 Alienware computer and run 20 copies of UT2k4, yes that could be considered to be a "public performance." (For both Alienware and Epic.)

      As for running Windows on multiple computers at a place like a library or a school, thats not really a fair statement. Some schools and libraries recieve the equipment (and software) for free (at the very least, discounted) so I'm sure theres some kind of special license agreements for them.

    2. Re:Whoever told you that is an idiot by jimpop · · Score: 1

      It depends on how you view it

      It depends on whether or not you charge for it.

    3. Re:Whoever told you that is an idiot by jayrtfm · · Score: 3, Informative

      nope, it doesn't. Some campus movie groups got nailed when they tried showing movies for free, but charged for the popcorn.
      Even without the popcorn it's a violation. just read the FBI warning....

    4. Re:Whoever told you that is an idiot by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1, Interesting

      At Carnegie Mellon University they project a movie on a big ass 20 foot tall screen out on Flag Staff hill. They don't seem to be having any problems.

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    5. Re:Whoever told you that is an idiot by IshanCaspian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it couldn't. DVDs / VHSs are licensed for home performance. They sell you those things as an individual, for individual use. Therefore, it's not within your rights to turn around and use that license to show it to a hundred people. That's why there's a difference between public and private performance. Showing a movie to a large group of people is outside of the agreement under which you're allowed to watch the DVD. However, when you buy a computer game, the license explicitly allows you to install it on one computer and to play it online with other people. The point about the "public performance" law is not that you're doing something with other people, but that you're outside of the original parameters of your license to use the work. A LAN party is just a group of people using their individual licenses lawfully together. A public screening of a movie is outside of the permissable license on a DVD sold for private viewing. Your last two paragraphs are false and misleading. If I buy a laptop and sit on a park bench, using it, that would be a "public performance," according to you. There's absolutely no connection between this notion of "public performance" and computer software.

      --

      But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
    6. Re:Whoever told you that is an idiot by Sparr0 · · Score: 1
      *cough*

      outside of the original parameters of your license to use the work

      *cough*

      Someone has put a little too much brainwashing into you son. You dont need a license to USE a work. The only time you need a license is if you want to do something on this list. If the License, in the form of the EULA most likely, doesnt grant you any rights you have been denied by law then why would you need, or want, to accept it?
    7. Re:Whoever told you that is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The local gas station owner buys hundreds of DVD's and rents them out till they are paid off. Then he adds them to his home collection. I guess someone should tell him that only he can watch it haha! Remember its ok to download movies as long as you dont sell them : )

    8. Re:Whoever told you that is an idiot by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      A public screening of a movie is outside of the permissable license on a DVD sold for private viewing.

      But then what defines a private viewing? If I decide to show a DVD to a group of 10 friends (say I'm really social), is that a private viewing? Outside of family relationship, showing a movie is one big grey area due to lack of specific parameters.

      If I buy a laptop and sit on a park bench, using it, that would be a "public performance," according to you. There's absolutely no connection between this notion of "public performance" and computer software.

      Of course it depends on what you're doing. If you were using a prototype laptop/software and you weren't supposed to use it/share it/demonstrate it to the public, yeah some company could send law on you for using it as a "public performance." The only reason why you don't hear about this too often is because its such a vague law. Whens the last time you ever heard of a local film club or friend get arrested for a "public performance" of a movie they were showing at the time? My local high school film club used to show off movies for free on Wednesdays, but they never got arrested (unarguably a public showing since it was open to the public and free). My friend invited my brother and I to see Cowboy Bebop the Movie in his basement for free a couple months ago along with about 10 other friends (again unarguably a public showing.)

      Heck I could show off the movie The Matrix for free my local high school and I wouldn't get arrested. You know why? Because its such a hard law to actually enforce and prove. Hence the reason why this Slashdot report on video game copyright laws.

  10. Commercial use or not? by RaymondInFinland · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess it all depends on the nature of your LAN party. Is it commercial orientated or just some 'geeks' getting together to play some games?

    For example, the product license agreement for my PS2 game Gun Grave reads:

    -snip-

    You Shall Not:
    Exploit this Program or its parts commercially, including, but not limited to use at a cybercafe, computer gaming centre or any other location-based site. Activision may offer a seperate Site License Agreement to permit you to make this Product available for commercial use

    -snip-

    I'm sure PC games have similair terms in the license agreements. It seems that as long as you are not commercially exploiting the games you should be in the clear. But as usual, IANAL.

  11. It's best to contact the copyright holders.... by gringo_john · · Score: 5, Informative
    On our campus, the student union showed screenings of various films.

    They got fined for not obtaining public performance rights. article about fines . It's best to be safe than sorry.

