The CIA: Collect It All Sale Is Almost Over... Order Now And Get 25% Off!

from the ticking-clock dept

Get 25% off your copy of CIA: Collect It All with
the code HOLIDAY2019 until December 17th »

There are only three days left in our very first sale on CIA: Collect It All, the real training game for CIA analysts that we reproduced and launched on Kickstarter last year. The sale runs through Tuesday, December 17th which is also the deadline to order with express shipping and still get it in time for Christmas. Use the promo code HOLIDAY2019 with your order to get 25% off »

CIA: Collect It All includes 170 cards representing global crises, intelligence gathering techniques, and the unexpected circumstances and opposition that frustrate them. Plus, it contains rules for two separate games: the original CIA training game, and a storytelling variant that uses the cards for a more narrative roleplaying experience.

If you want to check it out first, or just print your own copy, the print-and-play version is now free on itch.io with the complete set of cards and rules formatted for easy home printing.

Get 25% off your copy of CIA: Collect It All with
the code HOLIDAY2019 until December 17th »

Filed Under: cia, collect it all, deals, game, sale

Last Chance To Get CIA: Collect It All For Christmas With Standard Shipping, And Save 25%

from the tick-tock dept

Get 25% off your copy of CIA: Collect It All
with the code HOLIDAY2019 »

Our first ever sale on CIA: Collect It All, the real training game for CIA analysts that we reproduced and launched on Kickstarter last year, will be running for another week and change — but this weekend is your last chance to order it with standard shipping in the US and still get it in time for Christmas. Monday is the deadline, and then you have until December 17th to order with express shipping. Use the promo code HOLIDAY2019 with your order to get 25% off »

CIA: Collect It All includes 170 cards representing global crises, intelligence gathering techniques, and the unexpected circumstances and opposition that frustrate them. Plus, it contains rules for two separate games: the original CIA training game, and a storytelling variant that uses the cards for a more narrative roleplaying experience.

After our current stock runs out, we don't know if or when the game will be coming back! So if you want to make sure you get your hands on a copy, order sooner rather than later. And if you want to check it out first, or just print your own copy, the print-and-play version is now free on itch.io with the complete set of cards and rules formatted for easy home printing.

Get 25% off your copy of CIA: Collect It All
with the code HOLIDAY2019 »

Filed Under: cia, collect it all, deals, game, sale

CIA: Collect It All Is 25% Off. Only Three Days Left To Order For Christmas With Standard Shipping!

from the don't-wait dept

Get 25% off your copy of CIA: Collect It All
with the code HOLIDAY2019 »

Our 25% off sale on CIA: Collect It All continues, and this is just a reminder that if you want to pick up a copy of this real CIA training game as a gift, you have until Monday to order with standard shipping and still get it in time! After that, you have until December 17th to order with express shipping.

In some other regions you actually have a bit more time. The standard shipping deadlines are December 11th (Canada), December 12th (UK and Australia), and December 9th (Europe), while the express shipping deadline is December 17th in all regions except Europe, where it is December 13th.

If you aren't interested in a boxed copy, or just want to check it out before you buy, we have also made the print-and-play version of the game available for free! You can download PDFs of the full card decks and the rulebook, formatted for easy home printing, and you'll be collecting global intelligence in no time. Get your copy on itch.io.

Get 25% off your copy of CIA: Collect It All
with the code HOLIDAY2019 »

Filed Under: cia, collect it all, deals, game, sale

CIA: Collect It All Is Now 25% Off, And The Print-And-Play Version Is Free!

from the game-intel dept

Get 25% off your copy of CIA: Collect It All
with the code HOLIDAY2019 »

It's been over a year and a half since we launched our successful Kickstarter campaign for CIA: Collect It All, our recreation of a real declassified card game that the CIA used to train analysts. Today, we're launching our first big sale: you can get a copy of the game for 25% off by using the discount code HOLIDAY2019 on our purchase page.

If you want one as a gift, there's still time to get a copy before Christmas: the deadline in the US is December 9th for standard shipping and December 17th for express shipping. For other regions, the standard shipping deadlines are December 11th (Canada), December 12th (UK and Australia), and December 9th (Europe), while the express shipping deadline is December 17th in all regions except Europe, where it is December 13th.

But that's not all — we're also officially making the print-and-play version of the game available for free! You can download PDFs of the full card decks and the rulebook, formatted for easy home printing, and you'll be collecting global intelligence in no time. Get your copy on itch.io.

Get 25% off your copy of CIA: Collect It All
with the code HOLIDAY2019 »

Filed Under: card game, cia, collect it all, game, sale

Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Decision On Fair Use And Right Of First Sale Fails To Budge The Needle On Either Issue

from the we-hold-that-Adobe-litigated-itself-into-defeat dept

A ruling on fair use, the right of first sale and the limits of trademark protection has been handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel. Normally, I'd proceed the word "ruling" with an adjective like "important," or "terrible," or "wonderful." But this ruling is none of those. It's a ruling, and I suppose it does set some sort of precedent, but thanks mainly to Adobe's inept handling of the case, it does very little to clarify any of the above issues.

