Laws of Play

New Anti-Piracy Tech From Valve, Stardock

LawsOfPlay — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:30:10 +0000

In case you’ve been too busy with real life to sift through press releases, both Valve and Stardock have announced new anti-piracy technology this week. Both companies were noticeably wary of calling their new technology “DRM.” In fact, both companies made special efforts to differentiate their technology from DRM–Valve claimed their new technology “Makes DRM Obsolete” and Stardock said their technology “throws GOO on DRM.”

Valve’s announcement came just one day prior to the FTC’s DRM Town Hall at the University of Washington School of Law and was mentioned during at least one of the panels. The decidedly vague press release stated in part:

Headlining the new [Steamworks] feature set is the Custom Executable Generation (CEG) technology that compliments the already existing anti-piracy solution offered in Steamworks. A customer friendly approach to anti-piracy, CEG makes unique copies of games for each user allowing them to access the application on multiple machines without install limits and without having to install root kits on their PC.

The new features also include support for in-game downloadable content (DLC) and matchmaking. The in-game DLC support allows developers to deliver new content as they choose (paid or free) from inside the game itself, allowing users to make immediate purchases and experience the new content in the same game session. The Steamworks matchmaking now includes the robust lobby system shipped and tested in Left 4 Dead.

Stardock’s announcement was made during the FTC Town Hall and, while somewhat similar to Valve’s announcement, Stardock’s “GOO” technology presents some very compelling differences:

The new technology, known as Game Object Obfuscation (Goo), is a tool that allows developers to encapsulate their game executable into a container that includes the original executable plus Impulse Reactor, Stardock’s virtual platform, into a single encrypted file.

When a player runs the game for the first time, the Goo’d program lets the user enter in their email address and serial number which associates their game to that person as opposed to a piece of hardware like most activation systems do. Once validated, the game never needs to connect to the Internet again.

Goo has a number of unique advantages that developer Stardock believes both gamers and developers will appreciate:

1. There is no third-party client required. This means a developer can use this as a universal solution since it is not tied to any particular digital distributor.
2. It paves the way to letting users validate their game on any digital distribution service that supports that game. One common concern of gamers is if the company they purchased a game from exits the market, their game library may disappear too. Games that use Goo would be able to be validated anywhere.
3. It opens the door to gamers being able to resell their games because users can voluntarily disable their game access and transfer their license ownership to another user.

* * *

Because Goo ties the game to a user’s account instead of the hardware, gamers can install their game to multiple computers without hassle.

Continue reading for some (not so) brief commentary and links to the full press releases.

When I first read Valve’s announcement, I was certainly interested in the technology. While scant on details, it seems that CEG will remove two of the largest consumer concerns with current DRM technology: installation limits and buggy root kits. However, three of my main concerns with DRM technology were left unaddressed: information privacy, “first sale” rights, and the inoperability of software following abandonment of authentication servers.

While many PC gamers are aware of the access and resale limitations imposed by DRM, most don’t give any thought to information privacy implications. As part of my research for a forthcoming paper on DRM and privacy, I’ve become increasingly shocked at the amount of information that is often collected by DRM software and the myriad of companies that are privy to this information. Fortunately, Stardock saw fit to address all of my concerns to some extent with their GOO technology.

First, GOO’s compatibility with both boxed software as well as all existing digital distribution platforms is attractive because it provides consumers with the ability to validate their software on any number of servers in the event that their particular retailer goes out of business or shuts down its authentication servers.

Second, GOO has the ability to allow software resale, which is typically prevented by current DRM technology. While I’m excited about this development, I’m interested to see how it works in practice. Stardock touts the feature, but does not seem to say that it will be universal; my best guess is that this secondary market feature will be left to individual developers to activate. I also think it’s prudent to point out that the technology allows gamers to “transfer their license ownership,” which all but confirms that this technology will in no way work toward eliminating the (in my opinion) legal fiction that consumer software transactions are licenses rather than sales.

