DMCA review and iPhones; Chinese font copyright case

Mobile and iPhone locking v. the DRM

Every three years the US Copyright Office reviews whether there is a need to provide further exceptions to the digital rights management provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This process will next take place in 2009 and cellular news reports that the US-based Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a request for an exemption to cover ‘jailbreaking’. Before law and order fans start tut tutting, ‘jailbreaking’ is the process of unlocking iPhones so that they will run software that does not originate from Apple. The EFF has made a similar application to continue an order which allows those who own mobile phones to unlock them so that they work on other networks.

The IPKat thinks that this is quite right and sounds like the sort of practice that would be stopped by competition law if copyright law doesn’t get there first. However, if you make is harder for service providers to ‘hook’ customers by giving them cheap or subsidised handsets, it is likely that the providers will recoup their profits elsewhere – probably by making the handsets reflect something more like their true market value.

EFF press release and documents available here.

Chinese font copyright case

The IPKat has learnt from People’s Daily Online that Founder Electronics has sued Procter & Gamble (Guangzhou) for copyright infringement. The claim is that P & G infringed Founder’s copyright in its fonts by using Founder’s “Qian style” and "Cartoon style” fonts on 55 P & G products (including the one pictured) and publicity material. The case is before the People’s Court in Beijing Haidian District.

The IPKat reckons that this is one to watch. It’s rare that font copyright cases come before the courts.

The spore, the merrier?

Thanks again to the ever-vigilant Birgit Clark, says the IPKat, for drawing his attention to this BBC news item on an exercise in digital rights management (DRM) that has not won the universal admiration and praise of the consuming public. It appears that hundreds of people have complained about the copyright protection system incorporated into Electronic Arts' eagerly anticipated Spore game -- which lets users evolve from cells into civilised (sic) beings. The system in question limits to three the number of times the game, launched just days ago, can be installed. Said one user:

"The DRM on this thing is less friendly than my recent colonoscopy - you get three installs. That's it. No install returned for uninstallation, or anything else".

Myriads of complaints have been posted on Spore fan sites and gaming websites, as well as on Electronic Arts' official discussion forum. Electronic Arts' FAQ section prefers to put a more positive slant on things: "

Games are authorised to your machine when you first install and launch the game. This system allows you to authenticate your game on three computers with the purchase of one disc. EA Customer Service is on hand to supply any additional authorisations that are warranted. This will be done on a case-by-case basis by contacting Customer Support."

Says the IPKat, would it not be ironical if it should come to pass that the copy-protection system for a game that lets cells evolve into civilised humans is itself subjected to a process of evolution that enables it to be installed on rather more occasions? Merpel adds, what's the betting that someone will post a comment to say that it's not irony but something else, and you've got the wrong word again?

More on Spore here ...
... and on Spohr here
Cat spore here

Stop das press! No more surreptitious state surveillance

The IPKat's amiable and scholarly friend Dr Guido Westkamp (pictured right, together with his highly-trained news hound) has just written to inform him as follows:

"Today the German Constitutional Court decided that the state may not engage in surreptitious surveillance of information technology systems. The case, a constitutional complaint against a law permitting such surveillance by intelligence services, was decided on the basis of a new human right in the confidentiality and integrity of information technology systems. The court emphasises that this right, which applies where other fundamental rights affecting privacy are inapplicable (such as the rights in confidentiality of telecommunication communications or the right to inviolability of ones home), is derived from the fundamental rights in personal dignity and personality rights under the constitution. The right can only be restricted where significant higher ranking fundamental values need be protected, such as the life and integrity of others (that is, as a means to prevent acts of terrorism provided there are sufficient reason to believe that surveillance will the state to prevent such acts, but only if the surveillance measure is permitted by a judge on a case by case basis).

The decision may have a dramatic impact in relation to the constitutionality of protected rights management information systems deemed to protect copyright. Where a supplier of copyright works manipulates data stored on a customers computer, or where personal data are being collected in order to allow the right holder to trace the use of works supplied online, it appears that if the customer can invoke the new right there is little left to argue for right holders that such means are necessary to protect copyright. It seems most unlikely that the protection of copyright can serve as a basis for higher ranking interests that would provide a legitimate purpose for justifying such intrusion. I incidentally wonder what would happen if the German Constitutional Court would find the DRM provisions under copyright unconstitutional and thereby void, given that it is derived both from the WCT and the Information Society Directive".

The link to the decision is here. The IPKat imagines that this decision may have repercussions for more than copyright management systems, since it may come into conflict with scenarios in which, on the face of it, IP Enforcement Directive 2004/48 would contemplate the disclosure of infringement-sensitive materials held by internet service providers and regular database holders. Merpel sniffs, surely it would be a good idea if matters of this sort -- given their fundamental nature -- were resolved by the Commission and by pan-European legislation before they arose, rather than by national courts after they arose ...