Regulating The Internet? Not the Tubes Themselves…

If Net Neutrality is an argument about economics (and federal administrative law), Content Regulation is an argument about ethics and culture.

Net Neutrality is becoming an old hobby horse for a lot of people. It gets a lot more attention than most telecommunications policy issues. Even though questions about copper wire lines vs fiber optic cables actually affects more people, the internet is generally united by the fact of its own existence.  This is about regulation at the highest level, determining the equality and/or equity of access to content. No one online is indifferent to the internet—the only debate about net neutrality is which policies are best for the consumer and the telecommunications marketplace (or, in the United States, “telecommunications marketplace”).

But there is another layer of regulation that is quickly gaining attention. If Net Neutrality is about the form of the internet (its structure and broad organization), there is a growing need to consider questions about the regulation of the content of the internet. Over the years, the internet has been a vector for some amazingly good and amazingly bad actions by humans. The differences in the kind of regulatory concept at play are hard to understate. Rather than comparing it to different video games, I would compare it to the difference between a video game and a tabletop game.

1) I’ve always been fascinated by the dawn of the computer age. My childhood was the tail-end of a world in which homes did not have internet access. By the start of law school, everyone looked up famous cases and Latin phrases on Wikipedia during class (except for the people who did the reading the night before- they looked it up before class). I’ve often compared the early days of the internet to a kind of Wild West setting: a lawless frontier where fundamental questions about the mold of civilization were not yet settled. I thought most of those questions would be settled by 2015. We are not close to a consensus on rules. Indeed, we are still testing what types of rules are feasible or desirable.

Video games are literally made of rules: the computer code that constitutes the game itself. Tabletop games are made of… usually cardboard, or some kind of paper. (Occasionally, they have some plastic – or even metal if you got the collector’s edition.) This may sound like a silly or vacuous distinction, but it has important ramifications for the kinds of problems that can happen in a game, and the kinds of solutions that will (or won’t) be effective.

2) Lawlessness can lead to problems. This was probably not known until 2 decades of unfettered internet, but now we know. Free to do anything, people have tried very hard to do everything. Every app, platform, hosting site, game, or program online that gets big enough eventually starts to experience just about every problem type that humans can present. From intellectual property disputes to death threats, from fraud to manslaughter, the internet has been a way for people to discover criminal behaviors that past generations could never have the opportunity to access. The unethical choices of both multi-national companies and village simpletons are available for repeated viewing.

In a video game, the code can sometimes glitch and create problems for players. The code can also execute perfectly, but there may be complaints about the design of the game itself (a level being too difficult or some power or tactic being of an unsuitable level of power). With some difficulty, players can cheat by actually breaking the code, but more games can detect this (and especially so in professional e-sports settings). In a tabletop game, anyone can cheat, the rules may be wrongly applied (or not applied at all), and all manner of chaos can ensue. DDoSing an opponent during a game might be a little bit akin to literally flipping a table during a game of Monopoly or checkers,

3)  YouTube’s takedown system is already an example of an effort to regulate content, and it already shows some of the challenges with instituting a content regulation system: people will find ways to game that system. Any system of regulation will have two negative outcomes: it will penalize the innocent, and it will be dodged by the guilty. The most you can hope for is that it will protect most of the innocent and it will penalize most of the guilty. The US justice system, even when working as intended, will sometimes produce undesirable results: a guilty person will go free, and an innocent person will go to prison. The hope is that this happens very infrequently.

The most common reaction to bad behavior online has been for authoritative parties to do nothing. The most common reaction by authoritative parties to actually do something has been to ban the bad actor. The most common reaction to this ban is to come back with a different username or account.

In video games, cheaters are often banned (if they are making the game worse for other players). But in table top games, people who ruin the game are just not invited back. No one will play with them anymore. People might hang out with someone less if they behaved in a wildly unacceptable way during a casual weekend game of Risk or Werewolf. In a video game, bad behavior has very limited consequences. In a tabletop game, bad behavior can have lots of meaningful implications.


