subscribe to this page
"The University of Tennessee Digital Library Center has released the UT-DLC MODS Metadata Workbook to the library community. Developed by Cricket Deane under the direction of Melanie Feltner-Reichert, this open source client-side software provides control of date formats and other problematic fields at the point of creation, while shielding creators from the need to work in XML. The tool consists of a series of web pages that enable users to easily generate complex, valid MODS metadata records that meet the 1-4 levels of specification outlined in the Digital Library Federation Implementation Guidelines for Shareable MODS Records, (DLF Aquifer Guidelines November 2006)."
The Levels of Adoption document is intended to supplement the Digital Library Federation / Aquifer Implementation Guidelines for Shareable MODS Records, released in November 2006 under the auspices of the DLF Aquifer initiative. The Shareable MODS Guidelines represent a record-centric view of Aquifer's goals, whereas it is often helpful to set priorities for metadata creation with a user- and use-centric view. The newly-released Levels of Adoption document describes five general categories of user functionality that are likely to be supported by following specific recommendations from the Guidelines. It attempts to provide additional guidance to MODS implementers in the planning process by documenting what sorts of functionality is possible when certain elements of the Guidelines are
followed."
This journal article is a profile of the Modifying or “Mod” Community who use existing video game engines as the framework to create video games of their own. It focuses on Mario Orsini who with his team of 15 is developing a Mod called “Orbit Wars.”
It becomes germane to the subject of Video Game Copyright issues because the Mod Community itself is a bit of an oddity in the context of a Video Game Industry laden with myriads of complex copyright and patent laws. When a video game is created, it is programmed in two fundamental parts, the engine, which is the part that defines the physics of the gameplay itself, and then there is what the author refers to as the “aesthetic package” which defines the look and theme of the characters and visual effects. Modders take the engine from an existing game and create an aesthetic package of their own. In essence, they create a derivative work, the kind in which one conventionally thinking, might believe to be under fire from waves of lawsuits. As this article demonstrates, not only is that premise not true, but the situation is quite the opposite. Several examples are cited which illustrate the encouragement of the modded video games. It becomes clear that the Mod Community is looked upon by the industry as a way to seek new talent and embrace innovation.
The aim of the article seems to be in its illustration of benefits the Mod Community provides for both Modder and Game Maker. It does this by alluding to situations such as Id Software’s “Quake” line, which was the first game to include a set of developer’s tools with the game. They also cited the popular Mod “Counterstrike” which was a created with the engine of a game called “Half-Life.” Counterstrike’s popularity grew so much among the online Mod Community, that Sierra Entertainment, who published the original Half-Life, picked it up and sold it commercially. It would go on to sell “at least 1 million units.” These are effective and well-known examples that support the argument. Ultimately, it may be a way to show the Mod Community as a shinning example of the ideal relationship that could exist between Game Maker and Consumer. The context of this relationship entails one of mutual respect where the creative aspect of the game comes from both ends. It also demonstrates that the knee-jerk reaction to protect the content of the software can often end up hurting the product because it shuts it off from the community of people that support it through sales and allegiance.
Argued before the 9th Circuit Court in 1992, this case was Nintendo’s attempt to stop Galoob’s production of the “Game Genie.” The device in dispute attached to standard Nintendo cartridges, which allowed users to input various special codes to perform “cheats” and alter the physics in the games they owned. Nintendo argued that the device created unauthorized derivative works, Galoob stood solidly behind the fair use defense.
The arguments presented some interesting perspectives on the extent of exactly what constitutes a derivative work, and also how far fair use defenses can go. Nintendo’s arguments imply that Galoob’s device unlawfully authorizes users to use copyrighted works in spite of the fact that it does not violate copyright law. This method of argument however was unfruitful considering that the precedence set by the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. case unambiguously established that simply providing the means to commit a type of infringement does not constitute infringement in itself. What further invalidated the argument was the fact that the Game Genie did not even encourage any infringing activities in that the purchase of a legal copy of the game was required to use it with the device. Of the four factors, which determine fair use, the effect on the potential market was what came into play. Since it did no apparent harm to the potential market, the Court was not receptive.
