The Lawbringer: Scope of copyrights

Greetings from the other side of graduation! The sun is shining, tons of Cataclysm spoilers await and now I don't have to arrange my WoW-ing and writing around my study schedule. Given that, it's time to get back into our examination of copyright law.
Two weeks ago, we looked at what can get a copyright, namely: literary works; musical works and accompanying words; dramatic works and accompanying music; pantomimes and choreography; pictorial, graphical and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works. But knowing what can be covered by a copyright doesn't explain what a copyright gives an author.
A copyright is actually a bundle of separate rights:
- right to make copies
- right to distribute copies
- right to create derivative works
- right to perform or display
- right to anticircumvention of the measures taken to prevent copying
- moral rights, including rights of attribution and the right to avoid mutilation
We'll look at these rights one by one, starting from the bottom.
Moral rights
This is a relatively new addition to a standard copyright. Remember two weeks ago when I said that the U.S. Constitution granted the Congress power to establish copyrights, the grant was "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Copyright laws grew up to prevent the violation of authors' rights, but those rights were part of a utilitarian bargain that benefits the nation just as much as the author. European copyright law works slightly differently, giving authors rights that are not reducible to money and cannot be sold as the other rights on the list are. These rights include the right to anonymous or pseudonymous publication, the right to be attributed and the right to the work's integrity.
Moral rights are protected by the Berne Treaty on Copyright, of which the United States is a signatory. As part of our treaty obligations, the United States was forced to add protection for moral rights. Rights of visual artists are protected by Visual Artists Rights Act, but all other moral right enforcement must be done through laws against unfair competition and other business tort laws.
These moral rights don't affect WoW too much. The game isn't protected as a work of visual art under the terms of the law, and Blizzard doesn't have to worry too much about someone trying to slander it by talking about "Sony's Warcraft" or "Blizzard's Warhammer."
Anticircumvention
This topic will get its own column in a few weeks, but I'll give an overview here. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a copyright also includes a right to use copy protection technology and a right to not have this technology circumvented. Leaving aside questions about the wisdom of this law, this means that one violates copyright law merely by circumventing the various forms of digital rights management.
This, as you might imagine, is a big issue for Blizzard, as the company uses copy protection encryption on its code and its server-client connection. One of these technologies is a program called Warden, which monitors what programs are running on your computer while you are playing to check for bots and hacks. The infamous botting program Glider actually was modified several times to make it undetectable to Warden, which is why Blizzard countersued MDY under DMCA provisions. More on this later.
Performance and display
A copyright holder has the exclusive right to display or perform his work. After all, the ability to sell copies of say, a movie, is substantially less valuable if that movie is constantly being broadcast. Because of this, public performance is a right of the holder.
Sneaky lawyer alert: what constitutes "public"? Section 101 of the Copyright Act describes four ways one can have a public display/performance:
- if the performance occurs at a place open to the public,
- if the performance occurs at a place in which a substantial number of person outside the normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered,
- if the performance is transmitted or otherwise communicated to a place open to the public or where a substantial number of persons outside the normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered, or
- if the performance is transmitted or otherwise communicated to the public by means of any device, regardless of whether the public receives it in the same or separate places or receives it at the same or different times.
Derivative works
The holders of a copyright have more than rights over their own works; they also have the rights to any work that has been derived from that work. You've probably heard the term "fair use" as applied to copyright; many fair use cases are derivative works that the creators are claiming shouldn't be considered an infringing derivative work.
For World of Warcraft, this means Blizzard has exclusive rights to all novels, comics, soundtracks, characters, settings, plot lines, etc. What does this mean for us? All the derivative works we create -- the fan fic, the machinima, the addons, etc. -- are unlicensed and thus technically infringing. However, Blizzard has chosen to rest on these rights and only go after those who are making money off their infringement. This topic too will get a much longer treatment in the near future.
Distribution
The copyright owner has the right to distribute his work to the public. This right is separate to the right to make copies, though logically these rights are typically licensed together. As an example, imagine an artist who paints nudes that she gives to a boyfriend, under the assumption they're for his eyes only. If he were to then put those paintings up for auction, she could sue him for infringing her right of distribution under copyright law, even if he never made any copies of the paintings.
