Golan v. Holder
A few weeks ago, arguments were held before the Supreme Court in the Golan v. Holder case. The case challenges whether Congress has the ability to grant copyright protection to works that were previously in the public domain (See my previous post on case).
A copy of the transcript is available on the Supreme Court's website.
The Court seemed very engaged in the questioning for this matter which contained numerous hypotheticals, questions of First Amendment scrutiny and whether the government had already granted copyright protection to works that previously did not have any with analogies to 1790’s law and a moment of levity from Justice Breyer.
Vernor v. Autodesk
Back from its summer vacation, the Court denied certification to another copyright case Vernor v. Autodesk.
The case was summarized in previous blog entries:
Battles in Seattle Part 2 of 3: Vernor v. Autodesk
Battles in Seattle Vernor v. Autodesk Decision
This means that the Ninth Circuit decision will stand, thereby making software licenses not subject to the first sale doctrine under Section 109 of the Copyright Act.
Showing posts with label Vernor v. Autodesk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vernor v. Autodesk. Show all posts
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
More First Sale News
Last week the Ninth Circuit ruled on the second of three first sale cases - MDY v. Blizzard. The opinion can be found here.
The case is about the use of bots (made by MDY) to assist in advancing in the World of Warcraft video game owned by Blizzard. For more facts about the case, see my previous blog entry.
Relying on the earlier decision in Vernor v. Autodesk, the first decision in the trio of first sale cases before the Ninth Circuit this term, the Court finds that the players of Blizzard are licensees and not owners of the World of Warcraft software. Blizzard’s World of Warcraft End User License Agreement specifically prohibits users from creating or using third party software to modify Worlds of Warcraft including bots.
However, the Ninth Circuit differentiates between a contract covenant which is a breach of the license agreement and not copyright enforceable conditions. Because the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court decision and determined that the MDY bot did not alter or copy any of Blizzard’s software, it was not a copyright enforceable condition and thus no copyright infringement occurred.
Next the Ninth Circuit had to decide whether MDY committed copyright infringement under the DMCA when it modified its bot to circumvent Blizzard’s Warden technology to prevent bots from connecting to the World of Warcraft servers.
In its interpretation of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. Section 1201(a)), the Court finds that the statute is meant to protect from circumvention of access controls to copyrighted works including decrypting and descrambling works. This does not necessarily affect the exclusive rights under Section 106 of the Copyright Act. The Court notes that this is a departure and differing view from the Chamberlain decision in the Federal Circuit requiring that the circumvention interfere with one of the exclusive rights under Section 106.
Based on this interpretation, the Court finds that MDY does not violate Section 1201(a)(2) for the literal elements and individual non-literal elements of Worlds of Warcraft because the Warden technology does not control access to the Worlds of Warcraft elements. The Warden technology does not prevent access to Worlds of Warcraft on an individual user’s computer but only to the Worlds of Warcraft servers.
However, the Court finds that MDY violates Section 1201(a) for the dynamic non-literal elements of Worlds of Warcraft. The Ninth Circuit explains the dynamic non-literal elements as analogous to the audiovisual display of a computer game which is independently copyrightable from the software program code. Because Warden does prevent access to the audiovisual display of the Worlds of Warcraft from its servers, MDY’s efforts to restructure its bots to circumvent the Warden technology is an infringement.
The Court reversed summary judgment for Blizzard for tortuous interference with contract because there were triable issues of fact.
The case is about the use of bots (made by MDY) to assist in advancing in the World of Warcraft video game owned by Blizzard. For more facts about the case, see my previous blog entry.
Relying on the earlier decision in Vernor v. Autodesk, the first decision in the trio of first sale cases before the Ninth Circuit this term, the Court finds that the players of Blizzard are licensees and not owners of the World of Warcraft software. Blizzard’s World of Warcraft End User License Agreement specifically prohibits users from creating or using third party software to modify Worlds of Warcraft including bots.
However, the Ninth Circuit differentiates between a contract covenant which is a breach of the license agreement and not copyright enforceable conditions. Because the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court decision and determined that the MDY bot did not alter or copy any of Blizzard’s software, it was not a copyright enforceable condition and thus no copyright infringement occurred.
Next the Ninth Circuit had to decide whether MDY committed copyright infringement under the DMCA when it modified its bot to circumvent Blizzard’s Warden technology to prevent bots from connecting to the World of Warcraft servers.
In its interpretation of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. Section 1201(a)), the Court finds that the statute is meant to protect from circumvention of access controls to copyrighted works including decrypting and descrambling works. This does not necessarily affect the exclusive rights under Section 106 of the Copyright Act. The Court notes that this is a departure and differing view from the Chamberlain decision in the Federal Circuit requiring that the circumvention interfere with one of the exclusive rights under Section 106.
Based on this interpretation, the Court finds that MDY does not violate Section 1201(a)(2) for the literal elements and individual non-literal elements of Worlds of Warcraft because the Warden technology does not control access to the Worlds of Warcraft elements. The Warden technology does not prevent access to Worlds of Warcraft on an individual user’s computer but only to the Worlds of Warcraft servers.