What it does do, however, is at least reaffirm burden-shifting for companies who insist they haven't sold software, but "licenses." This is the preferred method of undermining the right of first sale: tying up purchasers with legal language that claims they're not making purchases, but rather "renting" the goods until the manufacturer says otherwise. This allows companies to stipulate all sorts of restrictions on purchased goods, including the resale of software.

Adobe tried to claim Joshua Christenson had never "purchased" any of its software, and therefore could not resell it. Christenson had in fact purchased software, but from third parties rather than directly from Adobe. Adobe didn't like being cut out of the loop, so it took him to court for alleged copyright and trademark infringement.

Six years later, very little of it has stuck. (Christenson was sued in 2009.) The appeals court notes that Christenson successfully managed to shift the burden of proof on the licenses v. sales issue back on Adobe -- which then failed to produce evidence that the reseller possessed only worthless licenses rather than resellable goods.

Noting that if construed broadly enough, software licenses could "swallow the statutory right of first sale defense," the panel says that the burden of proof must be shifted back to the plaintiffs when alleging copyright infringement of licensed software. The reseller only has to prove he or she acquired the software legally. Adobe -- being the manufacturer -- is in a "superior" position to demonstrate whether or not the software in question was merely licensed.

As the district court held, it was uncontroverted that Christenson “lawfully purchased genuine copies of Adobe software from third-party suppliers before reselling those copies.” Christenson offered invoices to document his purchases of legitimate Adobe software from various suppliers. Nothing on those invoices suggests that he was other than a legitimate purchaser of the software. According to Christenson’s sworn statement, “[n]either [he] nor SSI have a contract with any of the suppliers that supplied SSI with software... SSI asked them if they could supply SSI with a product at an acceptable price, and if they could, payment was negotiated.” This claim is consistent with Christenson’s inability to produce something more than invoices from his suppliers: He cannot produce records that do not exist. Christenson discharged his burden with respect to the first sale defense.

Adobe countered that it never sold software. It only licensed it. Burden of proof shifted to Adobe, which came up empty.

Adobe’s problem is that it did not produce those licenses or document the terms of contracts with specific parties. Because of the state of discovery at the time of the summary judgment motions, the district court excluded virtually all of Adobe’s late-offered evidence of licenses. Adobe challenges this ruling in its appeal. The district court and magistrate judge had a long history with the parties and their discovery efforts. After a careful examination of the rather tortured discovery process, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Christenson’s motion to strike and excluding evidence purporting to document the licenses...

Adobe’s effort to substitute general testimony and generic licensing templates in lieu of the actual licensing agreements does not withstand scrutiny under Vernor. Under Vernor, the precise terms of any agreement matter as to whether it is an agreement to license or to sell; the title of the agreement is not dispositive. And here, in the end, there is no admissible evidence that Adobe “significantly restrict[ed] the user’s ability to transfer the software” at issue here.

So, there's not much in the way of a "win" for the right of first sale. While it's heartening that the burden shifts to the "licensing" party to prove infringement, all this really does is encourage companies like Adobe to write more restrictive licenses. It does almost nothing at all to treat licenses as actual purchases, which can be resold without the manufacturer's permission.

Other claims raised were similarly bungled by Adobe. The trademark infringement allegations were dead in the water because Christenson never used Adobe's logos for anything else than selling actual Adobe products.

While it does appear there may have been some shady software sales by Christenson (purchasers complained about received academic versions rather than the full OEM versions they were expecting), Adobe failed to raise its false advertising claims until the case was already in the appeals court -- far too late for them to be addressed.

In the end, we have a decision on fair use and the right of first sale that does nothing to push either issue forward. Fortunately, this stasis also does nothing to damage either of these defenses, something the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has done in the past. One gets the disheartening feeling that if Adobe had managed its case better, the right of first sale would be worse off, rather than bolstered by the Appeals Court's final opinion.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, first sale, joshua christenson, licensing, ninth circuit, sale, software
Companies: adobe

Announcing The 2014 Holiday Sale At The Techdirt Insider Shop

from the reason-to-give dept

The past couple of years, we've had a special Holiday Bundle over at the Insider Shop, but this year we're trying something a bit different: 10% off everything storewide, with the coupon code HOLIDAY2014.

(Okay, not quite everything: the discount doesn't apply to monthly subscription products. But it does apply to the yearlong subscription specials for Watercooler and Behind The Curtain memberships, as well as the non-recurring one-year Crystal Ball subscription. And remember, all these items can be applied to your own Techdirt account or gifted to someone else.)

