Intellectual Property

Backtracking a bit to cover some events from the last couple of weeks. That Ten News story I taped finally ran on Friday 24 June, but with all the delays and amidst other (and perhaps more urgent and timely) news stories it didn't turn out quite as well as it might have - in the end they used only a short soundbite from what had been probably five minutes' worth of material in the interview. That's the nature of these 'soft' news stories, I guess - they're ready to be chopped and changed as required when more important stories come to hand. What we had thought it would be was a more substantial piece to be promoted throughout the week, but in the end they ran only one promo for it on Thursday night. Ah well.

Today I sent out the announcement for the latest issue of M/C Journal, edited by Rachel Cobcroft and Susanna Leisten:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 8 July 2005

                          M/C - Media and Culture
            is proud to present issue three in volume eight of

                                M/C Journal
                   http://journal.media-culture.org.au/

          'copy' - Edited by Rachel Cobcroft and Susanna Leisten

More work today on my article with Danny Butt for the Media & Arts Law Review, on Digital Rights Management (DRM). It's looking OK now, but I find it hard to come up with clear recommendations in this field, just because DRM has been so thoroughly misused and misdirected for so long. The mainstream music industry's belligerence just isn't going to work, no matter how many people it sues - for better or for worse, the heavy-handed police state approach to combatting copyright infringements isn't going to be more successful here than it has been in the case of prohibition of alcohol or soft drugs, civil liberties, or, hell, (continuing with the papal theme of the last month) Christianity.

Spending yesterday and today at home, working. This week and the next are strangely teaching-free weeks for me as the two Monday public holidays mean that my Creative Industries unit doesn't run again until Monday week. So, instead I'm getting some other important work done. Yesterday I made further inroads into two papers - the one co-authored with Sal Humphreys about our wiki efforts in KCB336 New Media Technologies (which will go out to the International Wiki Symposium organisers later today), and one with Danny Butt on digital rights management in the music industry, for a special issue of Media and Arts Law Review (which Sal also has a hand in).

I posted the call for papers for the upcoming 'copy' issue of M/C Journal today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 18 April 2005

M/C - Media and Culture
http://www.media-culture.org.au/
is calling for contributors to the 'copy' issue of

M/C Journal
http://journal.media-culture.org.au/

M/C Journal is looking for new contributors. M/C is a crossover journal between the popular and the academic, and a blind- and peer-reviewed journal.

We're on to the last panel session of the conference now - a summary panel with Larry Lessig, Stuart Cunningham, and Sal Humphreys as well as conference host Brian Fitzgerald. Larry starts by pointing out that what's happening in the computer games field is real, it's common, and traditional property owners have exactly the wrong intuitions in dealing with it. For one, there is a significant monetary value being generated in the online environment (there is even a story of sweatshops in Mexico developing gaming assets and selling them profitably on eBay). It is also a very common activity - and one which is a voluntary form of play as work, much along the same lines as free and open source software development.

Responding to the previous presentations, Brian Fitzgerald and Nic Suzor now outline some of the legal issues involved here - games users' rights are governed generally by end-user licence agreements (EULAs), and these go right to the heart of the question here: in buying a game, does one buy a copy of the game, or a licence to use it? This then influences whether players own the content created in their interaction with the game. Indeed, the nature of the EULA may also influence what players are attracted to these games types.

Some legal cases of note here: in Blizzard vs bnetd, a group of players developed a replacement game server system for the Blizzard product Battle.net. While this is reverse engineering and prohibited by the EULA, reverse engineering is seen as a form of free speech by US courts - but this did not sway the courts' decision in favour of the reverse-engineers. An appeal against this decision is currently underway. In an Australian context, any restriction of reverse-engineering appears unlikely to be upheld in court.

John Banks - academic and ACID researcher as well as Auran staff member - is next, talking more about the Trainz experience in particular. He notes that there is a certain amount of accountability of the games publisher towards the game users, stemming from the massive development efforts which the users have made. There is an emergence of new ecologies of production here: of new kinds of distributed organisations and ad-hoc networks. In John Hartley's words, there is a value drift, a blurring of barriers between producers and consumers - a new participatory culture (Henry Jenkins term) is emerging.

The post-lunch sessions of this conference constitute a mini-conference on computer games and the law. It is opened by Greg Lane of the Brisbane-based games developer Auran, responsible for titles such as Dark Reign and Trainz. The computer games industry is significantly large - twice the size of the movie industry, and growing twice as fast. In its multimedia inputs it's also a classic example for creative industries production, which involves massively interdisciplinary inputs into its IP 'asset creation', as Greg puts it. Interestingly, too, games are increasingly involving user co-production or co-creation. This is the case with Trainz, a train simulator which enables its users to produce rolling stock models, physical environments, and action scenarios to be used in the game - and interestingly more content was produced by users for Trainz (which sold some 3-400,000 copies) than for the only competitor project by Microsoft, which sold ten times as much, due to Microsoft's reluctance to engage fully with its users.

The second speaker is Renato Ianella, from the Open Digital Rights Language Iniative. This project focusses on one of the three components of Creative Commons licences (human-, lawyer-, machine-readable): the machine-readable representation of licences. This is linked to digital rights management issues: on a technical level, DRM covers rights information management (RIM: rights holders, royalties, licence management) and technical protection measures (TPM: security, encryption, trust). RIM metadata is usually captured in an XML-based "Rights Expression Language" (REL).