As the 6th round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations get underway in Seoul, Korea, a dispatch has been sent to President Obama expressing concern over the “lack of transparency and openness” surrounding the initiative.

The letter notes that “Unlike nearly all other multilateral and plurilateral discussions about intellectual property norms, the ACTA negotiations have been held in deep secrecy.”

While a curious mix of entities have been allowed to see ACTA documents, after signing a non-disclosure agreement, the letter states that “there were no opportunities for academic experts or the general public to review the documents,” adding that “very few” public interest or consumer groups were included as well.

Among the signees of the letter were The Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), Students for Free Culture and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights.

Countries negotiating the agreement include the U.S., Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Switzerland.

BoingBoing (thanks Torven) sums up a few leaked bullet points from ACTA, among them:

•    That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

•    That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

•    Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

The EFF tears into the leaked material in a post on its website, saying that, “The leaks confirm everything that we feared about the secret ACTA negotiations.”

They continued:

The Internet provisions have nothing to do with addressing counterfeit products, but are all about imposing a set of copyright industry demands on the global Internet, including obligations on ISPs to adopt Three Strikes Internet disconnection policies, and a global expansion of DMCA-style TPM laws.

Disclosure: GamePolitics is a publication of The ECA

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, a backer of tough new piracy laws in that country, comes off as a bit of a hypocrite after being accused of a pair of copyright infringements.

Sarkozy’s “Hadopi” law was passed just last month and features a three-strike policy for illegal down loaders. Unfortunately it would appear that Sarkozy is already down to his last strike, as he has been accused of two misuses—making 400 unauthorized copies of a DVD and copyright infringement related to his use of an MGMT song at a political rally.

The MGMT song misuse cost Sarkozy 30,000 Euros (approximately $44,112 U.S.). More galling may be the fact that the publisher of the DVD allegedly copied by Sarkozy only created 50 copies itself.


Via Boing Boing

Aggressive trademark defender Tim Langdell has found his company on the receiving end of an Electronic Arts trademark battle.

Langdell, the CEO of Edge Games Inc., has been notorious for his attempts to stop the use of the word “edge” by other game developers in their titles. As a result of what some might term his overzealousness, a petition was started earlier this year to have Langdell removed from his spot on the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) board, a post he eventually resigned from in August.

DowJones reports that Electronic Arts Inc., and its subsidiary EA Digital Illusions CE AB, have filed a Consolidated Petition for Cancellation against a series of trademarks registered to Edge Games, including: “The Edge,” Gamer’s Edge,” “Edge” and “Cutting Edge.”

At the center of the fight is the EA-published and EA DICE-developed Mirror’s Edge game. EA claims that Edge Games has continuously threatened to sue EA over the game’s title, even though EA DICE owns U.S. common law trademark rights to the term Mirror’s Edge.

One of EA’s arguments is that Edge Games did not utilize “The Edge” trademark in commerce, a statement it attempted to backup with a graphic showing a Snoopy computer game (pictured left), complete with “The Edge” labeling. EA noted that the game was for the Commodore Amiga platform, a system that “on information and belief, was discontinued years before the filing of the application.” The application was filed "on or about" March 22, 1996.

For those interested, TIGSource has been keeping a running tally of information related to Tim Langdell and Edge Games.

The Copyright Alliance has penned a letter to President Obama and Vice President Biden asking the Administration to “pursue policies of the rights of artists.”

The dispatch has been posted to the group’s website and is presented as a call to action, allowing artists and creators to sign the letter. At the time of this post, over 7,700 copies of the letter had been personalized.

The letter notes the following about those who affixed their signatures:

We enrich our culture with a wide range of creative expression, including music, film, software, video games, writing, photography, graphics, and other visual arts.

An appeal at the end of the communication implores Obama and Biden to:

Please pursue policies supportive of the rights of artists and the encouragement of our creative efforts. Without the proper respect for our rights and works today, it will become even more difficult for us to create in the future.

The campaign was drafted in response to The President naming Victoria Espinel as Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, a move the Alliance called “a strong sign,” and one they will be “watching with optimism.”  The Alliance intends to deliver the letter this fall.

As the Canadian government undertakes a public consultation on copyright issues, the head of game publishers lobbying group ESA Canada has penned an op-ed on the issue for Straight.com.

Not surprisingly, Danielle Parr argues for technological protection measures (TPM) and against mod chips (which are not currently illegal in Canada). Parr writes:

For the video-game industry, TPMs are not only used to prevent piracy and cheating (e.g. “modding” game code to give an unfair advantage over other players); they also enable access to a greater range of features and options that would otherwise be unavailable. Things like parental controls... “trial” or “demo” versions of games, and new digital distribution platforms like Valve’s Steam, Xbox Live Arcade, or the PlayStation Network, all provide greater choice and access for consumers...