We know we're a little bit late getting this out there, but there's still time to order Techdirt gear for Christmas! Domestically, for USPS Standard Shipping, orders made by December 15th (that's next Monday) should arrive in time, and there may be express options available depending on your location. For more detailed information, consult this shipping calendar, and try to order soon just to be safe!

Filed Under: christmas, holiday, insider shop, sale

EU Copyright Head Looking To Roll Back UsedSoft Decision, Makes Weak Noises About 'Infinite Contracts'

from the industries-still-writing-the-rules dept

The European Union has its own revolving door, one that allows lobbyists to enter government agencies in order to directly regulate the same industries they so recently stumped for. Maria Martin-Prat went from directing "global legal policy" for IFPI (the international RIAA) to being the EU Commission's point person for copyright issues.

In the past, Martin-Prat has gone on record as being against any sort of private copying exception to copyright law, stating that:

"private copying has no reason to exist and should be limited further than it is."

The private copying exception varies from country to country, but in Martin-Prat's mind, the best case scenario is likely "not at all… anywhere." So, why is Martin-Prat, an admitted hardliner on copyright issues, suddenly discussing the unfairness of certain copyright contracts?

Speaking at a Westminster Forum seminar, Maria Martin-Prat, EC Head of the Copyright Unit for the Internal Market Directorate General (DG MARKT), said the Commission should look at whether contracts were fair.

She told us that the infinite assignment of rights that authors must agree to in most EU countries to get their work published was what she had in mind.

In the digital era, freelance authors and photographers in many members states have been asked to assign their rights to an intermediary in “infinite” deals.

Forever contracts are, indeed, the sort of unfair deal that the EU Commission should take a longer look at. Here in the US, the reversion of copyright back to the creators (for pre-1976 recordings) has prompted record labels to argue that everything created was a "work for hire," and thus belongs to the label in perpetuity. (This argument also took the form of a midnight run to Congress to get copyright law amended in the recording industry's favor.) An infinite contract obviously closes that potential loophole for artists to reclaim their work after a reasonable amount of time.

Seems like a good start, but Martin-Prat continues, dispelling any notion that serious copyright reform will occur under her guidance.

The distribution of “the share of the value in the internet” was worth examining said Martin-Prat - particularly “who gets the profits?”

Ah, the old "the Internet owes everyone a living" argument, wherein (probably) Google is blamed for every low number on the copyright industries' balance sheets and asked to kick in to make up for the shortfall. Note that Martin-Prat asks "who gets the profits," rather than asking how to divide the profits, which indicates she already has an answer in mind. Why address problems in any logical fashion when you can just use the weight of the EU Commission to make internet services bend to the will of misguided court decisions and nearly two decades' of useless complaining from the recording industry?

Then Martin-Prat steps even further away from copyright moderation and takes a swing at the few remaining rights purchasers of creative works have, citing specifically the UsedSoft decision, which agreed that sold software was a "license" rather than a sale, but despite this distinction, could still be resold.

“In both cases the Court was pushing the boundaries of the copyright rules to help the function of the internal market,” she said. “UsedSoft was desperately trying to turn software licensed by a user into a good - so they could enjoy free movement of goods,” she observed. “The Court cut a few corners” in its interpretation, she thought. However, “if we don’t do something at some point the CJEU will keep pushing.”

So, it looks as though Martin-Prat will be pushing back on this decision in order to remove something that actually helps sell new software -- the possibility of resale. Whether the copyright industries like it or not, people consider this factor when purchasing new items and if the possibility exists to make something back, it actually encourages a few more sales. There's nothing inherently "unfair" about not being able to profit from every sale, but the industries still think it's just another way they're being screwed -- hence the push to call everything a "license," even if it's a physical good.

Martin-Prat offers to take on an inherently unfair contract (the infinite copyright contract) but only because she has a desire to protect other unfair contracts (you can't resell what your purchase). The first will likely end up riddled with loopholes (for all intents and purposes, most recording contracts may as well be "infinite," considering how hard it is for artists to reclaim their copyrights) and the latter will just help the industries further pare down the few copyright law exceptions that currently exist.

Filed Under: copyright, eu commission, infinite contracts, license, maria martin-prat, ownership, private copying, sale, used goods
Companies: usedsoft

Universal Music Settles Key Fight Over Eminem Royalties... With Secret Agreement

from the of-course dept

For years, we've been covering a key legal fight in the music business, involving Eminem's producers, FBT, and Universal Music, over how much was owed on iTunes sales. The key issue: is an iTunes purchase a "sale" or a "license." Older music contracts that predated the internet era tended to focus on sales, in which artists tend to get about 15% royalties. "Licenses," on the other hand, tended to be for things like commercials or movies, but commanded around 50% royalties. But when you talk about iTunes songs, you can make somewhat compelling cases that it's either a sale or a license, depending on which details you focus on. Universal Music, of course, insisted that it was just like a CD sale. FBT argued it was just like a license. There are a ton of other similar lawsuits ongoing, but after losing at the district court level, FBT won on appeal. That resulted in a somewhat insane and contentious fight over how much Universal would have to pay up, with a judge slamming Universal for hiding revenue with tricky funny money accounting, and even trying to expense the cost of this very lawsuit back against what they owed.

