Once Again, New Zealand's Spying On Megaupload Execs Found To Be Illegal
Furnished content.
Earlier this week, the new documentary by Annie Goldson about Kim Dotcom, Kim Dotcom: Caught In The Web was released. It's available on basically any authorized platform (and, not surprisingly, quickly showed up on a number of unauthorized platforms as well). I should note that I sat for two interviews with the filmmakers, and am very briefly in the film. It's really worth watching. While it doesn't go as deep into the weeds of the specific legal issues at play as I, as a legal geek, might enjoy, that's understandable as a more mass market documentary. And I think it does a really great job of at least getting across the basic issues, of how people in Hollywood, the DOJ and New Zealand law enforcement, intelligence and government were so won over by the image of Kim Dotcom, that they didn't bother much with the legal details.One aspect of the legal case that is definitely discussed in the documentary is the fact that the New Zealand intelligence service, GCSB, illegally spied on Kim Dotcom on behalf of the US government. That's supposed to be forbidden, as the GCSB is only supposed to spy on foreigners, and not citizens or permanent residents. This came out fairly early on in the case against Dotcom, but there's been an ongoing legal battle (one of many...) into what it means concerning the case against him. GCSB had said that they didn't mean to break the law, so it shouldn't matter. And New Zealand moved to change the law to expand GCSB's surveillance powers over New Zealanders in the future.But on Friday, New Zealand's High Court officially unveiled a ruling from back in December, saying that the surveillance of two of Dotcom's colleagues was illegal. This goes beyond what was previously revealed a few years back. Of course, it appears that part of the ruling is based on GCSB refusing to provide any details, claiming they are "top secret" and that to respond to the charges would "jeopardise the national security of New Zealand." Yes, or perhaps just jeopardize GCSB.It's not entirely clear that this will have much of an impact on the case for Dotcom directly, though it once again highlights how the investigation and case against him involved an awful lot of cut corners by officials who totally bought into Hollywood's repeated story about how Dotcom was "Dr. Evil." Dotcom's lawyer, Ira Rothken, is arguing that this is yet another reason why the case should be dropped -- but so far the courts haven't really seemed to care much about all of the errors, law breaking and over reaction in building the case against Dotcom. However, as Rothken notes:"This case and extradition should now be dismissed in the interests of justice."The government's illegal conduct has reached such an extreme level that we believe that no court should entertain an extradition proceeding so tainted with state sponsored abuse and violations of basic human rights." For years now, I've explained why the case against Dotcom has serious problems -- mainly in that it makes up elements of criminal activity that simply don't exist in the law. The fact that there was also illegal spying on Dotcom and his partners only raises more questions. Yet, so far, the courts don't seem very interested in dealing with any of that, preferring to smooth things over with a simple "but bad stuff happened, therefore he should be punished." It's one of the most extreme examples we've seen of what law professor Eric Goldman has called out concerning lawsuit about infringement online: the courts frequently ignore the actual law if they sense there was "too much infringement." The fact that the government also got some of its information through illegal spying may not be enough to counteract the massive gravitational pull of "but... but... infringement."
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 26-Aug-2017
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Atari Sues Nestle Over A KitKat Commercial With An Homage To 'Breakout'
Furnished content.
A few decades ago, Atari was one of the few indisputable titans in the the early gaming industry. With early titles like Pong and Breakout, Atari became a household name for gamers. At the present, however, Atari is little more than an intellectual property troll, scouring the world for anything it might frame as copyright or trademark infringement, often to laughable lengths. For the rest of this post, it is important to keep in your mind the fact that this is now Atari's chief industry: licensing and lawsuits.In 2016, Nestle unveiled a new commercial for its KitKat candy. That commercial, entitled "Breakout", can't currently be shown as it appears it's no longer available on YouTube or Vimeo. It's unclear who is responsible for the commercial no longer appearing on those sites, but it's certainly clear that they were taken down in relation to a lawsuit filed by Atari against Nestle for both trademark and copyright infringement around the video.In a complaint filed on Thursday in federal court in San Francisco, Atari said Nestle knowingly exploited the “Breakout” name, look and feel through social media and a video, hoping to leverage “the special place it holds among nostalgic Baby Boomers, Generation X, and even today’s Millennial and post-Millennial ’gamers.’” The commercial did this by encouraging customers to "breakout" and eat KitKat bars, while replacing all of the iconic imagery from the original game Breakout with Nestle imagery, such as replacing the blocks in the game with KitKat bars. For these sins, the lawsuit filed by Atari claims both that customers could be confused into thinking there was some association between the two companies and that the imagery Nestle used in the commercial constituted copyright infringement on the original game. Both claims stretch this writer's credulity quite thin.On the trademark claim, Atari goes to some lengths to detail the history of the game and the vaunted status the company once held in the industry. In doing this, it notes that it has held trademarks on varieties of the term Breakout for nearly forty years. The problem is that all of these trademarks are for goods and services that have nothing to do with the food or confection industries. To get around that, Atari itself admits it isn't really in the gaming business any longer, but rather in the licensing business. So, by using the term "breakout" in its ad campaign, Atari claims it has been harmed by Nestle's use of the term in that it wasn't allowed to license that term to the very same Nestle.Atari’s IP licensing activities are responsible for a significant portion of its annual revenues. Revenues from its best-known games make up a significant portion of those revenues. Without the benefit of its licensing revenues, profits of Atari would be significantly lower. As an initial, straightforward matter, Nestlé has denied Atari the licensing fees it would have charged Nestlé for use of Atari’s intellectual property in the widely distributed KIT KAT “Breakout” campaign, had Atari agreed to such use. Sophistry in a trademark case? Gross. Nestle goes on to note that it has been harmed because now it won't have the opportunity to license other classic games like Asteroids and Centipede to the massive candy market. The problem is that this isn't how trademarks work. Certainly, had Nestle attempted to make an actual video game to market its KitKat bars and called it Breakout, Atari would have valid reason to go ballistic. This isn't what happened. Nestle made a commercial for candy. Atari does not sell candy, nor does it hold any trademarks for "breakout" for the candy industry.On the copyright side, the claims are even more laughable.In at least one video advertisement, Nestlé’s ad begins with four actors – two young, two middle-aged, in keeping with Breakout’s multi-generational appeal – sitting on a couch playing a video game. The game is revealed to be Breakout, with the nominal and insignificant difference between the classic version and Nestlé’s unauthorized version being that the long, rectangular bricks players “break” in the former are replaced with long, rectangular bricks made of KIT KAT chocolate bars in the latter.Nestlé’s “Breakout” video advertisements depict imagery of the Breakout game which is covered and protected by Atari’s valid registered copyrights. The game simulation depicted in Nestlé’s video advertisement is substantially similar to the Breakout graphics covered by Atari’s valid registered copyrights. Here again, Atari seems to be confused what its intellectual property rights actually protect it against. The copyright for Breakout covers its specific expression. By Atari's own admission, Nestle transformed that expression to serve as an homage to the game while relating it to KitKat bars. On top of that, Nestle did not make a video game. They simply created images that looked like one. Calling this copyright infringement is akin to the NFL suing Mars for its "Want to get away" Snickers commercial that showed an NFL referee in the middle of a football game as if Mars was putting on a football event. That would rightly be called crazy. Claiming copyright here is the same thing.Too many lawsuits these days try to marry trademark and copyright infringement claims, trying to bolster one with the other. But this one from Atari is pretty special in its brave hilarity. Fortunately, Nestle is an organization with the resources to fight back against a once proud gamemaker that has since gone full on troll.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 26-Aug-2017
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|