Finally, I like that GOO creates a protection scheme where “[o]nce validated, the game never needs to connect to the Internet again.” While studies have shown the some offline DRM still connects to the Internet to transfer usage statistics, the fact that “Goo’d” games do not require an Internet connection will allow gamers to block Internet communication through computer firewalls for all but a limit number of possible multiplayer servers.

Press releases:

Steamworks Makes DRM Obsolete
Stardock Throws GOO on DRM

FTC Conference on DRM Technology Going On Now

LawsOfPlay — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:12:04 +0000

The Federal Trade Commission and the Technology Law and Public Policy Clinic at the University of Washington School of Law is currently hosting a conference on digital rights management technology. The conference agenda can be downloaded here, but I highly recommend you just go here and start watching the live webcast.

I’ve been watching the live feed in between classes and so far it has been extremely interesting and oddly entertaining. The current panel is discussing DRM consumer issues. This talk envelopes not only typical copyright-related issues, but also touches upon computer security and information privacy concerns. Stop wasting your time reading this and check it out now!

2009 FTC Workshop: Digital Rights Management

LA Times: Video game law on the rise

jkoehle — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:10:57 +0000

The LA Times has a great article on some more recent video game litigation. Video game law isn’t just some obscure, isolated area of practice anymore. Large firms–like Shepherd Mullin–now have specializations in game law as part of their entertainment practice. With $50 billion in projected gaming industry revenue this year, other firms will undoubtedly be following Shepherd’s lead.

Copyright and Virtual Worlds

LawsOfPlay — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:38:37 +0000

Ross Dannenberg, of Banner & Witcoff and Patent Arcade, recently posted the final installment of his The Rocky Legal Landscape of Virtual Worlds series. This time Dannenberg explores the interaction of copyright and virtual worlds, which is becoming an increasingly important area of intellectual property law as user-generated content is featured more prevalently in modern games. The article tends to focus on Second Life and discusses the application of basic copyright principles to virtual creations. While the article is quite brief and only touches upon a few of the myriad issues in this field, it is certainly worth a read. Be sure to check out Part 1 and Part 2 if you missed them previously.

Nintendo Faces Another Patent Infringement Suit for Wii Controller

LawsOfPlay — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:22:44 +0000

At this point, one must ask how many pre-existing patents could have possibly covered different elements of Nintendo’s “revolutionary” Wii controller. After getting hammered with a $21 million patent infringement verdict in May, Nintendo will once again find itself in court defending its motion controller. This time, Motiva, LLC claims that it owns a 2004 patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,292,151) that protects technology used in the Nintendo Wii. A press release from The Lanier Law Firm, Motiva’s representation, states:

The asserted patent involves technology used to create a “Human Movement Measurement System” comprising a hand-held tracking device in communication with a base station that can be used to create an interactive gaming experience, among other capabilities. Nintendo’s Wii video game system uses an interactive hand-held remote in communication with a base station to reproduce users’ movements on televisions and other display screens.

I will be interested to see how this one pans out. Honestly, Nintendo has made enough money off of the Wii that settling this case would be wise. The full press release is available here.

IP and Virtual Worlds

LawsOfPlay — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:35:49 +0000

Ross Dannenberg, of Banner & Witcoff, is in the middle of a 3-part series discussing the interaction of intellectual property law and virtual worlds. Part 2, discussing patents, was posted today and provides interesting reading for those who are not well acquainted with intellectual property law. The article covers the basics of patent law, provides examples of some typical virtual world patents, and discusses some of the legal complications inherent with enforcing patents in a virtual world. If you enjoy the article, be sure to check out Part 1, which discusses trademarks.

