Tag Archive for DMCA

The Internet Blacklist Bill FAQ

January 20, 2012 Current Affairs, Intellectual Property, Litigation No comments

A lot of congress’ time lately has gone to drafting, revising, and negotiating legislation that in some way shape or form controls America’s ability to access content on the Internet. You have likely heard about SOPA, PIPA, and maybe even OPEN—but how does this legislation apply to game developers, and why have these pieces of legislation created such dissention? This FAQ clarifies the details about these bills and how they affect game development.

1.       So what are SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN?

The “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) and the “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act” or the “PROTECT IP Act”(PIPA) are corresponding pieces of legislation that are currently before the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively. Both Acts grant the Attorney General the power to force payment providers, advertisers, search engines, and DNS registries to block access to foreign sites dedicated to infringement. The Acts also give private parties the right to obtain court orders against infringing sites—upon obtaining a court order, private rights holders can turn around and, like the Attorney General, force payment providers and advertisers to cease providing services to the allegedly infringing site. SOPA also imposes criminal penalties for streaming content that’s deemed infringing.

The “Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act” (OPEN Act) is a counter-measure to SOPA and PIPA and is currently before both the House and Senate. The OPEN Act puts prosecution power against foreign “rogue sites” in the hands of the United States International Trade Commission. Upon receiving a complaint, the Commission will undergo an investigation to determine whether a site’s sole or primary purpose is an infringing one. Unlike SOPA and PIPA, the penalties to rogue sites are purely financial—the Commission can issue Cease and Desist orders to payment providers and advertisers to cease operations on the rogue site, but there is no corresponding cease and desist forcing search engines or DNS registries to redirect or block access to the site. The owner of the rogue site has an opportunity to raise their defense prior to the Commission’s issuance of Cease and Desist Orders.

2.       How do SOPA and PIPA threaten the games industry and game development?

Out of all of the entertainment industries, game development will probably be the most affected if SOPA or PIPA become law. Games rely on the Internet for everything from getting player feedback to promoting their content. So how could the games industry suffer if SOPA or PIPA pass?

  •  Fan-based communities that permit users to post videos or fan-created content will be at serious risk of totally shutting down even in minor cases of infringement by its community members.
  • Funding opportunities like KickStarter, which enable small-time developers to create content without relying on a major publisher, are at risk of shutting down if even one project is suspected of infringement.
  •  Digital distribution channels (we’ve already seen what happened to MegaUpload), including Steam and Impulse, would also be at risk for the same reason.
  • Online games and online game communities would be subject to the same threats as those websites threatened by SOPA and PIPA.
  • Games in particular are affected by any Act that threatens freedom of speech—especially when that threat comes from private parties asserting IP rights. The opportunity to use such legislation to censor content for motives other than those set forth in the Act is high.

Game developers both large and small rely heavily on digital distribution and their fans. Both SOPA and PIPA pose a direct threat to distribution channels and online communities in particular.

3.        What makes SOPA and PIPA dangerous?

SOPA and PIPA are dangerous for a few reasons:

  • Both Acts use vague, ill-defined language to identify both foreign sites and sites dedicated to infringement;
  • Both Acts give search engines, DNS registries, payment providers, and advertisers clear incentive to proactively block websites even before receiving a court order—a private party/competitor could send a notice to those service providers claiming infringement, thereby giving those service providers the “good faith” belief they need to act in order to protect their immunity. This is particularly problematic if, say, an ISP is also a content provider. It gives them both the power and the incentive to censor their own competitors;
  • SOPA expressly criminalizes streaming content that contains infringing material—this could be anything from a fan-made game play video that has infringing music playing in the background to an infringing copy of a music video. Sites hosting that streamed content are subject to the blocking provisions set forth in SOPA (including internet community forums and sites like YouTube);
  • Both Acts pose a threat to constitutional rights like freedom of speech and due process. With regard to freedom of speech, the method of blocking and redirecting sites is a model traditionally used for purposes of censorship in more restrictive countries—even if the purpose of the Act is different, there is no question that the censorship of perfectly legal content is a possibility thanks to the incentives created by both Acts. As for due process, court orders are obtained ex parte and action can be taken against a website regardless of whether the website owner has actual notice—in other words, a website can be blocked or redirected without giving the owner an opportunity to raise a defense.
  • Many experts believe that the method DNS registries and registrars would have to use to redirect or block websites undermines Internet security.

