Virtually Blind periodically runs “quicklinks” — items that are not long enough for a full story, but are worth a click.  I haven’t done this in a while, and I’ve got a ton of both on-topic and off-topic goodies, so here’s an extra large batch.

Following up on last week’s first-ever virtual world CLE (Contuining Legal Education) session, the SL Bar Association is offering an additional four sessions for CLE credit in Second Life over the next couple of months.  The next one is Tuesday, July 22, and features ‘Juris Amat’ (Tamiko Franklin) covering intellectual property enforcement in virtual worlds.  Sign up here.  Space is limited.

The SL Bar Association is also holding elections this month.  I started the organization in late 2006, and the group elected its first full administration last summer.  I can hardly believe it’s time for elections again, but it is.  If you use Second Life and are not already involved, now is a great time to become a member.

This one is a mystery for readers: a May 12, 2008 WSJ op-ed piece (not mine, which makes mine the second in two months to reference virtual worlds) stated that “In the virtual world Second Life… the State Department now has an embassy.”  Does anybody have a lead on this?  I can’t find it, and this is the only source I’ve seen for this.

And here’s a mystery solved: a while ago, VB speculated about a mysterious 4-sim legal build in Second Life from Madrid’s Campus de la Justicia.  The build is open now, and you can check it out here (SLURL).  Pretty cool, though I have no idea what they’re going to do with it.  (Thanks to ‘Lem Skall‘ for the heads-up.)

VB made the Ultimate Guide to Internet Law, which is basically a big list of guides and resources ranging from niche sites like this one to giants like Findlaw.  I found some new sites there, and it’s worth a click.

A registry for avatars called Avatars United raises the idea of protection of this new genus of intellectual property via community consensus.  It’s a seemingly novel idea, but it has worked pretty well for clowns.  No, really, for real clowns.  (Thanks to reader ‘Doubledown Tandino‘ for the links.)

Got a Playstation 3?  You can get a preview of Sony’s forthcoming virtual world product / game lobby via the Sony Home beta.  If you get in, tell me what you find.  I’m an Xbox guy.

Speaking of games (yes, this is off topic) anybody out there playing Civilization IV?  I’m itching to set up a long term server-based game using the pitboss feature against people I know (I’ve got a spare 24-hour server).  It seems like that would encourage conspiracy and diplomacy via email, which has got to add to the Civ experience.  Let me know if you’re up for it.  One turn per 24 hours, so not much of a daily commitment, though it’s a long term thing.

Along the “building historical stuff” lines, a browser-based 3D virtual world creation platform called 3DXplorer hit my radar screen last week.  One of their initial pitches is recreating famous places as 3D virtual worlds, and yes, I’m geeky enough to think that kicks ass.

I also recently came across Playmotion, which is a company working on hardware to let you control stuff on the screen with your body.  That is, in my opinion, one of the hardware keys to virtual worlds getting really, really big.  Why? Because a mouse is a 2D thing — the desk is flat — and virtual worlds are 3D things.  So you’ve got to be able to wave your hand (or move a glove, or whatever) and have the thing on the screen do the same thing for these to really work as immersive.

There’s a nice review of my book, Virtual Law, from Dan Miller (Senior Economist, Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, Minority Staff) here: Duranske on Virtual Law.  Dan makes great points, some of which I am definitely going to consider when I put the next edition together in a couple of years.

Not Possible IRL tossed out an interesting idea last month: including a Creative Commons option in the Second Life creation toolkit so people can easily mark their stuff with various CC licenses.  I’m for it, but think it needs to be paired with equally as obvious options for traditional protection or else it will create a culture where people feel bad marking stuff for traditional licensing.  Both models have to get fair credit for the plan NPIRL advocates to work.

I don’t remember how I found this, but it’s a more intelligent than usual discussion of the economics of Linden Lab’s virtual currency from Marginal Revolution.

The Google-translation-hashed HiPiHi Terms of Service are interesting.  The doc is close to unreadable, of course, but this jumps out: “You create all forms of content (including text, music, pictures, videos, articles, etc.), under the terms of service, HiPiHi acknowledge and agree that you create for your enjoyment of the contents of copyright and other intellectual property.  In the context of the applicable law, you can retain any or all of the copyright and other intellectual property.” That apparently includes patent rights, meaning that the leading Chinese virtual world grants users greater retention of their intellectual property than the leading U.S. virtual world.