One Law Student’s Take on Video Game Copyright

LawsOfPlay — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:49:12 +0000

As I was browsing the web and doing my best to avoid fretting over looming exams, I came across the curiously named blog Banana Pepper Martinis. Banana Pepper Martinis is apparently the personal blog of L. B. Jeffries, a pseudonymous game reviewer at www.popmatters.com. It would appear that L. B. Jeffries is also a law student and recently completed a note on the interaction of video games with copyright law. An excerpt of the introduction follows:

Video games and copyright law have always had a tenuous relationship. The problem is threefold. First, players significantly alter the content of video games and keep them from ever being a fixed series of images. Second, the software used to generate the images has rarely been considered a protectable asset by the courts unless it is copied in its entirety. Third, courts have typically relied on the audio visual display clause of the Lanham Act to protect the images produced by the software and to dismiss the player input as a relevant aspect. Although this system worked when video game disputes were first coming about and well into today, a new trend in video games may upset this method. The culture of player modifications and improvements to pre-existing games that have traditionally been viewed as fair use by the courts creates a new problem for copyrights and video games. Do these qualify as fair use, a derivative work, or both? If the player is increasing the value of someone’s product without compensation, what rights do they have to their original work and what rights do the companies have to these improvements? The first part of this essay will outline the Legal Background that was established during the eighties that people rely on to demonstrate their copyrights and the rulings that create a loophole for player modifications. Then it will discuss the current trends in video games that are leading to this problem. Finally, it will go into the Legal Analysis courts use for copyrights and how those can best be applied to video games.

Head over to Banana Pepper Martinis to read the paper in its entirety.

More on the First Amendment in Virtual Worlds

LawsOfPlay — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:25:05 +0000

If you found the previous post concerning First Amendment rights in virtual worlds interesting, a new article in Volume 30 of the Cardozo Law Review may be worth your time. The article, The Freedom of 3D Thought: The First Amendment in Virtual Reality, was written by Marc Jonathan Blitz of Oklahoma City University and presents the following question in its abstract:

This article seeks to understand its place in First Amendment law. My question, in short, is whether the actions we take in our personal Holodeck would count as “speech” or other First Amendment-protected activity. The First Amendment right to freedom of speech generally protects expression, not non-expressive conduct, such as driving a car, flying an airplane, or having sex. So where in this familiar First Amendment dichotomy does one place the convincing replica of non-expressive conduct that becomes possible inside a fully immersive VR world? Are we engaging in First Amendment “speech” when we drive a phantom car, pilot an illusory plane, or have virtual sex, and if so, why do activities such as these - which generally count as “non-expressive” conduct, unprotected by the First Amendment, in the physical world - suddenly become “expressive” in a 3D virtual world? In short, courts confronting such questions will have to decide whether VR’s convincing illusions are First Amendment “speech,” like the movies or video games of which they are arguably three-dimensional analogues, or “conduct” like the actions they mimic.

Download the entire article here.

[Hat tip to Media Law Prof Blog]

What do Virtual Strip Clubs, Grand Theft Auto, Trademarks, and the First Amendment have in Common?

LawsOfPlay — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:21:58 +0000

Answer: E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc.

In this recently decided case, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered “whether a producer of a video game in the ‘Grand Theft Auto’ series has a defense under the First Amendment against a claim of trademark infringement.”

In this case, E.S.S. Entertainment 2000 alleged that the virtual “Pig Pen” strip club in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas infringed its trademark and trade dress associated with it’s Los Angeles-based “Play Pen” Gentlemen’s Club. However, the court sided with Take Two Interactive/Rockstar and found that the game’s content is protected by the First Amendment. The full opinion is certainly worth a read, as it is full of humorous quips:

Both San Andreas and the Play Pen offer a form of low-brow entertainment; besides this general similarity, they have nothing in common. The San Andreas Game is not complementary to the Play Pen; video games and strip clubs do not go together like a horse and carriage or, perish the thought, love and marriage.

Or perhaps the following:

Undeterred, ESS also argues that, because players are free to ignore the storyline and spend as much time as they want at the Pig Pen, the Pig Pen can be considered a significant part of the Game, leading to confusion. But fans can spend all nine innings of a baseball game at the hot dog stand; that hardly makes Dodger Stadium a butcher’s shop. In other words, the chance to attend a virtual strip club is unambiguously not the main selling point of the Game.

Overall, I’m satisfied with the court’s logic and hope to see more First Amendment protection for trademarks used in artistic expression.

Super Obama World

LawsOfPlay — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:44:24 +0000

Thanks, GamePolitics!