By ensuring that consumers have a variety of digital offerings to choose from, legal protection for TPMs allows market forces to protect consumer interests, so if a consumer does not like the conditions of sale or terms of service for one digital product or service, they can simply take their business elsewhere. Failing to protect TPMs under the law effectively means that the government is dictating the business model, which is bad news for business and for consumers.

Those commenting on the Straight.com piece, however, don't seem to be buying Ms. Parr's arguments. As I post this, there are 15 comments, all of which are critical of the ESA Canada boss's op-ed.

GFOX: Danielle Parr, and the [ESA Canada] are completely out of touch on this issue. By failing to bend to an American lobby group such as the ESA I hardly think that the government of Canada can be seen as "dictating" any particular business model... The ESA's [penchant] for freely spewing unsubstantiated and exaggerated statistical data with the sole intention of striking fear into the hearts and minds of lawmakers is appalling...

NerdOfAllTrades: I agree that measures should be taken to prevent piracy, but punishing your loyal customers with TPM, which will only mildly inconvenience real pirates for the few hours it takes them to remove it... will only make people want to buy fewer PC games.
 
Sébastien Duquette: DRM is a failure... I really don't like Parr's fear-mongering tone. The industry of video game is flourishing, without DRM inforcement

Will: The video game industry has claimed to be on the brink of collapse due to piracy since the 1980s, and yet it somehow continues to grow bigger and more profitable... There will always be free riders who don't pay for their copy, but that isn't relevant. It's how many games you sell, not how many you don't sell that matters... This control-freak mentality... serves only to create hostility between the industry the customers...

AWJ: once you throw in an anti-circumvention law like the American DMCA, your platform monopoly becomes a state-enforced monopoly... Danielle is even arguing is that if the government doesn't give Microsoft and Nintendo and Sony the state-enforced monopolies they want, then it's "dictating the business model". If nothing else, I admire her chutzpah...

WayneB: Let me get this straight - [DRM] is an advantage to the consumer? What a bald faced lie.

Idle: This is a disgusting show of contempt for canadians brought to you by the ESA "of Canada".

GP: In the photo at left, Parr is seen at ESA Canada's Ottawa Day 2009 lobbying event.

The Associated Press reports that the Entertainment Software Association, which represents the interests of U.S. video game publishers, spent $1.2 million on government lobbying efforts during the period April-June, 2009.

Looking beneath the surface, GamePolitics has obtained an actual copy of the ESA's latest federal lobbying report. The document shows that Big Gaming has its fingers in a surprising number of legislative and governmental pies. The following are issues which the ESA reports that it lobbied on in Q2:

• Media regulation
• First Amendment protection
• Entertainment industry ratings
• Parental control technology
• Content/video game sale regulation
• Retailer enforcement of ratings
• Piracy
• Copyright Act (believed to be the DMCA)
• Anti-circumvention
• Patent modernization
• Intellectual property enforcement
• Customs reauthorization
• PRO-IP Act appropriations
• Dept. of Justice appropriations
• Dept. of State reauthorization
• Free Trade Agreements
• Special 301 Designated Countries
• Trade Policy Reform
• Domestic regulatory & administrative issues
• Trade enforcement
• Doha Round Proceedings (trade talks)
• Trade Promotion Authority
• Internet Governance
• Virtual worlds
• Online gaming
• Highly skilled workforce
• H1-B visas
• Green cards
• Immigration reform
• ISP management
• Copyright Enforcement
• Broadband deployment
• Broadband policy
• Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act implementation

Agencies lobbied by the ESA include some surprising entities. Here's the list:

• U.S. House of Representatives
• U.S. Senate
• Federal Communications Commission
• Federal Trade Commission
• National Telecommunications & Information Administration
• U.S. Copyright Office
• U.S. Customs & Border Protection
• U.S. Trade Representative
• Department of Commerce
• Department of Homeland Security
• Department of Justice
• Patent & Trademark Office
• FBI
• National Security Council

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab your own copy of the ESA's lobbying report... (9-page PDF)

Anti-piracy marketing campaigns are sometimes creepy (such as this video which suggests that your mom will be manhandled by the police if you engage in file sharing).

But the Business Software Alliance, which primarily watches out for abuse of productivity-ware, has come up with an antipiracy ad that is actually fun to watch. The parody of Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" series features a would-be pirate humorously caught in a sting. BSA exec Peter Beruk commented on the video:

It uses comedy to convey what is a serious message. It’s experimental.