  12. Along the same lines... by Myco · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can I read aloud in public? What if I just move my lips?

    1. Re:Along the same lines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Can I read aloud in public?

      No. That's a public performance.

      What if I just move my lips?

      No. Some people can lip-read.

      And people still seem to think copyright law doesn't suck.

    2. Re:Along the same lines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be fine as long as you don't open the book in public.

  13. Perloined public performance permission by mcmonkey · · Score: 1
    At Carnegie Mellon University they project a movie on a big ass 20 foot tall screen out on Flag Staff hill. They don't seem to be having any problems.

    Yes, but do not have any problems because permission for public performance was provided previously?

    We could observe schools and amateur groups around the world put on public performances of copyrighted works all the time without issue, but in most instances performance rights have been obtained from the copyright owner.

  14. I've had to, but it's no big deal by Ayaress · · Score: 4, Informative

    When I was graduating from high school, we wanted to have a gaming party (There was a LAN party, but a lot of people brought in their consoles as well), and we were told to get permission from the copyright holders.

    We contacted a bunch of companies of games we figured people would bring (I know we didn't get half of the developers that were actually present, but we seemed to have satisfied the school), and none of them gave any trouble. Most of them responded quite graciously, in fact.

    Several companies sent us promotional posters/flyers and such, and asked if we'd display it at the party. One sent a gift certificate for Poppa John's Pizza. The coolest thing is that probably half of them even sent us disks with game demos or the partial releases they package with some video cards to raffle off and such.

    Technically, you can have the LAN party without permission (I think, anyway - IANAL), but if the university says they want you to get permission, don't worry about it, and just get permission. I'd be very suprised if any company said no (and frankly, if they do, I wouldn't buy their games anymore), and you'll probably score at least a couple freebies if you word your letters well.

    1. Re:I've had to, but it's no big deal by cavemanf16 · · Score: 1

      Well, techinically, you DO have to have authorization to do "public performances", but think of it in terms of the super-bowl, time-shifted:

      Let's say you and a bunch of friends are all super busy on Super-Bowl Sunday and want to wait a few hours to watch the game later the next day (let's say you all have Mon. off). So you program your TIVO or VCR to record the game, and then invite your friends over to watch the game. Technically, you're breaking the law. But seriously, the NFL is NEVER going to try and sue you for doing so. It wouldn't be worth their time, or money to do so. Not to mention the PR nightmare they would endure for suing a few friends for watching their game AFTER it was already over. Like everyone else has been saying, if it's a semi-organized, (and especially if it's a University 'sponsored' or recognized event using University resources) just write the dang companies and tell them your plan and all is well. They won't make you sign thirty-two pages of legal documents, they'll just be happy to have the customer feeback that their games are getting played at LAN parties.

  15. Keep things simple by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For your lan party only use games from software companies with reasonable requirements.

    Personally I don't think copyright law is such a great idea in the first place. And worse are _software_licenses_ (yes I am aware of the GPL).

    Are there any limits on what you can put on a license? Or limits on the limits you can put on a customer/user so that s/he can _use_ the product s/he legally obtained/paid for (usage usually involves making copies of the software - coz it has to be copied somewhere - RAM etc)?

    Maybe someone should come up with a software license that involves users being required to hop on one foot and while screaming "Foobarlicious".

    Or a software license that involves users agreeing to ignore all (other?) software licenses in order to use the software legally.

    --
    1. Re:Keep things simple by zenyu · · Score: 1

      Are there any limits on what you can put on a license? Or limits on the limits you can put on a customer/user so that s/he can _use_ the product s/he legally obtained/paid for (usage usually involves making copies of the software - coz it has to be copied somewhere - RAM etc)?

      In the USA, you don't need a license to make a copy required to use the work. Copying a program into core is explicitly stated as an example in the US code.

    2. Re:Keep things simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about if someone were to sneak into the Longhorn EULA a snippet like "You may only use this software to promote the fall of the US government, Allah bless you."

  16. the law says . . . by n8clark · · Score: 4, Informative

    As with most legal topics there is an endless continuum of possibilities.

    [no violation --- probably not --- maybe a violation --- probably --- definitely a violation]

    If you change one fact in your scenario, that can change where you may fall. Little by little the edges of the categories gets pushed. Usually, plaintiffs try and make it as broad a reading as possible, while defendants try to narrow the interpretation. The 1976 Copyright Act is the best place to start in determining the extent of the question at hand.