Read this piece, check out the picture to the left, realize that “81186 PED” equals $8,118.60 at a guaranteed exchange rate and that the only way to get a shot at this kind of prize is by buying stuff from Mindark, and then tell me with a straight face that Entropia Universe is not simply the world’s prettiest slot machine.

This one’s for the guys who use Second Life: I just ran across Men’s Second Style, a site dedicated to fashion for male avatars.  Given how hard it is to find a decent suit and pair of shoes in the virtual world, I suspect a number of readers will want to check it out.

Finally, arguing against people (like me) who are convinced that 3D networked environments are now on the immediate horizon, this post at Feet of Clay says: “I’ve yet to have anyone explain to me how the web’s utility is improved by turning it into 3D.”  I’ve seen that point made on this blog in comments too, and I’m not trying to be dismissive here, but I’d just turn it around — if given the opportunity, would you make the real world 2D?  If not, then there’s your answer.  Aside from text and some graphic art, most stuff isn’t 2D to start with, so once the technology catches up, it’s easier to deal with it in its native form.

If you’ve got a short item that might fit in Quicklinks, shoot me a note.  I get the coolest stuff from users, and this feature is often were these submissions go.

I’ve got a piece on the WSJ op-ed page today arguing that it is time for mainstream media and business to start paying closer attention to the 3D internet.  It will definitely be old hat to everybody who reads VB regularly (business and government buy-in, 3D interfaces, faster processors, etc.) but it will be new to a lot of WSJ readers, and I’m really happy that the Journal was willing to put the arguments we 3D internet evangelist types kick around all the time out there where even people who haven’t sought out these ideas will find them.

Also, I want to give a shout-out to the folks at Virtual World News for the numbers re: investment in virtual worlds for the first half of 2008.  Length restrictions kept me from giving them (and other stat sources) references in the piece, but these guys are the #1 source for serious coverage of business in virtual worlds, and they deserve acknowledgement.  If you’re arriving here via the op-ed piece and are intrigued by this stuff, check out Virtual World News, and if you’re really intrigued, sign up for the Virtual Worlds Expo in LA this fall.

Last month, attorneys from across the state of California gathered in the posh Beverly Hills Hotel, vacation home of the stars, for the Intellectual Property Section of the California State Bar’s conference on Entertainment & Media. (With special guest appearance by Stan Lee!)  The panels included one on the law and virtual worlds.  (That wasn’t the one with Stan Lee.)  The virtual worlds panel consisted of in-house attorneys from Fox, Disney, and Sony, and was moderated by James Nguyen, an attorney who represented Marvel in their lawsuit against NCsoft, makers of the game City of Heroes.  (But did I mention… Stan Lee?)

As you can probably guess from the group of people discussing the issue—this conference was very much geared towards content-providers.  The panels mainly focused on how content-providers can protect their IP against infringement and avoid liability for their users’ actions.  Technologies such as YouTube and Napster were largely reviled.  At the risk of angering the representative from Fox, the discussion that ensued was not exactly “fair and balanced.”  As a younger attorney who uses tools like YouTube and file sharing programs on a regular basis, I naturally felt a bit out of place.  It was, however, interesting to hear a different point of view than I am usually exposed to, and it was worth the whole trip down there to meet Stan Lee (whose presentation had nothing to do with the law, but was incredibly interesting nonetheless).

At the beginning of the conference, a disclaimer was made that although the speakers represent their companies as attorneys, in the context of the conference, they are not speaking on behalf of the companies they work for, and their views might not reflect those of their employers.  That said, it was obvious that the various speakers’ employment situations colored their views on the law considerably, and it was worth keeping in mind that their opinions might have been influenced by their employers’ legal issues.

Overview of Virtual Worlds

The presentation began with a simple overview of some of the main virtual worlds that are out in the marketplace.  Second Life was the obvious place to begin (and the SL Bar Association was mentioned) [Editor's note: that's pretty cool...] but nods were also given to V-MTV (a world of beaches, cars, and MTV television programs), Habbo Hotel (popular among the teenage crowd), There (which actively courts advertisers for real life products), and Girl Sense (focusing on fashion and makeovers).  Paramount got a shout-out for using virtual worlds such as Habbo Hotel to promote its goods (a representative from Paramount had been a speaker in a previous panel).

