ben at reser.org
Thu Feb 3 07:16:46 UTC 2011
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Chris Travers <chris at metatrontech.com> wrote:
> But again this is looking specifically at DMCA-related claims over
> circumvention of access control and the argument that this creates
> infringing derivative works via the non-literal audio-visual
> experience of the game, right?
That's what's left standing now with the current appeals court ruling.
> I don't see how this can be generalized beyond video games because
> these games end up with extra protection in the eyes of the courts
> because they are more expressive in their output than purely
> functional software is. The appeals court indeed rejected all the
> claims not specific to the protections of videogames as interactive
> audio-visual works of art independent of their form in software. Or
> am I misreading something?
No you're not.
Like I said before I pointed out because it was a case working its way
through the courts that Blizzard was trying to use copyright to stop
interoperability. I don't believe either side is satisfied with the
appeals court ruling so I'd expect this to drag out far longer.
More information about the License-discuss