Opponents of both Acts have raised a number of other complaints citing various problems, but most arguments shake down to the fact that the Acts provide a legal arsenal to censor perfectly legitimate content.

4.       How is the OPEN Act any different?

OPEN isn’t perfect, but it is a vast improvement to both SOPA and PIPA for several reasons:

  • Private causes of action are eliminated—private parties must submit a complaint to the International Trade Commission, which will then investigate the site and make a determination as to whether it is infringing;
  • It expressly protects websites that act in compliance with the DMCA Safe Harbors;
  • Sites aren’t blocked or redirected and enforcement is based purely on financial incentives. Cease and desist orders are issued to payment providers and advertisers to terminate financial support to rogue sites;
  • Prior to issuing Cease and Desist orders, the Commission provides the owner or operator of the allegedly infringing site an opportunity to raise any available defenses;
  • The Act discourages groundless complaints by requiring complainants to post a bond for preliminary injunction orders.

There are other marked difference between the OPEN Act and SOPA/PIPA, but there are some similarities as well. Some of the language used, particularly definitions, are similar to those we see in SOPA/PIPA. However, the OPEN Act is likely a step in the right direction to shut down foreign piracy sites without catching innocent non-infringers in the same net.

5.       Aren’t SOPA and PIPA already dead?

No. Both acts still have substantial congressional backing and financial support from the MPAA, RIAA, and other supporters. Although the opposition has increased and both Acts seem to be shelved for the immediate future, there is still a possibility that either Act will become law or will be re-presented in another form. Even if both Acts fail, there is a high probability that future legislation closely resembling those acts will appear before congress again—after all, they themselves are reincarnations of an earlier bill, the “Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act” (COICA).

6.       So what can I as a game developer or fan do to stop this kind of legislation?

Simply being aware of the problem isn’t enough. Opponents to these and similar bills should contact their representatives and request that they withdraw support from bills that threaten a free and open Internet.

UPDATE: SOPA’s Manager’s Amendment and Digital Distribution

January 11, 2012 Current Affairs, Intellectual Property, Litigation No comments

In my previous article on Section 103 of SOPA, I discussed concerns relating to the Act as it was first presented to the House. The Act, however, has undergone a Manager’s Amendment and as a result some of the language cited in the previous article has been removed. Many of the issues discussed in the earlier article have also been addressed.

Some of the salient points of the Amendment:

  • Language such as “website or any portion thereof” has been replaced with simply website or site;
  • Notification procedures by private parties to payment vendors and advertising providers have been removed and replaced by court order procedure;
  • Private parties under Section 103 of the Manager’s Amendment must now seek a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or injunction against the defendant prior to sending notice to payment vendors and advertising providers for service suspension;
  • The definition for “Sites dedicated to theft of U.S. Property” has been revised in a few ways:
    • It now only applies to foreign sites;
    • the “engages in, enables, or facilitates” language has been removed, and the following definition applies: “… the site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in violation of…” copyright infringement for commercial purposes or for private financial gain, or trademark infringement;
    • the problematic monitoring language (“is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S. Directed site to carry out acts” that constitute copyright infringement) has been replaced with “the operator of the site operates the site with the object of promoting, or has promoted its use to carry out acts that constitute  a violation of section 501 or 1201 of Title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster such violation.”
  • Section 104 provides that in cases where the alleged violations only occur on a portion of a website, payment vendors and advertising providers are only required to blacklist that portion.
  • Section 105 has expanded the scope of its limitation of liability in a two ways: (1) the types of entities protected by the limitation of liability has increased to include credit unions and banking institutions; and (2) the limitation on liability, which was once limited to protecting the entities’ preemptive removal of sites posing a threat to public health, has increased to include the blacklisting of “foreign infringing sites” and “Internet sites dedicated to theft of U.S. Property”

The changes in the Manager’s Amendment seem to be a step in the right direction; however, a number of risks still exist and the vague, inadequately defined language used in the amendment creates a multitude of interpretations and loopholes. Taken one by one, the changes seem problematic for the following reasons:

