Facebook’s “Browsewrap” Enforced Against Kids–EKD v. Facebook

24 05 2012

By Eric Goldman

E.K.D. v. Facebook, Inc., 3:12-cv-01216-JCS (S.D. Ill. March 8, 2012). The complaint.

This opinion reaches two interesting conclusions. First, it says children-users can’t disaffirm Facebook’s terms of service (TOS) so long as they keep using the site. Second, it says the children-users are bound to Facebook’s TOS even though the court thinks it’s a browsewrap. Neither ruling is unprecedented, but both rulings represent a very favorable bounce for Facebook. Yet, for reasons I’ll address in a moment, I’m not 100% clear why Facebook wanted this outcome.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/03/facebooks_brows.html and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Steam user violates subscriber agreement, loses $1,800 in games

14 03 2011

March 14, 2011

What happens if you violate Steam’s Subscriber Agreement and you have a library of games worth nearly $2,000? As one user learned, you’ll lose access to all of those games.

more


The content in this post was found at http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/03/steam-user-violates-subscriber-agreement-loses-1800-in-games/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Ninth Circuit Says DMCA Anticircumvention Provision Gives New, Access-Prevention Right to Copyright Owners – MDY v. Blizzard, Part II

4 01 2011

As we related in Part I of this post, Blizzard Entertainment, distributor of the World of Warcraft game software and the operator of the servers that enable online game play, sought to block the use of automated game playing software by deploying anti-bot software, WoW Warden. But MDY Industries, the distributor of the Glider bot software, countered that move by re-engineering Glider to evade detection by Warden and enable users to continue access WoW’s servers while using the bot. This feature of Glider is the basis for Blizzard’s claims that MDY violated the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that prohibit trafficking in software and other devices that enable circumvention of copyright protection technologies.

In MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., the Ninth Circuit commenced its analysis of the DMCA issues by parsing the complex interconnection between the two parallel prohibitions in the anticircumvention provisions: the prohibition in Section 1201(a) against the circumvention of a technological measure that “effectively controls access to a work protected under this title,” i.e., a copyrighted work; and the prohibition in Section 1201(b) against the circumvention of a technological measure that “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner.”
more


The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2011/01/articles/copyright/ninth-circuit-says-dmca-anticircumvention-provision-gives-new-accessprevention-right-to-copyright-owners-mdy-v-blizzard-part-ii/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewMediaAndTechnologyLaw+%28New+Media+and+Technology+Law%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Ninth Circuit Rules on License Conditions versus Contract Covenants in Dispute over World of Warcraft Bots – MDY v. Blizzard, Part I

3 01 2011

The dispute between MDY and Blizzard raises a multiplicity of interesting issues under copyright law and the DMCA, issues on which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last month in MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2010). The ruling was largely, although not completely, favorable to Blizzard, but either way it is an important ruling for content and software licensors who seek to control their use of their copyrighted works.

more


The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2011/01/articles/copyright/ninth-circuit-rules-on-license-conditions-versus-contract-covenants-in-dispute-over-world-of-warcraft-bots-mdy-v-blizzard-part-i/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewMediaAndTechnologyLaw+%28New+Media+and+Technology+Law%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Ninth Circuit Rules on License versus Sale of Software

19 12 2010

The Register of Copyrights may have concluded that precedents defining the difference between a license and a sale of software are conflicting (see our prior blog post on that point), but a panel of the Ninth Circuit had no difficulty in resolving the issue in its recent opinion Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2010). The panel reconciled a series of prior panel rulings deemed inconsistent by the lower court, and ruled that proposed resales of packaged software via an eBay auction were not protected by the copyright first sale doctrine because the initial transaction between the software developer and its transferee was a license, not a sale.

more


The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2010/09/articles/copyright/ninth-circuit-rules-on-license-versus-sale-of-software/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewMediaAndTechnologyLaw+%28New+Media+and+Technology+Law%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Court: You do not own that copy of WoW you bought

15 12 2010

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a previous ruling that those who bought and played World of Warcraft did not actually own the software, but were merely licensing the game, per the included End User Licensing Agreement. . . .