This distinction is very important to the idea of Video Game Copyright Issues because it give a definitive boundary to what we as consumers are physically allowed to do with software that we purchase. This is a case that goes beyond the arguments of copy protected source codes and piracy. With lawsuits like this, Game Makers attempted to exercise control over the products that they sell beyond the point where ownership has transferred to the consumer regardless of if it affected their market. Did it become an argument about the moral rights of the Game Maker to maintain quality of their own brand? Perhaps such an argument would have held more water. However, if the Game Genie case had gone Nintendo’s way, it may have set precedence for more lawsuits of the same nature which may have further pushed the boundaries of DRM technology for software and hardware. Such actions would not be to the benefit of the consumer, and would have only solidified a monopolistic control on not only sale and distribution, but on the very existence of the software itself.
This is a short news item about the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) backlash against modification or “mod” chips. Any relatively recent console system has embedded unto it, a DRM (Digital Rights Management) chip, which prevents pirated or counterfeit copies to played on the system. A mod chip is essentially a chip designed to replace that DRM chip that will in turn allow the user play out of region copies of games and consequently, counterfeit copies.
This particular item focuses on a Hong Kong-based online software store. The crackdown on the mod chips which the site sells, seem to have been legally strong-armed by joint lawsuit filed by Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. The article serves to illustrate how DMCA-like measures are occurring not just in the United States, but also around the world. The author quickly relates the aforementioned lawsuit to the renewed vigor of the Video Game Industry to stem piracy in the aftermath of the DMCA. It also effectively puts into perspective the point of view of the industry, which sells heavily equipped hardware at a loss, which is ideally made up in software sales. The effect of piracy is not a mere nuisance but something that insidiously chips away at the infrastructure of its very business model.
It is the somewhat personalized perspective of this article brings which makes it applicable to the predominant theme of the copyright issues pertaining to video games. While viewed in the context of a research item, it is limited in the amount of information it gives and is more in the area of food for thought. However, it is a piece through which perspective is gained. In this case in the near peril of the site Lik-Sang.com, which at one time was one of the world’s leading distributors of mod chips. Its struggle against the so-called “Goliaths” of video games was one that showed how these measures affected the supposed “pirates” which they had gained the reputation of being. Suddenly, the anonymous pirates and counterfeiters seem more anthropomorphic. The article makes reference to a similar lawsuit brought about by Sony against a retailer in Australia that was ruled in favor of the retailer. This contrast effectively illustrates a primary point in the whole debate in regards to the inability for international law to come to any consensus. International law is very disparate as far as the acceptance of the devices. In light of that, anything that sheds light on the global aspect of the mod chip crackdown is a ripe subject in terms of video game copyright.
Sony had filed suit and won over the issue of this screenshot, it was quickly appealed and argued before the 9th Circuit Court. Bleem openly admitted that it took the screenshot and used it for advertisement and for the packaging, but doing so was protected as a fair use. The Court made special effort to apply the four factors in determining fair use: The purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used in relation to the whole, and the effect on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work.
The fair use argument of Bleem brought forth examples from landmark cases like Campbell v. Acuff-Rose and Harper & Row v. The Nation. The Court’s attempt to avoid rigid application to copyright statute illustrates the frame of mind in which this decision was made. It was found that Sony’s argument did not stand the scrutiny as the screenshot did not have enough substance or was not the heart of the work, which was supposedly infringed. In relation to the last of the four factors in determining fair use, Sony was in the market in this instance with video game hardware and software, yet argue that they at the same time were in the market with the screenshots themselves. The Court clearly rejected this line of argument because the screenshots had no adverse affects on the market that Sony represented. Although the case was not directly about the Bleem emulator software, its presence undoubtedly hung as a pendulum over the entire case and was even addressed by the Court. It was not difficult to read between the lines to find what this case was really about.