4) What would it look like to regular content? Getting it wrong is easy — which is the primary reason that’s what’s going to continue to happen. Whether trying to penalize criminals or regulate behavior online, creating a fair and ethical system that consistently produces more good results than bad ones is difficult. One problem is that incentives are at odds: most platforms want to turn a profit, and if bad behavior yields a net gain, the platform needs a solution that will actually make more money than the current bad behavior (plus the cost of implementing the remedy). Another problem is that platforms tend to think of regulating their content the way that most Americans think about regulations: an appointed governing authority (or combination of authorities).



You can’t make people be good, but you can keep deleting all of their manifestations of their behavior on the internet: You can suspend or ban accounts, and eventually IP addresses. You can automatically censor strings of characters, and continually update the list of banned strings. These will continue to be the solutions offered, and they will continue to mostly fail while they almost half-succeed.

Over a decade ago, Lawerence Lessig asserted that laws are of four types: market, cultural, legal, and architectural. It turns out that enforcing the legal type of law in a digital space is very difficult. But cultural norms practically enforce themselves. And architectural laws are always already enforced. Market rules can be fickle, but persuasive. A lot of efforts to regulate content will fail because they will hinge on the concepts of legal enforcement.

The lack of rules and regulations is what made the internet a place where amazing things could happen. Without rules to stop imagination and creativity, people created art, solved problems, built positive communities, and enriched themselves and each other. In that same landscape: without rules to stop hate and anger, people created harassment and bullying, invaded privacy, ruined lives, occasionally killed people, and destroyed a lot of good in the world. Lawless frontiers are the best opportunity for the most beautiful, important, and inspiring expressions of humanity. They are also the best opportunities for the most despicable, dangerous, and damaging expressions of humanity. What the internet becomes will be decided—has always been decided—by what people bring to it.


When Covering Your Back, Remember That Legal Analysis Shapes Risk Analysis

In 2005, Jonathan Coulton recorded an original arrangement of “Baby Got Back” by Sir Mixalot. In 2013, the popular TV show Glee featured an arrangement of “Baby Got Back” that is, to my untrained ears, indistinguishable from that of Mr. Coulton. I have no evidence to offer that plagiarism or copying occurred. I simply cannot imagine any good-faith argument that the arrangement of the two productions is dissimilar in any way.

Copying Can Be Legal

Even if Glee did steal the arrangement (and I’m not saying they did, and I have no knowledge that Fox ever said they did), the show’s producers and network (Fox Broadcasing) didn’t break any laws. The general consensus by attorneys interviewed by news sources is that blatantly taking the arrangement of a musician’s cover of a third party’s song (especially if the cover is covered by Creative Commons) is mostly ok.

So, let us assume that Fox stole Coulton’s arrangement (for the sake of the academic dissection of a hypothetical case). Let us further assume that Fox is completely innocent of all crimes and liabilities. Now, granting Fox’s total innocence, I conclude: Fox made the wrong decision and failed to truly, meaningfully protect their Intellectual Property portfolio. Wielding copyright offensively offended people and undermined Fox’s goodwill (which is the value of a trademark). Losses in trademark  are rarely worth gains in copyright.

Two Legal Analyses To Get to The Bottom Line

There are two approaches to the question of whether Fox ought to use Mr. Coulton’s arrangement.

Analysis 1

An attorney examines the facts surrounding Mr. Coulton’s arrangement. The attorney researches the law that applies to music covers and the extent of copyright over arrangements. The attorney applies the relevant law to the facts and offers a professional opinion as to the likely legal consequences that would result from copying Mr. Coulton’s arrangement. Fox executives and producers consider the opinion and weigh the risks and rewards, and make a decision.

Analysis 2

An attorney performs the same procedure for analysis as above, but with one addition: The attorney also evaluates the effect on the full IP portfolio of Fox, including their trademark value (which is a concept that is almost interchangeable with “goodwill” in law and business).

Why would such similar analyses lead to a different conclusion? Because the executives and producers are chiefly concerned with the objective mathematics of “the bottom line.” The first legal analysis looks only at one narrow question (“Can we avoid losing litigation if we do this?”), while the second analysis addresses as more broad question (“What effect will this choice have on our IP portfolio?”). By including the harm to the trademark (as “loss of goodwill”) in the analysis, the executives now have different numbers to work with when calculating their bottom line.

