April 8, 2008

Scrabbling for Legal Rationalism: No Copyright for Games

Filed under: commons, copyright, code — wseltzer @ 2:45 am

ScrabulousThe New York Times reports that RealNetworks has introduced an “authorized” version of “Scrabble by Mattel” to Facebook, in an effort to compete with the enormously popular Scrabulous. CNet is puzzled, in part because the “official” app is unavailable in the United States or Canada.

For those not yet hooked, Scrabulous has been providing a Facebook application that lets Facebook friends play the game of Scrabble online. If the game numbers increment sequentially, it has served more than 2 and a half million games, and claims 629,256 daily active users.

In January, BBC and others reported that the Scrabulous team and Facebook had received takedown demands from Hasbro and Mattel (the two companies divide worldwide rights to the Scrabble trademark). Months later, however, Scrabulous remains online, probably because the threats’ legal merits are murky: there are few rights to “a game” as such.

Three kinds of intellectual property might protect aspects of a game — patent, trademark, and copyright — but each has limits that leave plenty of room for imitators and emulators.

  • Patent: At its heart, a game like Scrabble is an idea or “method of operation,” a set of procedural rules. Those ideas might have been protected by patent, when they were new, useful (for entertainment), and non-obvious, but any patents on Scrabble, invented in 1938 would have since expired. So the patent Scrabble’s creator got
    U.S. Patent 2,752,158 in 1956, for “an apparatus designed to facilitate scoring procedures in connection with the playing of board games” is now in the public domain — we can all use its jagged-edged squares to facilitate scoring by point-value of the square on which a piece rests.

  • Trademark: Trademark protects distinctive source-identifying brands. This might be Hasbro/Mattel’s strongest claim, but it’s a narrowly scoped one. The trademark owner has the right to prevent others from using a mark in a manner likely to cause consumer confusion. Trademark protects only the brand, not the underlying game. So if “Scrabulous” were deemed likely to cause confusion about the source or sponsorship of the Facebook app, its owners would just have to change the name. Trademark can’t bar them from reintroducing the same game under a name such as “WordCross.”
  • Copyright. Copyright is the most frequently cited claim, and the most mistaken. Copyright protects expression, not ideas, and the statute explicitly excludes “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” The U.S. Copyright Office, which has presumably had to fend off scores of copyright seekers with game ideas, devotes a page to the subject, saying:

    The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

    Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

    Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

    So the “methods of operation” — the rules of the game, should be uncopyrightable no matter how intricate. Their particular expression in an elegantly written manual may be protected, but another is free to extract the underlying ideas and rewrite the manual to describe an identically played game.

    Moreover, the board design for Scrabble contains only de minimis separable expression. The arrangement of double-letter and triple-word scores is part of the method of play — like tennis’s “if you cross the fault line while serving, the serve is no good,” it merges with the unprotectable idea. We need to use the same rules to interoperate (play a challenge game!), just as once Lotus popularized a set of shortcuts for spreadsheet menus, others needed — and were permitted — to use that functional command hierarchy.

    The coloration of Scrabble squares, while minimally expressive, also has a primarily functional purpose, to indicate the scoring. By contrast, a decorative board such as Candyland would have copyrightable expression — one could reproduce the rules without the fanciful lollipop woods. The Scrabble board looks more like the accounting ledger of Baker v. Selden, the 1879 case in which the Supreme Court denied copyright protection to an accounting method and the forms necessary to implement it.

    The Internet provides a host of new opportunities to reimplement classic games, without the barriers of physical distribution. As entrepreneurs rush to capitalize on the opportunies, they shouldn’t be scared off by vague legal threats. Hasbro and Mattel may have their trademark, but we all have the right to cross words.

  • February 25, 2008

    FCC Open Hearing: Net Neutrality

    Filed under: fccboston08, events, commons, law, code — wseltzer @ 12:00 pm

    FCC HearingThe FCC is in Cambridge today, for a Berkman-hosted open meeting (PDF) on Network Neutrality.

    Congressman Ed Markey introduces the panel with recollections of his fight against mandated access charges for dial-up connections. Flat rate connections, initially allowed Internet to flourish, as Internet users built out a Net freed from the shackles of long-distance timers.

    Markey clearly gets the ‘Net: “The Internet is as much mine and yours as it is AT&T’s, Verizon’s, and Comcast’s…. The nature of the ‘Net is not about the carriers and the services they provide… they provide access, not service. … This is ‘No Country for Old Bandwidth.’”

    Markey understands that the value of the Internet’s potential, is greater than even the best current application: “The beauty of the internet is its wonderfully chaotic, ever-evolving nature… its ability to reinvent itself every single year.” Let’s hope the rest of the hearing strengthens that vision.

    Join in: Join the Berkman IRC channel or post questions.

    January 11, 2008

    Mukurtu Contextual Archiving: digital “restrictions” done right

    Filed under: culture, commons — wseltzer @ 10:37 am

    I’m accustomed to thinking of digital restrictions in the U.S. intellectual property context. We’re told that DRM use restrictions are trade-offs for getting material in digital form, but generally, the trade is a bad one for the public.

    The Mukurtu Wumpurrarni-kari archive Kimberly Christen helped the Australian Warumungu community in Tennant Creek to construct puts digital restrictions in a very different light.

    As Kim described when I met her at a conference over the summer, the Warumungu have a set of protocols around objects and representations of people that restrict access to physical objects and photographs. Only elders may see or authorize viewing of sacred objects; other objects may be restricted by family or gender. Images of the deceased shouldn’t be viewed, and photographs are often physically effaced. When the Warumungu archive objects or images, they want to implement the same sort of restrictions.