    > Section 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works: states generally that ". . . the owner of a copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:"

    > Section 106 (4) - in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audio visual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly"

    > Section 100 - Definitions
    To perform or display a work "publicly" means -
    1. to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
    2. to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different.
    The best thing to do is try and figure out how your particular set of facts will fall within this framework. If you are unsure, be safe and ask for permission.
  17. University of Toledo by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

    UT-BASH, the gaming society at the University of Toledo, although nemisis may be, has had some experience with this problem. Try contacting this guy: dfriess3@utnet.utoledo.edu

    --
    Fnord.
  18. Statute by incompetent_bitch · · Score: 1

    The applicable law is 17 USC 106(4), which states "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly."

    The question really is whether your LAN party constitutes a public performance. Is it open to the public, can be public freely enter the area, etc? And keep in mind that the law specifically states certain categories, and whether a player playing UT2K3 or whatever will fall within one of the pre-determined categories. If it does not, then this statute does not apply to you at all.

    1. Re:Statute by {tele}machus_*1 · · Score: 1

      Another factor to consider, in addition to the post above, is whether each participant owns a copy of the game. I don't know the mechanics of a LAN party, but I assume that each computer must have its own, licensed copy of the game. In that case, and as long as there are no spectators (I mean people sitting around watching the game who aren't sitting at a computer "spectating" via their own copy of the game), you probably are not making a public performance.

      I think there is also an open question of whether a game is an "audiovisual work," although, on its face, it appears that a game would qualify. But the next question is whether playing a game qualifies as performing an audiovisual work. The answer to that question is clouded, but we can look to the rest of the world for some indication: If you set up a server that is open to the world and you allow users to both play the game and just log on and spectate, are you creating a public performance of the game for which you should get the copyright holder's permission? Well, either you don't need permission, or the game comes with the copyright holder's implicit permission for this use. Otherwise, multiplayer online games would be irretriveably crippled (imagine every server admin getting explicit permission from the publisher to start up a server; it would defeat the entire purpose behind this kind of game).

  19. Was this an educational experience? by F34nor · · Score: 1

    Do you think this might have been as well thoguht out as to have been an attempt to make you learn the process? Or was it just BS? Either way the fact that most games let you use the same CD key for LAN parties indicates they have abdicated their copy right on a samll scale for marketing and market penetration. The old junkie way, give em a teast then charge!

  20. Driving at night with no lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what I'll have to do to avoid a public performance of
    my copyrighted and trademarked vehicle.

  21. Play the free UT 2004 Demo by chrestomanci · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Last weekend I invited five friends to my home for a LAN party.

    Though we had other games, we spent a large amount of time playing the UT 2004 demo.

    IMHO, it is a very good game. it is also free, and does not have any annoying copy protection to worry about.

    I think that everyone there decided it was a good game and worth buying. Likewise, if you host many games of UT 2004 at your LAN, then Epic will probably thank you for all the converts you will create.

    As it is freely downloadable and redistributable, you can reasonably claim you have permission to use it.

  22. Just do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I have held over 30 Lan parties and we never got permission. Most of the people that come anyways all have stolen copies and such which is why we could never do the events online. Just mention the word LAN Party in public and 3/4 of the people don't even know what you are talking about. My advise is to just make the college feel happy but if they don't request for permission then don't bother!

  23. two options by bigbigbison · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As someone who not only graduated from BGSU but did so with a Master's thesis written about videogames, I can tell you that there have been lan parties on BGSU before, so this seems like a case of someone who is ignorant of what is going on. I see two solutions.

    One is to go and try to talk some sence into them tell them that this is not a public showing, everyone coming will have bought their own copies of the game, everyone has paid for the games, and that the games are designed for this exact purpose. Which office did you talk to? I have reserved rooms at BGSU for various reasons several times for some odd purposes and never had them question me. I would suggest trying to talk to someone else.

    Secondly, baffle them with bullshit. I know that nothing is going to happen, You know that nothing is going to happen. Print out the user agreements to like 10-20 different games and I would imagine that they would just stick it in a file somewhere without even reading it. As long as they have some official sounding paperwork then in most cases they would be happy, unless you run into some power happy person -- again I think the best route is to try to talk to someone else. Don't say, "Can I talk to soemone else" just go over there at various times untill that person is gone and pretend this is the first time you've been there.

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  24. Lan Parties... by Deltashield · · Score: 1

    I for one ran several lan parties before building my own game server for others to access remotely...As long as the game copies on the visiting systems are registered / legal and the host isn't charging a fee to participate there should be no problem. Public performance restrictions only apply when you charge fees for services without sending a cut to the manufacturer...that's my take at least.