Via: Wired's Threat Level

A new plan being prepared by the British government would see drastic action implemented against individual file sharers, reports the Irish Independent.

Business Secretary Lord Mandelson (left) will call for a new law that would allow Internet access restrictions as well as fines of up to £50,000 for those found engaging in P2P.

However, former minister for digital engagement Tom Watson has criticized the plan:

Not only do the sanctions ultimately risk criminalising a large proportion of UK citizens, but they also attach an unbearable regulatory burden on an emerging technology that has the power to transform society, with no guarantees at the end that our artists and our culture will get any richer.

Working on the safe assumptions that (a) people like downloading music from the internet, and (b) most people would prefer not to break the law, we should aim to map a way forward for businesses to take financial advantage of the digital market.

The digital era has permanently altered the way media is controlled and distributed, resulting in a relationship between rights holders and the public that is often contentious. Against that backdrop, so-called Pirate Parties have sprung up recently on the European political scene.

Andrew Robinson, who heads the UK Pirate Party, spoke to PC Pro about his organization, its vision, and why the party's name is a problem:

There's approximately 7 million file sharers in this country - you're branding a huge percentage of this population criminals for doing something that doesn't have any proven implications. It's a ridiculous state of affairs... People who copy a movie are lumped in with people who steal cars.

 

Our copyright law is horribly outdated and its skewed one way because all the lobbying is on the side of big businesses...

Competing with the Conservatives while wearing an eye patch isn't going to do us any favours. We've had the [Pirate Party] name foisted on us by the Swedish party, but it's difficult. We need to point out that we're saying very sensible things, while the industry lobby is labelling us as pirates... We're trying to have a proper debate and when people actually listen to what we've got to say they'll realise we're being serious...

Recently, GamePolitics reported on the availability of Barack and Michelle Obama avatars for use in Second Life.

But it seems that those virtual depictions of the President and the First Lady are destined to have short careers.

New World Notes reports that, beginning next month, SL publisher Linden Lab will implement strict new rules on the sale of real-world products and brands - including depictions of actual celebrities. Barack Obama and Angelina Jolie avatars are specifically referenced as examples of prohibited content in the new Linden Lab guidelines.

Readers may recall that stun gun manufacturer TASER, Inc. brought a trademark lawsuit against Linden earlier this year over virtual copies of its weapon which were being sold by third-party content creators for use in Second Life. The suit was later dropped, but the new SL guidelines are almost certainly a response to such legal concerns.

As New World Notes mentions, enforcing the new policy may be problematic for Linden Lab:

While I'm not a lawyer, I would think avatar imitations of celebrities, especially political figures, would fall under the parody safe harbor of fair use. In the real world, you can still buy an unauthorized Barack Obama mask for Halloween. Not so in Second Life very soon...

 

The biggest challenge to this policy, in any case, is likely to be the SL content creation community itself, who often do reference the real world in their works, but are still proprietary about their products.

New anti-piracy regulations implemented by the Swedish government triggered a 30% drop in web traffic on the day they came into effect, reports AFP.

Some Swedish experts maintain that illegal downloading accounts for 50-75% of all web traffic and the slump indicates that would-be file-sharers were deterred by the tougher laws, which became effective on April 1st.

Under the new regulations, copyright holders may forces ISPs to give up user data on file-sharers. This information could then form the basis for legal action against individual Swedes.

Swedish Games Industry Association spokesman Per Stroemback praised the new law:

[It is] a historic example of effective legislation... No one could predict such a dramatic decrease in illegal traffic and not only that there's also been a huge increase in the legal [download] services.

However, Christian Engstroem (left), who serves as deputy leader of Sweden's Pirate Party as well as a member of the European Parliament, argued that Internet users will be unjustly punished by the new regulations:

This is a completely unequal law, where ordinary people will become scapegoats and will be asked for hundreds of thousands or millions of (Swedish) crowns by the industry. I don't think it will be efficient in the long run. I believe the traffic is going to climb up again after some months.

-Doug Buffone, ECA Intern

Given the recent history of consumer-unfriendly DRM fiascos surrounding Spore and other high-profile PC titles, it's refreshing to hear from a vendor of copy protection software who is actively seeking gamer input.

While we will confess to knowing very little about a DRM product called Byteshield, we note that CEO Jan Samzelius posted in the GamePolitics/ECA forums last night:

We pride ourselves on listening to gamers and try to configure our solution accordingly... We are trying to convince game publishers and developers to put gamers first and organize everything else around it. I want to hear from everybody about what you do not like and then see if you like what our solution does.