Business Law 301: Just Because It’s Good Under the Law Doesn’t Mean It’s Good Under the Bottom Line

The moral of this story is the same lesson that I offered to Nintendo earlier this year: Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s good business. You can legally get away with a lot of things – particularly if you have a lot of attorneys helping you. It is easy for business executives to get caught up in the details of what they can “get away with.” We repeatedly see examples of companies loosing their long-term, broad vision of building a brand. Companies are generally better off when they do not sacrifice short-term copyright wins for long-term trademark growth.

The Tiny Legal Differences That Make A Big Difference

“Building a brand” has a lot to do with intellectual property, but few people distinguish between trademarks and copyrights. However, the differences matter. Executives often think in very concrete terms, and the concept of a trademark is much more abstract than the idea of copyright.

If copyright law seems a little up-in-the-clouds abstract, trademark law is in low Earth orbit. When there’s a copyright dispute, the questions of ownership and rights might be murky, but the thing at issue is very clear: a photograph, a book, a script, a painting, a song, etc. Trademark law is much more robust than copyright law, but the subject matter has always been very, very abstract and vague: how consumers think and feel about a good or service—or the ability of a consumer to identify the source of a good or service. The most tangible that subject matter ever gets is anecdotes and consumer surveys—which always come with a margin of error, by its nature as a set of statistics. The “thing” that trademark law ties to can be very concrete in a counterfeiting case, but outside of that, it’s just “goodwill”—the special feeling that consumers have in their hearts for a good or service.

So, when an executive is faced with “protecting the intellectual property of the brand,” it’s easier for them to think about something concrete and tangible. It’s easier to think that “protecting IP” means “stop someone else from benefiting from an image or sound.” And that is one important part of IP protection. But IP protection is means, not an end. The goal of IP protection is to build your brand and your business. Failing to understand this principle leads executives to make asinine decisions that make them look hypocritical and foolish while undermining their own businesses. Failing to know the difference between the categories of Intellectual Property can mislead smart businesspeople into acting on a misleading risk analysis.

It Would Be Unfair To Make Executives the Butt of The Joke

It is only fitting that I challenge myself on my analysis. Who am I to make such cavalier judgments? The executives at Fox (and other large corporations) have (combined) many decades more experience than I have. How could it be possible that I am right where they are wrong? Is it probable that I understand their product and their brand better than they do? I’m sure a lot of them have law degrees (and I have no doubt they talk to attorneys almost daily) – so why do they not share the same legal analysis or conclusions that I do?

I think that their positions force a particular focus. Business executives stand to lose a tremendous amount from failing to protect their IP. I lose nothing if my analysis of Fox’s or Nintendo’s business decision is wrong. I don’t have the same pressure to start from (or remain in) a deeply defensive trench. My risk-free position liberates me to be dangerously wrong—and therefore allows me to stumble into better ideas than the risk-laden executive can.

This is why I think it is the newer and smaller entertainment companies that will continue to blaze trails in new perspectives in managing their IP portfolios: They have more to gain and less to lose in taking counter-intuitive risks and re-imagining what it means to “protect IP.” It’s scarier for the larger companies to take anything less than a Draconian approach toward their intellectual property. Nintendo can’t imagine letting YouTube see someone play their games for even a few seconds. DevolverDigital can’t imagine NOT letting YouTube see every minute of every game.

Infringed Ink and Printing Copies of Cases: How Lexmark Collected Intellectual Property Lawsuits like Joker in Persona 5.

It’s fitting that printer ink turned out to be the subject for the series of lawsuits that took on all three of the major areas of intellectual property. Printers are the bridge between the physical and digital worlds, in a way. They are the symbol, and the means, of the transition between digital and paper documents.

Lexmark’s intellectual property litigation legacy is about the different ways that a variety of laws have different connections and offer different perspectives.  Persona 5 is about seeing the world through a variety of perspectives, and understanding different connections and perspectives that people have. Persona 5 is about complex stories that interconnect and overlap, with multiple layers and facets. That complexity and inter-connection has a similar feel to the complex and layered Lexmark litigation saga.

I. The Many Masks of Intellectual Property

In Persona 5, different “personas” (represented by masks) allow characters to perform different types of attacks. Different attack types will be particularly strong or weak against different enemies. This means that a big part of the game’s tactics is about determining which persona to use in different situations.