  • Although “any portion thereof” has been removed, there is nothing to say that a website or site couldn’t be limited to a single web address—for instance, the web address for page two of a forum, or in the example referred to in my previous post, a page dedicated to the sale of a single product. The obligation restrictions provided for in Section 104 seem to support this presumption.
  • While section 104 would arguably permit payment vendors and advertising providers to limit enforcement to that single page, the option may not always be technically reasonable depending on how the payment system is structured. Furthermore, this is simply an option for payment vendors and advertising providers—they may still decide to blacklist the entire website.
  • The increased scope of Section 105 is one of the more deceptive aspects of the amendment, and potentially creates a back door approach to the revisions made to section 103. As Logan Margulies, attorney for Riot Games, pointed out in his IAmA on Reddit, the immunity offered, which is based on proactive blacklisting of allegedly infringing sites, presents a Hobson’s choice to payment vendors, advertising providers, search engines, domain name registries and domain name registrars: if a private party notifies those entities of an alleged infringement on a site and threatens to sue under SOPA, the entity has the option of either a) blacklisting the site and guaranteeing immunity based on a “good faith, credible” belief that the content is infringing (this is approximately the same standard a plaintiff needs to send a take down notice under the DMCA– in other words and based on historical reference, not much); or b) fight the good fight alongside the website owner and potentially lose that liability. As Mr. Margulies points out, that isn’t much of a choice for any business.
  • Although the notification procedure is removed and private parties can no longer submit baseless notifications to payment vendors and advertising providers, the Act now gives plaintiffs immediate access to the courts—once again bypassing the exhaustion of remedies under the DMCA Safe Harbors and other legal channels. And while this change may prohibit individuals with shallow pockets from throwing a website onto the blacklist, it certainly doesn’t prohibit deep pockets that would use those court orders to defeat competitors. As stated before, take down notifications by businesses to drive out competitors constituted more than 50% of the take down notices received by Google. It is very likely that this amendment will be treated in the same manner by companies with the financial backing to drive out foreign digital distributors from the U.S. market, even if (and possibly because) they offer customers better service;
  • While the definition of “Site dedicated to theft of U.S. property” has changed significantly, problems still exist. When we’re talking about user generated content or pages dedicated to content uploaded by a user when that content is potentially infringing, that page or “site” is arguably operated for the purpose of that infringement. However, although the website owner is not a direct infringer, the website owner would still ostensibly be on the hook for that infringement even though they are not the direct infringer, and would still be subject to injunctive relief by court order;
  • The addition of legally vague standards like those provided for in 103(a)(I)(C)(ii) of the Manager’s Amendment (“as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster such violation,”) may not actually make any difference as far as removing the obligation to monitor created in the original draft. A plaintiff could argue that an “affirmative step” includes asserting a policy of not monitoring or moderating content except as necessary to comply with DMCA safe harbors or their own country’s laws. Other “affirmative steps” may include permitting a forum to exist, or if we look at the example provided in my earlier article, having an infrastructure that permits users to create their own “sites”.

While the original hypothetical mentioned in my original article may change in light of these revisions, the Act at its core threatens legitimate digital distribution channels with both criminal and civil penalties. The threat of an injunction and the removal of financial support by private parties is still a prominent part of the Act even if the easily-exploited notification procedures are removed. Under this legislation any large business can easily petition for court orders for the sole purpose of driving out foreign competitors, thus providing customers and content creators alike with fewer options for digital distribution. And the revisions to section 105 arguably makes the court order approach unnecessary– entities granted a promise of immunity have a greater stake in protecting that immunity, legally and financially speaking, than protecting foreign sites that may only offer incremental income.

Living in a global market facilitates competition and growth. Digital distribution channels are the living example of that growth and are vital for independent game developers. The U.S. marketplace does not exist in a vacuum, and it makes little difference where a site’s owner is located. U.S. consumers still have a right to enjoy those distribution channels without the threat of those channels being blacklisted to the sole benefit of U.S. competitors.

This Act doesn’t just threaten digital distribution. It threatens every facet of the Internet and particularly online communities. At this time the markup of the Act has been delayed– other changes may be implemented that either reduce the risks presented or reintroduce earlier regulations and procedures. However, there is nothing to suggest that the core drive behind the legislation will change in any way.