    They wanted an archive that was built around Warumungu protocols for accessing and distributing materials (in many forms). One of the first mandates was that everyone had to have a password so that they could only see materials that they were meant to see based on their family/country/community status.

    Kim’s response was to help construct a digital archive with access controls — ACLs based not on copyright but on the various elements of a person’s community status. Your identity sets your view-port into the archive; the computer will show only items you have permission to see. The community can thus give objects context in the online archive similar to that which situates them offline. As an object’s status changes, the database can be updated to reflect new rights or restrictions.

    Yet the Mukurtu’s form of “DRM” is fragile. Users are encouraged to print images or burn CDs, which have no controls built-in.

    People can also print images or burn CDs and thus allow the images to circulate more widely to others who live on outstations or in other areas. In fact, one of the top priorities in Mukurtu’s development was that it needed to allow people to take things with them, printing and burning were necessary to ensure circulation of the materials.

    Unlike copyright-DRM systems, which fall back to the most restrictive state when exporting or communicating with “unsigned” devices (such as blocking all copying and breaking or lowering playback resolution on high-definition monitors), this one defaults to granting access. It’s up to the people using the system to determine how new and unknown situations should be handled.

    Because the Murkurtu protocol-restrictions support community norms, rather than oppose them, the system can trust its users to take objects with them. If a member of the community chooses to show a picture to someone the machine would not have, his or her interpretation prevails — the machine doesn’t presume to capture or trump the nuance of the social protocol. Social protocols can be reviewed or broken, and so the human choice to comply gives them strength as community ties.

    One of the lessons of the recording industry lawsuits and growing shift from DRM’d music is that community norms don’t support current copyright law. Rather than fight copyright norms with bad code, we should learn from the Warumungu and build code (and law) to support social practice.

    Further good news: Kim says she and Craig Dietrich will be releasing the archive’s code as Free Software.

    December 19, 2007

    Year-End Giving

    Filed under: politics, commons — wseltzer @ 2:20 pm

    Whether it’s holidays or the close of the tax year that motivates, it’s a good time for generosity to non-profit causes. Here are some of mine:

    The Tor Project, Inc.The Tor Project, Inc. develops anonymity software to help users navigate the web without being tracked — helping whistleblowers blog anonymously and dissidents browse past national firewalls. The Tor Project will be concluding its first year as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and I’m proud to be on its Board of Directors. While your there, download the Tor software and add a node to the anonymity network.

     

    Electronic Frontier FoundationElectronic Frontier Foundation relies on members’ donations to champion online freedoms in the courts. Its litigation against AT&T for participation in warrantless wiretapping has helped to expose the depth of the administration’s evasions. While you’re there, keep the pressure on congress to let the public hold telecommunications carriers accountable when they break the law.

     

    Creative CommonsCreative Commons celebrates five years of helping creators to share their works and the public to find them, through standard copyright-permissions licenses. Science Commons is extending this spirit to enable web-like collaboration in scientific research. While you’re there, search for CC-licensed work or license a work of your own.

     

    One Laptop Per ChildOne Laptop Per Child Through the end of the year, donors to OLPC can give one and get one — give one laptop to a child in a developing country and get one of their rugged yet open-source machines for your (inner) child.

     

    Free Software FoundationFree Software Foundation produces both great software and the original great legal hack — copyleft. Grab some free software while you’re there.

     

    ACLUAmerican Civil Liberties Union isn’t tax-deductible, but we need allies lobbying for our rights in Washington too.

     

     

    Amnesty InternationalWGBHPlanned ParenthoodRhizomeOpen Rights GroupWitnessThe Harvard Crimson Financial Aid FundNature ConservancyWikipedia

    November 14, 2007

    Freeing Legal Code

    Filed under: commons, law — wseltzer @ 5:24 pm

    A cool development from Public Resource:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. / SEBASTOPOL, CA—November 14, 2007—Public.Resource.Org and Fastcase, Inc. announced today that they will release a large and free archive of federal case law, including all Courts of Appeals decisions from 1950 to the present and all Supreme Court decisions since 1754. The archive will be public domain and usable by anyone for any purpose.

    Law and legal opinions aren’t copyrightable, but for too long, access to them in bulk has been restricted behind contractual firewalls. Courts have begun publishing their opinions electronically, but much of the historical information our common-law system is built around isn’t there yet. Lawyers have access to Lexis or Westlaw, and law students get that access for free (with the cost of a legal education), but contractual terms on those databases prevent sharing the contents more widely.

    Furhter, this new effort will be Law 2.0:

    Public.Resource.Org intends to perform an initial transformation on the federal case law archive obtained from Fastcase using open source “star” mapping software, which will allow the insertion of markers that will approximate page breaks based on user-furnished parameters such as page size, margins, and fonts. “Wiki” technology will be used to allow the public to move around these “star” markers, as well as add summaries, classifications, keywords, alternate numbering systems for citation purposes, and ratings or “diggs” on opinions.

    October 22, 2007

    Chilly Weekend: Black Friday Prequel and Public Domain Music Scores

    Filed under: trade secret, Chilling Effects, commons, copyright, law — wseltzer @ 5:02 pm

    If it’s fall, these must be cease-and-desists for Black Friday ads. This year, they seem to be coming earlier than ever, as Wal-Mart sends pre-notifications against future posting. I put my analysis into a Chilling Effects Weather Report

    Meanwhile, Michael Geist has the low-down on the overbroad copyright demand (PDF) that has shuttered the International Music Score Library Project. Despite vetting all submitted music for public domain status in Canada, where he runs the site, the IMSLP operator got a complaint that he was making scores available to jurisdictions where they were still under copyright — talk about misusing disharmony. Let’s hope the library is back online soon.

    Powered by WordPress