Probably the one most people mean when they think of intellectual property, especially related to art or entertainment. Traditionally, this area of IP law was focused on books, music, film, and other art. However, due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the law also touches slightly on questions of tampering with proprietary devices to modify them (or to modify their functionality).


I see this used interchangeably with “copyright” a lot, but think of it like this: Copyright protects the painting, trademark is the law about the artist’s signature in the corner of the painting. It’s the law that comes most into play when people are talking about counterfeit goods or brand recognition.


This is what most people mean when they think of intellectual property in most business and financial dealings, and especially in the context of science or engineering. Patents are about owning the right to make and sell a certain kind of thing, from cell phones to medicine.

Trade Secret

Like the healing abilities in Persona 5, trade secrets aren’t used often or even mentioned often, but they can fit some situations just perfectly. The other three kinds of IP law require you to make something public- filing a patent with the Patent Office, or registering a copyright (though you actually only need create a work to have a copyright in it, as of the 1976 re-write of the law), or using a trademark in commerce.  Trade secrets go the opposite way: if you take certain steps to NOT let the public know about something that makes your business work, you can claim a right to protect it.

II. Lexmark Litigation (Backstory)

Lexmark makes printers, but has a lucrative racket with recycling their ink cartridges. Well, had, maybe. Because Americans don’t like feeling taken advantage of, and because American Millennials don’t like a lack of choices, other companies sought to offer competing solutions to Lexmark’s ink cartridge restrictions.

In Persona 5, players collect new personas as they progress through the game. Lexmark litigation managed to collect different areas of intellectual property law as they fought over the issue of other companies coming up with ways to interfere with their ink cartridge schemes. What I find really amazing about this 13 year sprawl of litigation is that none of the involvement of IP law is predicable or very expected. Each application of law is noticeably distant from the original ideas and central, foundational, purposes of these laws.

How did Copyright law get involved?

Mostly through the parts of the DMCA that restrict tampering with controls placed on a device to inhibit 3rd party interactions (e.g., Section 1201). But in 2004, the Sixth Circuit (that most difficult of all circuits to pronounce) issued a ruling that called into question whether “lock-out codes” were actually subject to copyright protection, as they are not a form of creative expression. We might have gotten a more authoritative ruling on this topic, but Lexmark missed the deadline to request an en banc hearing at the Circuit level.

How did Trademark law get involved?

Through an argument about whether someone could sue Lexmark under the Lanham Act (the actual federal statute that contains most of trademark law). To actually take someone to court, you have to meet a few basic standards: you have to have an actual claim recognized by a law, for example. One standard for having a trial is that the person suing has to have “standing”: they have to have the legal right to bring a claim. Many laws will include a more specific definition of what “standing” will mean for that law.

In 2012, Static Control Inc. tried to sue Lexmark under some federal business-type laws (the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act), but those laws didn’t actually grant standing to Static Control, which meant they weren’t allowed to actually bring Lexmark to court. Then they tried to sue under the Lanham Act, because the rules for standing are different under that law. The Sixth Circuit granted Static Controls the right to a trial under the Lanham Act. Lexmark took the issue to the Supreme Court, who agreed with the Sixth Circuit’s choice to have a trial.

How did Patent law get involved?

The obvious way for patent law to be in a case brought by a printer company is for the case to be about two printer manufacturers arguing over whether one copied the others’ technology. That is not at all how patent law got used by Lexmark. Instead, the patent law question was about patent exhaustion.

This tiny area of patent law is like the “first sale” doctrine in copyrights. The idea for both is the same: once the end-customer buys the product, the manufacturer’s patent is “exhausted.” Under this law, a customer can do whatever they want with the thing they bought (except make new ones and sell those- that part of the patent still applies). This year, Lexmark brought a case to the Supreme Court on this point of law, hoping to stop a different company that was interfering with the ink cartridges. The third time was not the proverbial charm for Lexmark; the Supreme Court held that consumers do have some rights with regard to the re-use of their own purchased property.