In a previous ruling it was claimed that by using this program the EULA was broken, thus the player was violating copyright by accessing the game. The Ninth Circuit Court did not uphold that aspect of the case.

more


The content in this post was found at http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/12/court-you-do-not-own-that-copy-of-wow-you-bought.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Runescape Publisher Denied Preliminary Injunction Against Maker of Auto-Player Software — Jagex Ltd. v. Impulse Software

2 09 2010

[Post by Venkat]

Jagex Ltd. v. Impulse Software, et al., Case No. 10-10216-NMG (D. Mass.) (Aug. 16, 2010)

Jagex operates “Runescape,” a popular and free online role-playing game. The game has over 130 million accounts, and users spend a significant amount of time “rising through the levels of the game”:

as of October, 2009, the three highest-ranking players had each spent an average of approximately 20,000 hours [!] involved in a game, e.g., 50 hours per week for almost eight years.

Impulse (along with the individual defendants) operate websites offering “cheat” tools – i.e., software that allows users to advance their characters without actually playing the game. Defendants’ software downloads a copy of Runescape and “uses a process called ‘reflection’ to examine the game’s internal operation which is normally hidden from users.” The software then “plays the game for its owner while she is away from her computer.”

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/09/runescape_publi_1.htmand was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Ownership or License? Where to Draw the Line on Copyright Infringement

30 06 2010

Most likely, Craig Vernor had no idea the firestorm he would create when he decided to put used copies of AutoCAD, a 3-D modeling software often used by architects, up for sale on E-Bay. He wanted to sell the $4,000 software (when new) for about $400 online. (Vernor’s actions on E-Bay are by no means the first of their kind. At present, E-Bay has 19 sub-categories of software for sale.)

Autodesk, the software’s creator and parent company, immediately demanded that the items be removed from E-Bay due to copyright infringement.

more

The content in this post was found at http://redmountainlaw.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/ownership-or-license-where-to-draw-the-line-on-copyright-infringement/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



EFF Weighs in on Facebook v. Power Ventures — Facebook v. Power Ventures

8 06 2010

[Post by Venkat]

Facebook v. Power Ventures, Case No. 5:08-cv-05780 JW (N.D. Cal.) (Facebook Motion) (EFF Amicus Brief)

Facebook and Power Ventures have been locked in a dispute over whether Power Ventures can access Facebook’s website and network outside of Facebook’s authorized developer channels. The dispute yielded an interesting ruling on Power.com’s motion to dismiss. The parties are both seeking summary judgment on the issue of whether Power.com’s conduct violates California Penal Code section 502(c). EFF recently weighed in with an amicus brief which makes the already interesting dispute even more interesting.

The Dispute: Facebook brought Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims and copyright claims (along with a slew of other claims) against Power.com. Setting aside the peripheral trademark and CAN-SPAM claims, Facebook’s key allegations are that (1) Power.com accessed Facebook’s network “without authorization” in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (and section 502(c), the California computer crime statute); (2) Power.com accessed Facebook’s network in violation of the Facebook terms of use; and (3) Power.com copied the copyrighted portions of the Facebook website in the process of allowing Facebook users to access Facebook through Power.com’s interface. (There’s also an anti-circumvention claim tied to the unauthorized copying claim.) The court denied Power.com’s motion to dismiss. (See coverage of the court’s initial ruling on Power.com’s motion to dismiss from Tom O’Toole, Jeff Neuburger, and Cyberlaw Cases.)

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/05/eff_weighs_in_o.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Craigslist Wins $1.3M Default Judgment Against Autoposting Facilitator — craigslist v. Naturemarket

25 03 2010

[Post by Venkat]

craigslist, Inc. v. Naturemarket, Inc., Case No. C 08-05065 PJH (MEJ) (N.D. Cal. March 5, 2010) [scribd] (report and recommendation adopted on February 5, 2010)

Craigslist obtained a 1.3 million dollar default judgment against defendants Naturemarket, Inc. and Igor Gasov.

Naturemarket (doing business as powerpostings.com [typical bad choice of name]) sold software which allowed its customers to automatically post listings to craigslist. As advertised by defendants, the software made “the difficult craigslist posting process child’s play and [helped users] manage and multi-post . . . ads.” Defendants also advertised “posting agent” services where defendants would post ads on behalf of customers. Finally, defendants sold software that scraped email addresses from the craigslist site.

Craigslist sued alleging claims under (1) copyright; (2) DMCA; (3) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; (4) trademark; (5) breach of contract/terms of use. Defendants failed to contest the suit. The court granted default judgment against defendants:

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/03/craiglist_wins.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.