Byteshield appears to have received positive reviews from the anti-DRM crowd at The Prism.

GP: This is certainly not an endorsement of Byteshield as I haven't tested it myself. But as a game consumer, I'm always pleased when company execs keep gamers in mind.

In Canada, the government has decided to consult with its citizens on copyright issues. To that end, an official site has been launched.

University of Ottawa law proessor Michael Geist, however, sees both opportunity and threat to average Canadians in the new government initiative:

While Canadians can ensure that the government understands that copyright matters and that a balance is needed, some groups will undoubtedly use the consultation to push for a return of a Canadian DMCA like Bill C-61.

 

The recording industry has already said that bill did not go far enough. That means we could see pressure for a Canadian DMCA, a three-strikes and you're out process, and the extension of the term of copyright to eat into the public domain.

Geist has been an outspoken critic of efforts to push U.S.-style copyright restrictions into the Great White North. To help Canadians stay current on copyright issues, the law prof has launched Speak Out on Copyright and has a related Twitter feed.

Via: boingboing

The recent controversy brewing around the aggressive trademark defense tactics of game developer Tim Langdell has sparked a petition to remove him from the executive board of the International Game Developers Association.

GamesLaw reports that game writer Corvus Elrod is the creator of the online petition. Elrod hopes to obtain signatures from at least 10% of the organization's members. If so, he will present the petition to the board "and force them to call a special meeting of the membership to vote on Tim Langdell’s removal."

Dan Rosenthal, editor of GamesLaw, comments on the increasingly unpleasant situation:

This is obviously a huge issue, especially for a very troubled IGDA. There have been recent questions in mainstream blogs and those of several high profile industry members questioning what exactly IGDA is providing to its members. The trademark issue further fans the flames of allegations that IGDA isn’t doing enough, and it’s being talked about by key industry figures...

Rosenthal mentions that he hopes to discuss the Langdell/IGDA situation at his Legal Issues in Gaming panel at the upcoming PAX 2009.

If you illegally download software or music, your mom will be wrestled to the ground and arrested by a SWAT team - for cooking pasta.

That's just one of the apparent messages in a modern-day update of 1992's Don't Copy That Floppy.

The Software & Information Industry Association, which created the video, explains (sort of) in its YouTube description of the video:

Check out the trailer...anti-piracy hero MC Double Def DP will return in the summer of 2009 to drop some more knowledge on would-be pirates in the sequel to 1992's "Don't Copy That Floppy! Brought to you by SIIA (formerly SPA)

Via: ZeroPaid

In a recent, highly-publicized court decision, music industry lobbying group the RIAA won an eye-popping $1.92 million verdict against Jammie Thomas-Rasset (left) of Minnesota. That works out to $80,000 per song for each of the 24 tunes that the 32-year-old mother of four was accused of sharing.

How might such a case work out for someone accused of file-sharing video games?

Not well, according to gamer/attorney Mark Methenitis. In his Law of the Game column on Joystiq

If we assume [the Thomas-Rasset verdict] is allowed to stand, the possible implication is that the individual works that comprise the greater work that is a video game could be each pursued individually. So, for example, if you pirate a copy of Guitar Hero 4, you're not only liable for the piracy of the game, but also the piracy of the 86 included music tracks. So, keeping the value at $80,000 per work, your total bill would be $6.96 million. That's only 116,000 times the $60 retail value of the game...

 

It seems likely that a better balance will need to be struck... Is the solution to make small time, individual piracy the speeding ticket of the 21st century, punished with a stinging slap on the wrist when caught? Perhaps...

As for Jammie Thomas-Rasset, her comment on the verdict was, "Good luck getting it from me." Meanwhile, the RIAA has filed some 30,000 similar lawsuits around the United States.

The Pirate Bay going legit?

It would seem so, following the site's acquisition by Global Gaming Factory X. As reported by gamesindustry.biz, GGFX paid USD 7.8 million for what was once the web's top destination for illegal file sharing. That all came to an end, of course, with the recent copyright violation convictions of the site's operators in a Swedish court.

Hans Pandeya, CEO of GGF, explained the deal:

We would like to introduce models which entail that content providers and copyright owners get paid for content that is downloaded via the site.  The Pirate Bay is a site that is among the top 100 most visited internet sites in the world. However, in order to live on, The Pirate Bay requires a new business model, which satisfies the requirements and needs of all parties, content providers, broadband operators, end users, and the judiciary.