However, the Court finds that MDY violates Section 1201(a) for the dynamic non-literal elements of Worlds of Warcraft. The Ninth Circuit explains the dynamic non-literal elements as analogous to the audiovisual display of a computer game which is independently copyrightable from the software program code. Because Warden does prevent access to the audiovisual display of the Worlds of Warcraft from its servers, MDY’s efforts to restructure its bots to circumvent the Warden technology is an infringement.
The Court reversed summary judgment for Blizzard for tortuous interference with contract because there were triable issues of fact.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
BATTLES IN SEATTLE - Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. Decision
A couple of months ago, Copyright Chronicle covered the 3 cases (UMG Recordings v. Augusto, Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., and MDY Indus. v. Blizzard Entertainment) involving the first sale defense heard in Seattle by the Ninth Circuit in our First Sale Frenzy: Battles in Seattle series of posts.
The first decision has been made in the Ninth Circuit in the Vernor v. Autodesk case.
Procedural History/Summary: Vernor sold copies of Autodesk’s software on eBay. Autodesk filed several DMCA takedown notices with eBay. After several notices, Vernor’s account was suspended. Vernor filed a declaratory judgment action against Autodesk.
Autodesk alleged that it had licensed its software to CTA. Part of the license included that when updates were provided to its customers, they were to destroy the previous versions. However, CTA sold Version 14 to Vernor.
Autodesk was able to trace the software available on eBay to CTA. Autodesk maintained activation codes and serial numbers to verify registrations of its software. Portions of Autodesk’s agreements with its customers include use restrictions associated with the software.
The district court granted Vernor summary judgment finding that Vernor did not infringe on Autodesk’s software because Vernor was protected by the first sale defense under Section 109 and the essential step defense. The primary issue and question in the case was whether the transaction between Autodesk and CTA was a license or a sale. The first sale under Section 109 and the essential step defense do not apply to licenses but only to sales. The district court found that the transaction between Autodesk and CTA was a sale and therefore, Vernor was free to sell Version 14 on eBay. Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90906, *42-44 (W.D. Wash. 2009).
The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Court found the following factors relevant to the inquiry of whether a transaction is a license or a sale: (1) whether the copyright owner specifies that the user has a license; (2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; (3) whether the copyright owner places restrictions on use by the user. The Court found that the district court erred in finding that a sale occurs when a transferee is entitled to keep the work. Because Autodesk did not require a return of its work, the district court found there was a sale. Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18957, *25-26 (9th Cir. Wash., Sept. 10, 2010).
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that a software user is a licensee where the copyright owner: (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts that user’s right to transfer the work; and (3) imposes restrictions on use. As these criteria were met in the transaction between Autodesk and CTA, Vernor was in the same position as CTA and had no right to sell Autodesk’s software. (CTA has previously settled with Autodesk.)
There were several amici involved in the case who had indicated that there were significant policy considerations; however, the Court found its ruling based on its precedent and Congress was free to amend or modify the law based on policy considerations. Vernor at *37.
The first decision has been made in the Ninth Circuit in the Vernor v. Autodesk case.
Procedural History/Summary: Vernor sold copies of Autodesk’s software on eBay. Autodesk filed several DMCA takedown notices with eBay. After several notices, Vernor’s account was suspended. Vernor filed a declaratory judgment action against Autodesk.
Autodesk alleged that it had licensed its software to CTA. Part of the license included that when updates were provided to its customers, they were to destroy the previous versions. However, CTA sold Version 14 to Vernor.
Autodesk was able to trace the software available on eBay to CTA. Autodesk maintained activation codes and serial numbers to verify registrations of its software. Portions of Autodesk’s agreements with its customers include use restrictions associated with the software.
The district court granted Vernor summary judgment finding that Vernor did not infringe on Autodesk’s software because Vernor was protected by the first sale defense under Section 109 and the essential step defense. The primary issue and question in the case was whether the transaction between Autodesk and CTA was a license or a sale. The first sale under Section 109 and the essential step defense do not apply to licenses but only to sales. The district court found that the transaction between Autodesk and CTA was a sale and therefore, Vernor was free to sell Version 14 on eBay. Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90906, *42-44 (W.D. Wash. 2009).
The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Court found the following factors relevant to the inquiry of whether a transaction is a license or a sale: (1) whether the copyright owner specifies that the user has a license; (2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; (3) whether the copyright owner places restrictions on use by the user. The Court found that the district court erred in finding that a sale occurs when a transferee is entitled to keep the work. Because Autodesk did not require a return of its work, the district court found there was a sale. Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18957, *25-26 (9th Cir. Wash., Sept. 10, 2010).
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that a software user is a licensee where the copyright owner: (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts that user’s right to transfer the work; and (3) imposes restrictions on use. As these criteria were met in the transaction between Autodesk and CTA, Vernor was in the same position as CTA and had no right to sell Autodesk’s software. (CTA has previously settled with Autodesk.)
There were several amici involved in the case who had indicated that there were significant policy considerations; however, the Court found its ruling based on its precedent and Congress was free to amend or modify the law based on policy considerations. Vernor at *37.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)