SOPA and its Effect on Digital Distribution for Independent Development

January 11, 2012 Current Affairs, Game Development, Intellectual Property, Litigation No comments

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is one of the most contentious pieces of legislation to hit the Internet in recent history, even more so than the Pro IP Act. The Act is purportedly designed to institute measures that will restrict piracy arising from foreign websites. However, the effectiveness of those measures has been put into question by the legislation’s opposition. According to opponents of the Act, the government and private authority granted by the legislation creates a number of complex concerns, including freedom of speech, user privacy, and Internet security. These concerns are only the tip of the iceberg.

Additionally, that original purpose seems to only appear sporadically in the legislation. Some of the procedures and policies presented in the body of the Act, particularly those concerning private enforcement actions, seem to have little to do with preventing piracy originating in foreign countries. Instead these provisions raise the question as to whether they are meant to work hand in hand with the DMCA safe harbors or operate as back door. While the DMCA safe harbors are a far cry from perfect for the purpose of eliminating piracy, they are at the very least effective, although not always efficient.

The 78 page Act in its original form is a substantial body of legislation with a bare minimum of eight moving parts. These parts break down to both government enforcement and private enforcement. This poses another problem in the Act: according to opponents, the Act’s lack of cohesion and the sheer number of regulations it imposes on any number of Internet businesses makes meaningful discussion concerning the entirety of the Act a difficult proposition. Tackling the entire body of the legislation in one go would be next to impossible.

Yet taken in parts, we can get a clearer picture of the potential effect this Act may have on things like digital distribution for small game developers. One of the more disconcerting parts of this legislation from the perspective of independent game development comes in the form of the private enforcement actions available under Section 103 of SOPA.

Section 103

This section permits private individuals and entities to pursue civil actions against website owners. Additionally, the legislation gives private parties the authority to cut off financial support to that website by forcing payment vendors and advertisers to suspend their services.

Who is liable under section 103?

Section 103 of SOPA, entitled “Market-Based System to Protect U.S. Customers and Prevent U.S. Funding of Sites Dedicated to Theft of U.S. Property”, at its outset does not apply strictly to foreign sites. By way of example, other parts of the legislation impose regulations on “Foreign Internet Sites”, which are defined as Internet sites that are not Domestic Internet Sites*. Alternatively, Section 103 uses an entirely different and considerably broader definition to define those sites punishable under that section. Instead of focusing on foreign sites, this section imposes regulations on any “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. Property”. This is not limited to either foreign or domestic sites, but pretty much any site that falls under that definition. And the definition itself is expansive. It embodies any website or any portion of that website that can be construed as operating for the purpose of or is marketed for the use of offering any goods or services in a way that “engages in, enables, or facilitates” copyright or trademark infringement.

This language is problematic for several reasons. First, based on the legislation’s use of a new definition for liable parties, it is clear that Section 103 isn’t intended to apply solely to foreign websites. On the contrary, the new definition potentially casts a wide net on any Internet site that contains or points to infringing content. Secondly, the entire site itself need not be used exclusively for infringement purposes. If any portion of the website (for example, a single page from a forum) can be construed as operating for infringement purposes, the entire site can arguably fall victim to a claim from a private party.

There is also the problem of determining whether the website owner his or her self need be the direct cause of the infringement. Because expansive terms such as “enables or facilitates” are used in the act, there is a strong argument that website owners need not be the direct infringer. Instead it seems the legislation intends to impose a new standard of secondary liability on website owners—however, U.S. law already maintains a legal standard for imposing secondary liability that is not contemplated in the Act. Furthermore the DMCA Safe Harbors exist in part to prevent secondary liability from being imposed on those sites or services that support user generated content.

Under U.S. law a defendant can be held liable for indirect infringement in two cases: contributory infringement and vicarious infringement. Contributory infringement requires that the defendant have “knowledge of the infringing activity of another and induces, causes or materially contributes to that infringing conduct.” Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159 (1971). This is a significantly higher standard of review than the one provided in the legislation. After all, the mere fact that a site or a page from that site containing or pointing to infringing content exists arguably “enables or facilitates” that infringement—the plain meaning of “enable” is “to make able”, and the definition of facilitate is “to make easier or less difficult”. Neither definition requires the exacting standard of inducing, causing, or materially contributing to infringement.