Content creators and providers need to control their content and get paid for it. File-sharers need faster downloads and better quality.

Business Wire reports that half of the purchase price is in cash with the rest in stock.

For nearly a year GamePolitics has been tracking ATCA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

As we have reported, ACTA deals in large part with copyright issues and is being negotiated in secret by the U.S., Japan, Canada, the EU and other nations. Details of ACTA are largely a mystery to consumers despite the fact that dozens of corporate lobbyists have been clued in to parts of the treaty, including Stevan Mitchell, VP of IP Policy for game publishers trade group the Entertainment Software Association.

Sadly, consumer interests suffered a major blow last week as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge dropped a federal lawsuit seeking to cast a little sunshine on the ACTA negotiations. The EFF explained that a recent decision by the Obama Administration to claim a national security exemption for the ACTA talks made the lawsuit unwinnable; federal judges have  little leeway to overrule such claims. The move by the Obama White House extends a similar policy put in place by the Bush Administration.

Public Knowledge Deputy Legal Director Sherwin Siy commented on the decision:

Even though we have reluctantly dropped this lawsuit, we will continue to press the U.S. Trade Representative and the Obama Administration on the ACTA issues. The issues are too far-reaching and too important to allow this important agreement to be negotiated behind closed doors.

The worry, of course, is that the United States will emerge from ACTA with a done deal that favors Big IP in the fashion of the consumer-unfriendly DMCA. Hal Halpin, president of the Entertainment Consumers Association, expressed concerns about ACTA earlier this year:

Because ECA supports the balance that must exist between the rights of copyright owners and the right of copyrighted material consumers, we do not think it wise to include any portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) currently being discussed...    

We are concerned that any DMCA language in ACTA may cause enormous, unforeseen negative implications in US law...

GP: As GamePolitics mentioned above, video game publishers lobbying group the ESA is privy to at least a portion of the secret ACTA negotiations while its industry's customers - video game consumers - are barred from knowing anything at all.

That makes us wonder - will the Video Game Voters Network, which is owned and operated by the ESA, commence a letter-writing campaign on behalf of its gamer-members demanding that the White House pull the curtain back on ACTA?

Somehow we doubt it.

FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: The Entertainment Consumers Association is the parent company of GamePolitics.

Portions Via: /.

The release of today's Digital Britain report  is a milestone, and not just because of its video game-related news.

The BBC has a rundown of other key policy items in the document prepared by Lord Stephen Carter (left). They include:

• three year plan to boost digital participation
• universal access to broadband by 2012
• fund to invest in next generation broadband
• digital radio upgrade by 2015
• liberalisation of 3G spectrum
• legal and regulatory attack on digital piracy

Some of these will impact gamers as well as the general public, especially universal broadband (which the Entertainment Consumers Association has been lobbying for here in the U.S.).

As regards piracy, the British Government appears committed to taking a hard line, as the BBC reports:

The Government believes piracy of intellectual property for profit is theft and will be pursued as such through the criminal law.

Ofcom is to get powers that will make ISPs inform persistent pirates of the illegality of their actions. It will also allow these people to be identified and pursued if that action does not stop them. ISPs will also be encouraged to use bandwidth reduction and protocol blocking to stymie persistent offenders.

However, despite the changes, The Telegraph reports that the music and movie industries don't believe that the Government is being firm enough against pirates. The newspaper quotes Geoff Taylor, head of the British Recorded Music Industry:

Evidence shows that the Government’s ‘write and then sue’ approach won't work. And Government appears to be anticipating its failure by lining up backstop powers for Ofcom to introduce technical measures later. This digital dithering puts thousands of jobs at risk in a creative sector that the government recognises as the driver of the digital economy.

FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: The Entertainment Consumers Association is the parent company of GamePolitics.

An artist who creates custom designs for - among other things - motorcycles has sued Activision, The Discovery Channel and two other defendants in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

In the suit filed on May 26th, artist Justin Barnes (left) alleges that he created a number of original designs for motorcycles constructed on The Discovery Channel's American Chopper series. Barnes claims that TDC in turn licensed the use of his work for a variety of merchandise, including video games, without his authorization. Barnes has copyrighted the works in question, according to his complaint.

Although Barnes accuses Activision, he does not mention a specific game. However, Activision has published two games based on the T.V. series, American Chopper in 2004 and American Chopper 2: Full Throttle in 2005; these would appear to be the games at issue in the case. From the complaint:

Defendant Activision has sold without authorization video games incorporating certain of plaintiff's copyrighted designs worldwide, nationwide and in the State of New York.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of the lawsuit here...