III. Conclusion

My favourite thing about the Lexmark litigation is that it isn’t just about the substance of intellectual property law; it’s about how intellectual property law is administered. The trademark issue wasn’t really a trademark issue– it was an issue about who can sue under trademark law. The copyright issue wasn’t really about the copyrights of art or books or movies — it was about whether someone can unlock your digital locks. The patent issue was barely about patents– it was really about whether a patent still applies after a customer buys the product.

I’m excited by this because it’s a sign that intellectual property law is becoming more and more relevant to American life. More details of the administration and applicability and extent of laws have to be established as laws are interacted with more often. Decades ago, intellectual property was a small area of law that only affected a few sectors of a few industries in any meaningful way. Now it affects how we use our cell phones, ingest our entertainment, and even harvest our crops. As this area of law grows in response to innovation and technology, it has the potential to encourage further innovation and advancements, as well as to steer the growth of those new ideas. We are living at a time where we are moving toward either technological salvation or technological armageddon.





Are Trademarks a Data Security Alternative to Sad, Weak, Outdated Copyrights?

If you’ve been on the web for a while, you’ve seen an advertisement that looks like the user interface of the website you’re viewing- or maybe an ad that has a false close button, and clicking it just navigates you to the advertised page. These are blatant ways to trick consumers into taking actions they don’t want to take. Sometimes, these inadvertent actions can create security vulnerabilities such as malware.

Despite all of the focus on applying copyright law to the internet, I wonder if there are hints of trademark and trade dress protections that could become relevant to data privacy issues. I will cautiously, even timidly, explore a few of those possibilities (which several others have explored over the last few years).

I. Trademarks: When it Comes to Data Privacy, Accept No Imitations.

Trademarks have a simple purpose: to let consumers know the origin of a good or service. Trademarks are often a word, phrase, or image (logo), but can also be a sound or smell (on rare occasion, it can get a bit more abstract ).

A major category of trademark infringement is counterfeiting. That $20 “ROLEX” watch from the guy in the alley? That’s a counterfeit (sorry), and one of the legal issues involved in the sale of that watch is the use of a trademark without the legal right to use it. There haven’t been a lot of counterfeit websites on the internet, especially since SSL and other authentication processes got better. However, there are plenty of imitation apps and games. One of the reasons such apps and games fail and are quickly removed from distribution is that they infringe trademarks.

However, some countries do not have the same standards regarding trademark (or copyright) enforcement. Consider an imitation League of Legends game, lampooned here. At the end of the video, the player says “Oh, and it’s also a virus,” as his security software reports malware after playing the game. This humorously underscores the point that many infringing* products pose a security and privacy threat. Using trademark law to limit the proliferation of readily accessible, easily confused programs is a valuable practice in maintaining computer security for consumers.

II. Trade Dress: No One Really “Owns” That Icon… But You Know Who Owns That Icon.

Trade dress is a sort of sub-category of trademarks. It’s rarely talked about or used, but it can be thought of as the totality of design and aesthetics that go into a product, place, or service that make consumers identify the source. Color palette, patterns, shapes, and other factors go into the evaluation of trade dress. Crucially (and perhaps fatally), elements of a trade dress must be considered “non-functional.”  For example, the major case in trade dress concerned a Tex-Mex restaurant that used the same colors and layout of another Tex-Mex restaurant.

Here’s the controversial idea I think deserves consideration: Could misleading, camouflaged web content be considered an infringement of trade dress? (Think of the kinds of ads that make you believe you’re not clicking on an ad, but rather some piece of actual content on the site- especially regarding navigation buttons that match the navigation icons of the site.)

The reason I look to trade dress for a solution is that icons and interfaces, even stylized ones, are not subject to trademark, copyright, or patent protections. Furthermore, websites are increasingly treated as the digital equivalent of stores and offices of businesses- so much so that designs and layouts can come to be the trade dress of that business. Thus, there is a gap in the legal protection of user interfaces, and a need to cover that gap.

(Treating websites as subject to trade dress might have the added benefit of discouraging UX and UI designers from fiddling with the location and arrangement of navigation tools every other month just to justify their paycheck. And that’s the kind of change this world really needs.)

Conclusion: Trademark Protection is Already Working, Trade Dress is Still Vague and Untested

Trademark law is already quietly making the digital ecosystem a little bit safer by eschewing threatening knock-off games and apps. I think there’s a case to be made for applying trade dress to websites and UIs, but it would be a novel application and courts may be hesitant to apply the law so creatively.


