As part of ramping back up to full-time coverage at VB, I’m going to do some minor site updates, and update my virtual world presence.

Nothing drastic re: the site — an updated banner, a few visual tweaks, and some behind-the-scenes WordPress patches that I’ve been putting off. Let me know if you have any suggestions (particularly if you pay attention to what’s current with WordPress). Also shoot me a note if you want to let me know about your site, as I am overhauling my link list.

I’m updating my Second Life virtual world presence a little bit too — also nothing drastic. I’m looking for two things. First, a place for a small office, and second, a professional, realistic “animation override.”

Regarding the office, I used to maintain the SL Bar Association’s original office on the mainland, in a sim called Sallow. It was actually “first land” back when they let you do that, and it was a great location. I had Governor Linden protected land on one side, and a brothel in the sky (with a nice forest of trees at eye level) on the other. When ‘Beathan Vale’ donated space in his Justice Center build for new SLBA offices, I sold the plot to the Madame next door, and as result, I now have a 512m account I prepay every year, but no land.

I’d like to find something on the mainland, maybe with some historical significance. Having protected land or water on one side would be ideal, and I am willing to pay a bit of a premium for the right spot. I know… call me crazy, but I’m actually a sucker for ground-level builds on the mainland.

Regarding my avatar, I’m looking for a good, professional animation override, or, more likely, a collection of animation override parts that work together. The problem I have is that all of the male animation overrides I have found tend to run to one extreme or the other — they either make the avatar look like he’s terribly shy or else like he’s itching for a bar fight.

Suggestions for both, including self-promoting links to your Second Life stores and land sales operation, are welcome.

VB has obtained Blizzard’s response (.pdf) to the amicus curaie (”friend of the court”) brief filed last month by Public Knowledge in the MDY v. Blizzard litigation. For the background of this suit, see VB’s complete coverage of MDY v. Blizzard.

Blizzard’s chief argument in this brief is that making a copy of software into RAM can be prohibited when software is licensed to users (rather than sold to them) under a 9th Circuit case, MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993). Blizzard argues that although owners of software are allowed to load copies into RAM in order to use the software, it is not selling World of Warcraft software to users, but rather licensing that software, and that “MAI and its progeny accept at face value that where software is subject to a license, the right to copy that software is licensed, not owned, and software developers may restrict the right to copy their software into RAM the same way they may restrict the right to copy in any other manner.”

For its part, Public Knowledge argued (.pdf) that based on a number of cases drawn from somewhat disparate fact patterns, the court must consider “the totality of the circumstances surrounding the transaction, including the presence and terms of any license, the relationship of the parties, and other external factors which may indicate the presence or absence of a sale” in making this determination.

This is an important issue with implications that go well beyond this dispute. Although it has not put the issue in quite such stark terms, Public Knowledge is essentially seeking a ruling that says that the sale of consumer software is, in most circumstances, a sale, pretty much regardless of what the agreement that comes with the software says. If the court agrees in spite of MAI and its progeny (and the ruling survives certain appeal) then U.S. copyright law would protect, among other things, making copies of purchased software in RAM in order to use the software — no matter what the “license agreement” says. Resolving this issue in favor of Public Knowledge would call into question provisions in EULAs governing nearly every virtual world and multiuser online game, as well as EULAs for other software.

The court has not invited any further briefing, but this issue will likely be a big part of oral argument, scheduled for June 26.

Note: If any of VB’s Arizona law student or attorney readers would consider covering the argument June 26, I would very much like to run something. Drop me a note if you are in the Phoenix area, and could plan to attend and write a guest spot.

VB has obtained an order (.pdf) issued by the judge in MDY v. Blizzard requiring World of Warcraft creator Blizzard to respond to a brief critical of a key argument in its case against bot-maker MDY.

The argument under attack is Blizzard’s claim that software which loads World of Warcraft in a computer’s memory creates a copy, and thus violates Blizzard’s copyright. The brief Blizzard has been ordered to respond to was filed last month by Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy group. Though Public Knowledge’s brief was styled as an amicus curaie (“friend of the court”) brief in support of neither party, the brief focused exclusively on questions regarding Blizzard’s somewhat controversial copyright claim. Public Knowledge’s argument was amplified in MDY’s subsequent briefing.

For background, see VB’s complete coverage of MDY v. Blizzard.

The issue is essentially this: Blizzard claims that when third-party programs like MDY’s Glider (which automates certain World of Warcraft tasks) load World of Warcraft software into a computer’s RAM, that “creation of a copy” violates the copyright Blizzard holds in its software.

Public Knowledge argues “that Blizzard doesn’t have a claim on copyright grounds because the right of users to make the copy for use by the computer is already guaranteed by law. [...] Therefore, Blizzard cannot claim any infringement of its copyrights based upon the creation of RAM copies because the right to make those copies was never Blizzard’s to license in the first place.”

The brief appears to have caught the attention of the Court, which wrote:

Public Knowledge argues that WoW users are owners of the WoW software they purchased and therefore do not infringe copyright by using their software in a manner authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 117. MDY Industries and Michael Donnelly make the same argument in their reply brief. The Court will require Blizzard Entertainment and Vivendi Games to respond to this argument.

Oral argument on this motion is scheduled for June 26 in Phoenix.

Note: If any of VB’s Arizona law student or attorney readers would consider covering the argument June 26, I would very much like to run something. Drop me a note if you are in the Phoenix area, and could plan to attend and write a guest spot.