Vicarious infringement also imposes a higher standard than that set forth in the Act. Under U.S. law a defendant can be held vicariously liable if the defendant “has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities.” Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., Inc v. H.L. Green Co., Inc., 316 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1963). Although both the right to supervise and the requirement of a direct financial benefit are broadly construed in many jurisdictions, this standard is still higher than the “enabling and facilitating” standard imposed by the legislation.

SOPA and the DMCA

In addition, imposing liability for either contributory infringement or vicarious infringement is curtailed to a great extent by the DMCA Safe Harbors. The safe harbors limit service provider liability if that website institutes and complies with a notice and takedown procedure for infringing content. The site must also register the agent that will receive those notices with the Copyright Office. Even if a website would ordinarily be held liable under a contributory or vicarious theory due to something like user generated content, they are shielded provided they follow the rules set forth in the DMCA. This creates a potential conflict between the DMCA and SOPA—although the Act maintains that it does not diminish liability under the DMCA Safe Harbors, nothing in SOPA expressly requires potential plaintiffs to exhaust available remedies under those Safe Harbors.

Another source of conflict is the website owner’s knowledge of infringement. Under the DMCA, website owners that host user generated content are not required to monitor for infringement except as needed for the takedown procedures. It’s often believed that the more monitoring and moderation a website owner engages in, the higher the likelihood that they might be accused as having knowledge of a particular case of infringement, thereby eliminating the DMCA Safe Harbor shield. However, SOPA will hold a site liable if it “is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S. Directed site to carry out acts” that constitute copyright infringement. Construed narrowly, this will only apply if a website owner refuses to investigate “red flags” pointing to infringing activity. But interpreted broadly, this could also apply to those sites that actively refuse to moderate or monitor user generated content beyond the takedown procedure for the purpose of maintaining the DMCA Safe Harbor liability shield.

How Section 103 works

So what can plaintiffs do once they’ve decided to go after a website that they believe infringes on their intellectual property rights? The Act requires harmed parties to send a notification to payment vendors and advertising providers asserting that the website infringes on an intellectual property right. This notification is similar to the one required under the DMCA. Once the payment vendor or advertising provider receives the notice, they have five days to terminate services to the website. This is in contrast with the DMCA’s take down provision, which only requires service providers to act “expeditiously”.

The payment vendor or advertising provider, upon receiving notice, must also ensure “timely delivery” of that notification to the allegedly infringing site.  There is no requirement that the payment vendor or advertising provider send that notification prior to terminating their services. The website owner can then file a counter notification asserting that the website isn’t infringing.

The counter-notification procedure, in some ways, presents a difficult choice to foreign sites. Under the counter-notification procedure the website must concede to U.S. Jurisdiction. In other words the foreign website owner, who may assert the position that their site isn’t a U.S. directed site for purposes of the Act, must avail itself to U.S. laws in order to have their payment and advertising services restored. The alternative is not sending a counter-notification to preserve their jurisdictional claim and having those services terminated permanently without further legal action or evidence of actual infringement. This could possibly lead to a chilling effect for foreign sites; it may also give competitors of those sites an easy way to eliminate their foreign competition without the need for due process or a valid infringement claim. This isn’t a far-fetched possibility: according to Google, more than half of the takedown notices it receives under the DMCA Safe Harbor were sent by businesses targeting competitors.

Furthermore, the notice and counter-notification procedure shares the same “flaw” as the DMCA safe harbor notice procedure—a plaintiff need only have a good faith belief that the website is infringing when submitting a notification, whereas the defendant must have that same good faith belief “under penalty of perjury”. This imposes a higher degree of liability on the defendant for misrepresentations.