A distribution right is only the right to distribute to the public, and it ends after the first sale, hence the "first sale doctrine." After we as customers buy a copyrighted product from our local retailer, we then have the right to sell that product to whomever we wish (unlike the above example, wherein giving the painting to the boyfriend was not a public distribution).
What does this mean for software like our favorite game? After we have purchased a copy of a program, we have the right to distribute our copy of the software to whomever we wish. We buy a CD-ROM and some booklets, and we have the right to sell that CD-ROM and the booklets, but that's all the first sale doctrine allows us to distribute.
Copying
Finally, we reach the most important right -- the right to make copies. Traditionally, only the copyright owner or licensee has the right to make copies. Software prompted a change to this law, allowing the purchaser of software to make one archival copy. While important, this right is probably the most self-explanatory.
There's only one problem in applying this right to World of Warcraft -- we are not purchasers of the software. We are licensees, essentially renting our copy of the game and being bound by the terms and conditions thereof. The issues of copyright licensing will be next week's topic.
This column is for entertainment purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. If you have a real legal question, find a real lawyer. For general questions about law or law school, email me at lawbringerjd@aol.com or tweet me @wowlawbringer.
Filed under: The Lawbringer






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
sprout_daddy May 17th 2010 8:07PM
Congratulations on graduation. It's been more than a dozen years since my own JD experience, and I can appreciate your pleasure at being done with it.
Hoggersbud May 17th 2010 8:13PM
I don't think you gave quite enough attention to "fair use" in this article, at the least, I hope that you intend to make one covering that subject.
Nopunin10did May 18th 2010 12:16AM
I second this. Too many people think "fair use" is more expansive than it is, and it would be good to address how rarely it actually comes into play copyright-wise.
zainwolf May 18th 2010 6:06AM
Did you miss "This topic too will get a much longer treatment in the near future." after mention of fair use?
Hoggersbud May 18th 2010 11:07AM
Well, it is kind of hidden at the end of the paragraph. :P
Sleutel Jun 8th 2010 8:59AM
Well, there's fair use... and then there's "fair use" (i.e., what the law allows, and what a copyright holder might actually let you get away with before smacking you with a lawsuit you can't afford, even if you're 100% in the right).
I am in the middle of an amazing book on copyright law in the U.S.--it's called Free Culture, by Lawrence Lessig. (And, as the author notes, that's "free" as in "free trade," not as in "free beer.")
MacAndy May 17th 2010 8:18PM
Ding! Grats on finishing the JD
Henrah May 17th 2010 8:24PM
Hey!
Great post, once again!
I'm just wondering if you noticed the change in the Battle.net ToS recently?
I can't see any changes whatsoever, any idea how it has changed?
Terethall May 17th 2010 9:36PM
A lot of times when a piece of software is updated with a new version you'll be prompted to reaccept the agreement when only the version number (like 3.3.3, for instance) will change. So to answer your question, probably very little has changed recently with battle.net's ToS.
Henrah May 17th 2010 9:41PM
The thing is, they've put a huge banner at the top of Battle.net, saying something has changed.
I just don't seem to be able to find it.
The date on the ToS has also changed, unlike when they purely make you Accept it again after a major patch.
tutti May 17th 2010 10:35PM
A friend of mine pointed out the following section, which seems new:
"12.6 Real Life Friends Feature and Identity Disclosure. The Service allows you to disclose your identity to other users of the Service through the “Real Life Friends” feature provided you have opted in to this feature. Certain features, such as the Battle.net Voice Chat Client, are only available between users of the Service who have opted in to the Real Life Friends feature. Real Life Friends can see each other's real name. Your friend will need to approve your request before showing up on your friends list. Please be aware that by sending or accepting a friend request, the real name associated with your account and the character you are logged into will be displayed not only to your friends, but also to all of their Real Life friends. If you are a parent or legal guardian and if you provide your approval to allow your minor child to use your Account, please be aware that your child may opt in to the Real Life Friends Feature and that the real name associated with the Account will be displayed to friends and to all of the friends of friends. You may opt out of the Real Life Friends feature at any time by deleting all Real Life Friends from your Battle.net Account."