The panel then moved on to MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft, Everquest, and City of Heroes.  This paved the way for the panel representatives to promote some of their companies’ own offerings such as Disney’s Pirates of the Carribean Online and Toontown Online, or Sony’s Home.

Details of the session (and a picture of me and Stan Lee) follow.

Read the rest of the post »

Blizzard has won its summary judgment motion against World of Warcraft bot maker MDY on copyright grounds.  Blizzard also prevailed on its tortious interference claim.  This means that liability for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and tortious interference is completely off the table and will not go to the jury at trial in September, assuming that the parties do not settle before then.  The only issue before the jury on these two claims will be damages. This is a major setback for MDY, which originally brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that its WowGlider (now MMOGlider) bot software did not infringe Blizzard’s copyright.

For the background of this suit, see Virtually Blind’s complete coverage of MDY v. Blizzard.  Here is today’s Order re: Blizzard’s and MDY’s Summary Judgment Motions (.pdf).

The Court ultimately held that:

Blizzard owns a valid copyright in the game client software, Blizzard has granted a limited license for WoW players to use the software, use of the software with Glider falls outside the scope of the license established in section 4 of the TOU, use of Glider includes copying to RAM within the meaning of section 106 of the Copyright Act, users of WoW and Glider are not entitled to a section 117 defense, and Glider users therefore infringe Blizzard’s copyright. MDY does not dispute that the other requirements for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement are met, nor has MDY established a misuse defense. The Court accordingly will grant summary judgment in favor of Blizzard with respect to liability on the contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims in Counts II and III.

Blizzard had argued that:

In this Circuit, the “copying” element may be proved in software cases by showing an unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted software program in the computer user’s Random Access Memory (“RAM”). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “the loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the Copyright Act.” MAI Sys. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 519 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. dismissed 510 U.S. 1033 (1994); Triad Sys. Corp. v. Se. Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330, 1334 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 478 F. Supp. 2d 607, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (agreeing with the “numerous courts [that] have held that the transmission of information through a computer’s random access memory or RAM . . . creates a ‘copy’ for purposes of the Copyright Act,” and citing cases.) When such a copy is made in excess of a license, the copier is liable for copyright infringement. Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Techs., Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (‘“When a licensee exceeds the scope of the license granted by the copyright holder, the licensee is liable for infringement.”’ (citation omitted)).

MDY argued that loading a copy of the software into RAM is protected by Section 117, and was joined in that argument by Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy group.  The court rejected these arguments, noting that “the Court is not free to disregard Ninth Circuit precedent directly on point.”  From the Order:

MDY urges the Court to follow the approach recently taken by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Vernor, 2008 WL 2199682. The Vernor court declined to follow MAI, Triad, and Wall Data, and instead applied an earlier Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1977). Wise involved the application of the “first sale” doctrine under 17 U.S.C. § 109 to various transfer contracts between movie studios and recipients of movie prints. Vernor concluded that the critical factor in Wise for determining whether a transaction was a sale or a license was “whether the transferee kept the copy acquired from the copyright holder.” 2008 WL2199682, at *6. MDY urges the Court to follow Vernor and Wise and hold that the users of the WoW game client software are owners of the software because they are entitled to keep the copy of the software they acquire from Blizzard. The Court declines this invitation. Whatever freedom the court in Vernor may have had to disregard Wall Data when applying a different statutory provision – section 109 – this Court does not have the same freedom. This case concerns section 117, the very provision addressed by the Ninth Circuit in Wall Data. The Court is not free to disregard Ninth Circuit precedent directly on point.

MDY prevailed on some other other pending summary judgment issues and Blizzard prevailed on others, but the key result is that MDY has been found by the court to infringe Blizzard’s copyright through the sale of its WoWGlider (now MMOGlider) bot program, and to have tortiously interfered with Blizzard’s relationships with its customers through those sales. VB will be interested in seeing if MDY appeals.