* “300 Heroes” Infringes both copyrights and trademarks, but it’s the funniest example.



“Fair Use!” Shouldn’t Be The Battle Cry of Pirates

***Disclaimers: Jim Sterling emphasizes that he does not advocate pirating Nintendo games; he  only argues that there is a moral justification for doing so. Furthermore, I don’t have all of the information on this matter, and I’ve tried to indicate when I’m inferring some facts. As always, this writing is NOT legal advice.***

Jim Sterling thinks it’s morally justified to pirate Nintendo’s games. I disagree.

As I understand it, Jim’s argument is that Nintendo abuses copyright law by failing to respect the legitimate activities of journalists like him. Jim feels that Nintendo’s failure to respect the legal rights of others permits others to ignore the legal rights of Nintendo.

The basic analysis of this claim comprises two questions: 1) Is Nintendo actually abusing copyright law? and 2) Does that abuse justify piracy? I think simple proportionality suggests that if a company fights with one person over a few pennies, responding by depriving the company of millions of dollars from millions of customers is probably not justified. So, I’ll just focus on the first question.

1)  Is Nintendo Abusing Copyright Law?

Probably not. As far as I can tell, Jim is angry that Nintendo issues ContentID strikes against Jim’s videos that incorporate some of Nintendo’s content (e.g., a few seconds of a trailer for a Nintendo game). Jim contends that his use of Nintendo’s content is protected under Fair Use.

A) ContentID: Still Not The Same As Appearing In Federal District Court

Nintendo is operating within YouTube’s copyright-themed pretend-cyber-law-court system. (I don’t know if they’ve issued DMCA takedowns, which would be an actual, real, legal action.) ContentID has a status similar to a retail store’s policies, in that it’s up to the private enterprise to design and operate the system pretty much however they like. Except in this case the law (DMCA) frames how a private company will design their system: If a party issues a warning about a copyright issue and the host service doesn’t remove it, and then the party goes to court with original poster over it, the party can collect from both the original poster AND the host. Thus, the host is really incentivized to make the choice for which the law will never penalize them, and just take down everything, every time anyone is unhappy. Maybe there are some complaints to levy against the DMCA for that (and against copyright law for incentivizing rights holders to protect their rights or risk losing them). But being slighted by a retail store’s return policy doesn’t justify torching the manager’s car.

B) Fair Use: Still Not A Magical Invocation

Jim’s claim to the Fair Use exception is not as clear as he hopes it is. Before the internet, fair use was a tiny, unheard of piece of an area of law that most citizens and attorneys didn’t think about very often. In the last 20 years, it has become the backbone of the amateur, self-starter internet entertainment and journalism industry. Despite getting burdened with all of that extra responsibility, the legal doctrine has not been expounded or clarified by courts or legislatures. The biggest case for fair use was Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. in 1994, which focused on the use of music for parody and explicitly stated that the law does not recognize a market for derivative works (which, I would argue, is very close to what most UGC on the internet is). (It would be great if someone could take a corporation like Nintendo to court to get a ruling on Fair Use in the context of YouTube journalism and criticism—though I’m sure that corporations will settle at outrageous expense in order to avoid losing the grey area that allows them to make these kinds of aggressive claims.)

Jim’s use of Nintendo’s content seems intuitively fair to most of us, but the analysis required by the law isn’t the intuition of the average citizen. The statute requires consideration of four separate factors:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The biggest problem for Jim in this analysis is that his videos are monetized, which means that his use of Nintendo’s content is not a non-profit endeavour. He also might use as much as 1/3 of a 3 minute trailer, and seeing the trailer in Jim’s video might make some people less likely to go watch the full trailer (though it could also have the opposite effect). The point is that there are some arguments to be made against the idea that Jim’s use of Nintendo’s content is beyond reproach. I think the balance of analysis goes in Jim’s favor for fair use, but I don’t think every single court in the US would rule that way- though more court rulings are moving in this direction. (I did not apply Lenz to this analysis because: 1) It applies to DMCA takedowns, not ContentID strikes, 2) There is a good-faith argument in consideration of fair use, as outlined above, and 3) It’s a Circuit ruling, rather than a Supreme Court ruling.)