SOPA’s effects on Digital Distribution

Digital distribution has changed the face of game development. Independent game developers are able to release quality products and see real profit without relying on conventional box sales. However, SOPA may end up causing serious problems for the very digital retail channels that have revolutionized the industry. Instead of targeting specific infringing content, the Act permits private parties to cut off all revenue and payment options to a digital distribution channel even if most or all of the content of the site is non-infringing and original. This will make better sense if we use an example (note that this is a hypothetical and any resemblance to past or future real life events is purely coincidental):

You’ve got Edge, baby:  “Game Downloader” is a popular, community based site that lets game developers upload their products for sale in the global marketplace. Approximately 40% of its developers are based in the US, while approximately 60% of game purchasers are US residents. The website is based in the U.K. and makes its profit through user fees and paid advertising. Both the payment vendor and the advertising providers for Game Downloader are located in the U.S. When a game is uploaded the site automatically creates a separate page through the developer’s profile. The page provides payment options, information concerning the game, and download options. “D-Day studios”, also located in the U.K., uses Game Downloader to sell its products and has experienced satisfying results with its sales. Its latest release, “Edge Wielder”, has become a huge hit and has received excellent reviews from critics. However, trouble is brewing—Game Downloader has received a complaint from the alleged owner of the “Edge” trademark and wants Game Downloader to remove the game. Game Downloader refuses, stating that no copyright violation exists and it has no obligation to remove the game.

Angered, the trademark owner sends notifications to Game Downloader’s payment and advertising vendors asserting his rights under the recently enacted SOPA. The trademark owner alleges that a portion of the Game Downloader site (citing the “Edge Wielder” page) that is directed to the U.S. market, “engages, enables, and facilitates” the sale and distribution of goods bearing a counterfeit mark as defined in section 34(d), and the trademark owner is the owner of the counterfeited mark. Not wanting to lose their immunity under SOPA by failing to comply, both the payment vendor and the advertising provider terminate services to Game Downloader and send the website the SOPA notification. As the website is based in the U.K., it hesitates in sending a counter-notification that may impose U.S. jurisdiction on the company. In the meantime, the site is forced to shut down as games can no longer be purchased through the site and many innocent game developers not a party to the action are forced to look elsewhere for digital distribution.

This is just one (not particularly unrealistic) way in which SOPA could be used to injure legitimate distribution channels. In reality this scenario can play out in a variety of contexts, from mobile marketplaces like the iTunes store to digital retailers like Steam. The harm to innocent, non-infringing parties due to the questionable allegations of a plaintiff acting in “good faith” could be substantial, and many distribution channels may hesitate to direct sales to U.S. markets as a result of this threat. Instead of protecting intellectual property, this kind of usage has the ability to drive digital distribution channels away from the U.S. marketplace altogether, thereby increasing the likelihood that once-legitimate purchasers will rely on piracy to get the content that’s no longer available.

Conclusion

There is no question that piracy is detrimental to the games industry—however, creating legislation that can significantly hinder legitimate digital distribution will likely have a damaging effect. Film, music, and video games all benefit from recent advances in digital distribution. More and more customers are using Netflix, Hulu, Steam, and other digital content providers instead of relying on piracy. Throwing a wrench into that progress is unlikely to protect anyone’s intellectual property interests.

Other options exist, both legislative and commercial, that may have a better chance at reducing piracy. Improving digital distribution, making content accessible and reasonably priced, and providing content that is of higher quality than what customers can find through illegitimate channels has already seen exceptional success. Hulu alone has seen exponential growth since 2009. Although digital rental and sell-through currently accounts for only 1/5 of total revenue for the film industry, there is clearly room for improvement and growth—and it’s still growing, with digital video rental increasing 19% in 2010. Game digital retail channels like Steam and Impulse are also providing more and better options for customers.

On the legislative front, an alternative bill to SOPA has been presented. The OPEN Act puts jurisdiction over foreign online piracy in the hands of the International Trade Commission without passing authority to private parties. Although flawed (particularly with regard to enforcement), the OPEN Act is a clear attempt to steer intellectual property enforcement away from injuring innocent non-infringers prior to any show of evidence supporting infringement.

SOPA shouldn’t be treated as the best or only option to preventing online infringement and has the potential to cause considerably more harm than good. For the sake of the future of game development, it’s unfortunate that organizations like the ESA, which should be taking steps to protect digital distribution, are working towards making digital distribution a minefield of legal liability.

 

For the sake of balance and argument, I recommend checking out this post in favor of SOPA. It presents some alternative interpretations to some of the language I’ve pointed out here and is worth taking into consideration. 

« Older Entries