PK generally likes the idea of voluntary collective licensing, if it can be done right, but the devil is always in the details. Especially when it comes to opt-in/opt-out questions, as well as trickier things like the difference between a full license and an agreement not to sue. Then there's figuring the right price point.
We haven't seen the details of the Warner proposal, so I can't say that we support that specific approach.
I think this might just be a case of imprecise wording, but no--we haven't been a part of this process.
--Sherwin Siy
Staff Attorney
Public Knowledge
Re:Online gaming sacrificed for greater good
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
Blizzard losing on the copyright claims doesn't mean they can't stop cheating--they still have other means to go after MDY--such as tortious interference with contracts, which they are certainly attempting now. And, of course, they can keep doing what they've been doing--kicking or banning Glider users' accounts.
Well, when we rent copyrighted works, we accept that there are limitations on our use of them. Since we aren't ever the "owners" of the rented work, we certainly aren't given the rights to, say, resell it under the first sale doctrine of section 109.
But part of the problem is that Blizzard is also claiming that they don't actually sell any software at all--that every copy of WoW ever sold was merely *licensed.* So they're not just claiming that they're licensing the copyrights of the program; they're licensing the individual copies, too. That shiny CD sitting in my PC? not actually mine. The files installed on my hard drive? Not mine, according to the EULA.
One of the things we spent a lot of time discussing in the brief is how to decide when the user actually owns the software, instead of just relying upon the say-so of a clickthrough EULA. Basically, this involves looking at how the transaction is structured, and how much control each party has over the work.
I'm not an EFF lawyer (do I need a new acronym for that?), but as one of the PK lawyers on the amicus brief, the section 117 argument is exactly what we focused on.
Slashdot Mirror
We haven't seen the details of the Warner proposal, so I can't say that we support that specific approach.
I think this might just be a case of imprecise wording, but no--we haven't been a part of this process.
--Sherwin Siy
Staff Attorney
Public Knowledge
But part of the problem is that Blizzard is also claiming that they don't actually sell any software at all--that every copy of WoW ever sold was merely *licensed.* So they're not just claiming that they're licensing the copyrights of the program; they're licensing the individual copies, too. That shiny CD sitting in my PC? not actually mine. The files installed on my hard drive? Not mine, according to the EULA.
One of the things we spent a lot of time discussing in the brief is how to decide when the user actually owns the software, instead of just relying upon the say-so of a clickthrough EULA. Basically, this involves looking at how the transaction is structured, and how much control each party has over the work.
I'm not an EFF lawyer (do I need a new acronym for that?), but as one of the PK lawyers on the amicus brief, the section 117 argument is exactly what we focused on.