  25. depends on definition and also locale by SaxyRyder · · Score: 1

    I'm a music major and have studied copyright laws several times. Public performance is usually not applicable to a LAN party because, unless there are tournaments with prizes and tickets, nobody is "performing" for anyone else. the intellectual property of the companies, UT2003 for EA for example, is not being displayed to a group for profit or any other purpose. Each individual is using their purchased(supposedly) product for his/her own personal use and that is the extent of the use at most LAN parties. Also, depending on the room you are using, it may be sanctioned for public performance without attaining permission. Recital halls and auditoriums at colleges are such sanctioned areas where music and other arts can be performed without worry of infringement. Restaurants and coffee shops also work this way, anywhere there will be live music or copyrighted recorded music. They have to pay a yearly fee to be allowed to play cds and special radio stations and also have live performances in there venue. Imagine if a coffee shop had to attain the copyright permission for every piece of music that is ever heard in its space! There are laws to account for that and i think this might be applicable here. It seems to me that a LAN party would be definied as a live performance of a copyrighted work if it had to be classified as a public performance, and the hall/room you're trying to have the LAN party in could be covered for public performances and you won't have to worry. This is assuming though that videogames are under that clause for public performance spaces, which i admittedly am unsure of. Might give you enough bullshit to feed the people in charge though so they leave you alone, since we've all been to LAN parties and no copyright is not a factor at all.

  26. Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My community college has held XBOX lan parties and plans on having a PC Lan party. The only reason they would let such an event is if the people who play in it have their own copy of the game.

  27. movies not games. by Suppafly · · Score: 1

    I was quite confused as to why they needed this, and their only answer was that it would be considered a 'public showing of copyrighted work', and therefore I must secure permission.

    That applies to movies, not pc games. Assuming you have enough liceneses for everyone or you have everyone bring their own, it doesn't matter that it's in a public area.

  28. Thank You. by mse61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thank you for all the responses! It confirmed some of the thoughts i had and help me set an idea of what needed to be done. More info on the orgnization and LAN party can be found here: http://personal.bgsu.edu/~randlem/xngc/

    --
    ++mse61--
  29. The 'Powers that be are wrong'. by Dolemite_the_Wiz · · Score: 1

    I've read the Federal Copyright laws in great detail and the powers that be at your University are wrong. The Copyright laws were created in the late 70's and amended up to the middle to late 90's ('poorly scotch taped together' is a better term that amended). Most, if not all, of the text of the Copyright laws are aimed at scenarios in the 70's and not today.

    The Copyright laws are aimed at anything BUT electronic games, skins, LAN parties and whatnot. This is one of these situations where LAN parties are not explicitly (or slightly for that matter) referred to. Any case brought up with the Federal Laws would be thrown out and laughed at.

    As for the State Copyright Laws, that's another story as I'm not familiar with Ohio State Copyright Laws. I'd look them up if I were you. My Money sez that they're just as poorly written as the federal laws.

    Unless the University can provide detailed explanations and referenced to the laws they are worried about (which they can't), I would say go ahead with your lan party.

    Besides, why would a game manufacturer create LAN options for games if they were illegal?

    Sounds like the University officials need to get with the times and catch a clue.

    Dolemite
    ________________________

    --
    Save the World! Use a Quote!
  30. This is Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This why you never rent room at school you go to. You should of done it at hotel it would of been better and you wouldn't go though all this trouble. So screw the school go for Hotel

  31. The EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the EULA for each game you want to play carefully. We discovered that a few games do have restrictions with regards to a LAN Party type event if you are collecting money. From what I was told, you can usually just contact the publisher for permission without too much trouble.

  32. Public Display by Tad+Ghostal · · Score: 1

    As a law student who recently had copyright class, I think at least you have a decent shot at a fair use defense and its highly doubtful if you aren't commercial in nature, (ie: charging for the use of computers and licenses) that the companies would prosecute. If you want to be SUPER safe get the permissions. Think about the nature of the games, say Warcraft III, is by its nature amenable to use in Lan Party situations. Read the EULA for limitations, but would a company legitimately claim that the use of the "connect over lan" button they wrote really be a viable claim to a jury of a "public display?" So long as you aren't charging for the computers or to come in and watch and you all have licenses, then you should be just fine

  33. Spin it! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Just spin it the other way. Tell them that by playing their games, you are promoting their product. In fact, they should be PAYING YOU for the effort. If they still make you go through all the legal effort...then fuck em. Play other games and make it publically known to all other players the hell those other game companies wanted to drag you through. Trust me, no company wants bad PR!

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  34. how you are expected to run a game in multiplayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how you are expected to run a game in multiplayer mode on a LAN (yes its an intrisic feature of the game "LAN") if the companys would put this sort of problems regarding licensings policy?

    Even if not all the lan attenders have legite copys on their behalf, im sure its more free advertisement game makers cant put aside.

    Despite it creates a good user base. Just imagine how many ppl will see those games for the first time on a lan party on friends home and would like to install and later buy it for their own.