Is that it?
rkaliski May 17th 2010 11:35PM
Would I be correct that this column was prompted or at least inspired by all the comments about the screenshots leaked about Cataclysm? In essence wouldn't the fact that Blizzard owns the copyright to expansion, preclude anyone, not just the people covered by the non-disclosure agreement from distributing information and more important, screenshots of the game?
Chris May 18th 2010 3:16AM
As far as I know, all the screenshots on Wow.com have been official screenshots released by Blizzard and are not in violation of any copyright or NDA. This column has been a regular feature on Wow.com and wasn't "prompted" by anyone to be written to "clear things up".
David May 18th 2010 5:25AM
It would be interesting to see something in this column about the leaked information being reported here. In some cases there are links to other sites, but some of the articles include actual leaked info, which Blizzard has specifically asked to be taken down from other sites (such as http://www.wow.com/2010/05/13/cataclysm-leak-mastery-formulas ).
Since WoW.com knows Blizzard has asked for this to be removed from other sites, but still has the formulas hosted here, are they in violation of the DMCA?
MusedMoose May 17th 2010 8:52PM
First, congratulations on graduating!
Second, thank you again for the columns on copyright, and I'm looking forward to the future ones that deal with this subject. As an aspiring writer whose work has been plagiarized in the past, I figure the more I know about this sort of thing the better. ^_^
Mau May 17th 2010 9:14PM
Eventhough this article is written based on US law, it should be noted that in some countries the computer code is also protected by copyrights (in US its probably patented and licensed to Blizzard).
Terethall May 17th 2010 9:30PM
Congrats, Amy! I just finished my first year of a pre-law degree.
I just want to say that I always love your columns and I hope that we will be seeing them more often. =)
Kaz May 17th 2010 9:35PM
"There's only one problem in applying this right to World of Warcraft -- we are not purchasers of the software. We are licensees, essentially renting our copy of the game and being bound by the terms and conditions thereof. "
Uhhh....I'm not really sure that Blizzard would be able to get this one by a judge. When you go to a store there is an environment of "buying" transactions. There is no special procedure for WoW or anything to state to the user that they are "licensing" instead of buying. Most damning for Blizzard is the fact that on their own website "Blizzard Store" WoW is available for purchase in the same way as other products such as other Blizzard games, the Authenticator, Novels, etc. and there is nothing on WoW's page, even in the small print, that would indicate licensing instead of buying.
It wouldn't surprise me to see a judge rule that people using the client software for exclusive personal use is completely legal. Although actually running an unofficial server might still constitute copyright violations , unfair competition, etc.
The MPAA has already made the statement that people don't "own" their DVDs, but are merely "renting" them. I don't think its gone to trial yet, but I think the historical act of buying and the process of that transaction are known by society and thereby invalidating such a claim.
I contend that Copyright holders:
1) Understand the nature of a purchase transaction.
2) Have sold units of their product in their own stores, and have sold to retail stores units of their product for resale.
3) Have not made any reasonable provisions in advance to inform the consumer in the place of transaction that the purchase is of a license and not of the product and that the consumer would be bound to rules exclusive to the license in addition to copyright law.
4) Have not suffered significant quantifiable damage material or in rights as a result of the transactions being "purchase" and not "license."
Therefore the copyright holders have no claim as to have their products heretofore sold to be reclassified as a "license."
As hard as it is to believe: I am not a lawyer. Nothing I say constitutes any legal advice or even rational thought. Oh, and don't base a legal strategy on the ramblings of random internet peoples instead consult a real lawyer (preferably one that went to a good law school and passed the BAR the first time).
Idran May 17th 2010 10:28PM
Depends on what court you'd take the case to, really. The 7th and 8th Circuit have mostly upheld the concept of software being licensed rather than sold for software with an EULA, while other circuits have said that isn't valid. And it's never been taken to the Supreme Court level, so that's as far as can be said.
Dragoniel May 18th 2010 3:53AM
You are looking too deep. In the store we are buying only a client program. We got it, it's ours. And yet it is completely useless without a server. Blizzard is licencing the use of their servers, not the part of the game that we have bought.
And they do state that they are licencing our subscription (access to servers) quite clearly:
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj5/Yokatama/Licence.jpg