Ultimately, Jim’s entire argument really hangs on this one point- that fair use gives him a right to do this, just like the first amendment would give him a right to run a newspaper or stand on a soap box in Central Park. As a matter of academic legal analysis, 17 USC 107 is not as robustly defined or developed as the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. Fair use is not just a legal way of saying “I used citations.”

I don’t want to pick on Jim too much, though. This case is just an example of the kind of faith that consumers and “Prosumers” and “content developers” and “social media dracoliches” put in the legal concept of fair use. It’s an incredibly misunderstood point of law, and it’s a point of law that is bearing more of a social and economic burden than it was ever originally designed to bear. Every year, ordinary intuitions about the meaning of “fair use” are driven further from the statutory language by cultural norms and everyday practices. In the end, no one seems to have a good grasp on this concept: Consumers and content creators think it is carte-blanche permission to use someone else’s work, and entertainment companies seem to think it’s a lie invented by hippies who just want free stuff.

2) “Legally Justified” Doesn’t Mean You’re Either Good or Smart

I think there’s a reasonable case to be made that Nintendo is acting within their legal rights. I think there’s a much stronger case to be made that Nintendo is acting against their economic interests. Copyright law is woefully outdated, and companies that cling to it too tightly will fall behind the times. One of the most useful aspects of copyright law is the right of the owner to not pursue actions against infringers. A smart company recognizes when infringements under the law can work in the interests of the company. Devolver Digital is a smart company.  Entertainment companies that are the most successful in steadfastly safeguarding their intellectual property will be among the least successful at recruiting, engaging, and retaining an audience.

Entertainers without audiences are dead.

I think there’s a better way for Jim (and his industry) to strike back at Nintendo: just leave them behind. Nintendo wants to live in the 20th century. Nintendo doesn’t want to participate in a world of Let’s Plays and livestreams and podcasts and social media and fan participation. There’s no shortage of other game companies and other games to play and discuss. It doesn’t help that Nintendo recycles only 2 or 3 major franchises and rarely comes up with any new ideas- and fails to execute them when they do. Nintendo needs all of these copyright infringements to survive, but they don’t know it. I don’t think they will learn that lesson until they get exactly what they want.


Explaining Myself Through Mini Metro: Making Lots of Connections

I’ve always been a fan of the minimalist art style. As an art style and a category of interior design, it gets a lot of adjectives like “clean,” “crisp,” “pure,” “uncluttered,” and “bright.” I’d have to agree that Mini Metro is a game with a minimalist art style. But the aesthetic isn’t the only thing that appeals to me. The game mechanic is about connecting: making a metro system that is as efficient as possible as a city places ever-increasing demands on the network.

I love the concept of connection. I love to connect ideas and words, and I have spent most of my life studying and forming such connections. Careful, structured explanations of connection and disconnection are at the heart of the practices of both philosophy and law. Like most humans, I also cherish my close connections with others. At every level, and in every sense, connection thrills and amazes me.
Mini Metro is a game that is a design model for making connections— So it’s fitting that I use it as a model to connect the areas of law in which I am interested.

The railway network itself is the telecommunications infrastructure. The people that travel on the network are the entertainment content of the digital age: text, pictures, audio, movies, games—almost all of it subject to copyright law. The signage around train stations tells people about the places: it helps people make choices based on comparative information. I admit this is the biggest stretch in the analogy, but I’m comparing that to trademarks because of the informative function that aims to dispel confusion. And of course, there are safety concerns around all public transportation. Cybersecurity, by and large, is the safety structure for the internet: it is the area of law that tries to get everyone to navigate the system without tragic injury. And just as trains are regulated, this digital structure enjoys some oversight by the FCC (in the form of general regulatory rules) and FTC (in the form of consumer protection enforcement).

One of my favourite moments in Mini Metro is when a station appears on a line I have already built. I don’t really know if this is just the RNG-gods smiling down upon me, or if there is a definite structure and these moments are signs that I have designed optimally. In the effort to connect law and technology, sometimes a new device or idea appears that can force a re-drawing of the legal lines. Part of me wants to think that a law can be created with the future in sight, but the speed and direction of technological developments are so amazing that I don’t know if policy design can do better than hope for luck.

Mini Metro can be used to explain how my areas of interest relate to one another. It can also explain why I love these things, too. In the abstract, the game is about making it possible for people to go places. It is about how large-scale design decisions affect humble individuals. Technology and law are connected to each other—and both are connected to individual lives and to society, generally. The magic of connection is that it makes each individual node matter to the other nodes with which it connects. A single idea, or law, or device, or person—nothing is all that interesting, meaningful, or exciting until it is connected to other things in the world. Then both the connector and the connected affect and transform one another as they interact. In this way, the relationship between law and technology is like a relationship between people. Whether they are friends or enemies, they will shape each other because they are connected.


I never said I was super good at the game. But it's still fun.

Just trying to help the Parisians get through the day.


Capitalism FAQ: Should You Respect or Abuse Your Customers?

No one likes to see a winner kicking the loser on the ground (unless we really, really hate the loser). We accept within our society that there are differences between people: that some will be more powerful or wealthy than others, and that’s just part of life. One of the limits on our acceptance of some inequality is the visceral rejection we have of abuse, of excessive exercises of power that do more to satisfy a desire to exercise power than actually further some external cause.

So, that’s one reason to be unhappy with Taylor Swift and Katy Perry right now.

These two ladies, through their lawyers and legal entities, are making great efforts to enforce intellectual property law against their fans— the very people who support and adore and ultimately finance their lives. There is good reason for us to judge harshly the multi-millionaires who attack the average citizen, but this is not a blog on Marxism or justice or truth. I’m here to write about law and video games.

So, let’s compare two approaches to intellectual property law in the 21st century. Let’s compare the business models and legal approaches of TS/KP with RiotGames, Inc. The framework to keep in mind is that most intellectual property laws don’t have to be enforced. There is no rule that you have to go after people for copyright or trademark infringements (generally). Yes, there are some sacrifices you make by not enforcing some of your rights, but it’s still a choice.

Though neither of them would like it (I guess they’re in some kind of feud, because being rich, acclaimed, and famous isn’t enough to overcome basic human failures), I’m comfortable using TS and KP interchangeably for this analysis. They offer the same goods and services for pretty much the same prices. So, their business model is $1 songs on iTunes, monetizing YouTube music videos, $100 concert tickets, royalties for radio and online audio services, sponsorships, appearances, and merchandise. They (with their enormous business operations) make musical products and sell them in the same way that musicians have since radio (with basic adaptations of the same model for television and internet).

RiotGames, Inc. develops, publishes, and maintains one of the most played video games in the world. Riot does not charge anyone to play the game. They do not charge for downloading, registering, playing, or for any other use of the game permitted by the EULA and TOS agreements. They will accept money for optional, purely aesthetic enhancements to the game, but this is the extent of their revenue (not counting their e-sports operation, which is distinct from the game and heavily guarded by NDAs that make analysis and explication difficult, if not impossible).

It seems obvious— even intuitive– that the business approach which demands more money would be the one to allow fans leniency with intellectual property. After all, KP/TS take in millions each year, so they certainly don’t need the extra potential money from meager merchandise sales to cover their expenses. Of course, for reasons we don’t need to explore, TS/KP are hell-bent on making sure their fans get no enjoyment from their manufactured musical entertainment apparatus without permission and a fee.

Equally intuitive is the idea that a company that gives away its only product must certainly be cautious and guarded with its intellectual property. That company needs alternative revenue sources, and almost everything it does is only recognized in a world of strong copyright and trademark protection. And yet, RiotGames has actively encouraged fans to interact with their work in every medium of creative expression. They even created a venue for fans to share and display their art, music, videos, poetry, and sculptures.

Here we have two different models, laid out for comparison. There are several questions worth asking: Which model is ethical? Which model shows respect for the fans, for the art, and for the artist? Which model engenders a sense of community and mutual appreciation? Which model will thrive in the 21st century?

For those who feel that, at the end of the day, the bottom line on the balance sheet is what matters, and should be what guides and justifies business and legal choices, here are those important numbers:

KP: 110 million

TS: 180 million

RiotGames, Inc: 624 million (2013), maybe over 999 million in 2014.