However, the damages phase of the case was set to go to trial in the spring, and it would have (1) revealed an awful lot about the blackbox of Universal Music's accounting practices and (2) given a roadmap for the many other similar lawsuits against Universal Music (and the other major labels). Given that, it should come as no surprise that Universal Music scrambled to come up with a way to get FBT to settle... with the terms of the settlement being secret. This almost certainly means that UMG paid through the nose, with the hope that it makes it more difficult for other artists to get similar rewards, and while allowing Universal to keep its secrets secret... for now.

Filed Under: eminem, license, royalties, sale, settlement
Companies: fbt, universal music

Psystar Loses Again: Appeals Court Says It Can't Install Legally Purchased OSX On Other Hardware

from the copyright-misuse dept

As you may recall, Psystar was a company that tried to make Apple Mac clones by legally purchasing Apple operating systems, and figuring out how to install them on other hardware. Apple sued the company in 2008 for violating its license. Psystar went through a variety of (often questionable) defenses before settling on the one I thought had the best chance: the first sale doctrine -- basically claiming they legally purchased the software, and that they should be able to install it wherever they want. Psystar also claimed "copyright misuse," against Apple, arguing that its EULA restricting installation to only Apple hardware was a form of copyright misuse to stifle competition. Two years ago, though, the court granted summary judgment to Apple, rejecting both arguments.

Psystar appealed, focusing on the copyright misuse argument and, while it took some time, the always slightly wacky 9th Circuit has upheld the ruling. The court, tragically in my opinion, buys Apple's argument that its EULA does not unfairly restrict competition, because Psystar could go find a different operating system, rather than Apple's. Here, the court relies on the awful Vernor v. Autodesk ruling that basically said, "as long as a software company claims it's leasing the software to you, rather than selling it to you, your first sale rights disappear." This is true even if the "sale" really is a sale rather than a lease. It all depends on what you call it.

So, in this case, the court ruled that the copyright misuse claim must fail, because it's really an attempt to create a "right of first sale" for software -- and because Apple pretends its software sales are licenses, there is no right of first sale. So, without that... no copyright misuse. If you think this logic is circular, you should see if you can become a judge on the 9th Circuit, since they appear to need help. Furthermore, it argues that since Psystar could just go write its own operating system there is no copyright misuse:

Apple’s SLA does not restrict competitor’s ability to develop their own software, nor does it preclude customers from using non-Apple components with Apple computers. Instead, Apple's SLA merely restricts the use of Apple’s own software to its own hardware. As the district court properly concluded, Apple's SLA has "not prohibited others from independently developing and using their own operating systems." Apple I, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 939. Psystar produces its own computer hardware and it is free to develop its own computer software.

As with the Vernor case, the reasoning here is convoluted. It's really just another court decision that chips away at first sale rights, which are (were?) an important part of copyright law.

Filed Under: clones, copyright, copyright misuse, first sale, license, mac clones, sale, software
Companies: apple, psystar

Forget Infringement, Major Labels Should Be Worrying About Having To Pay Much Higher Royalties On Downloads

from the well,-look-at-that... dept

For a few years now, we've followed the lawsuit between Eminem and Universal Music concerning digital royalties. The basics are that the record labels offer incredibly low royalties on sales of music media, such as CDs. However, when it came to "licensing" music (generally for movies or commercials or whatever), it offered a much higher payout to the artist. This made some amount of sense under traditional label thinking, since selling product actually involved a fair amount of costs and work. But licensing a song for a movie was pretty simple.

So, the question that Eminem (and some other artists in other lawsuits) asked was: what is iTunes? Is it a "sale" like a CD, thus entitling the artist to low royalties? Or is it a "license," like for a commercial, entitling him to 50% royalties? Reasonable arguments can be made on both sides, and since the recording industry has a habit of a quantum-like switching where it pretends that something is a sale when it wants it to be a sale, but then insists it's just a "license" when that's beneficial, it felt pretty good about its chances in the lawsuit. And while Universal Music won at the district court, the appeals court went the other way, and said that iTunes represents a license.

And, now, the Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal, meaning that this ruling lives on in the all important 9th Circuit. It's possible that some other similar cases may come out with a different ruling in a different circuit, greatly increasing the likelihood that the Supreme Court steps in, but for now, it seems that the courts are saying iTunes is a license not a sale. While more recent contracts have been written to avoid this problem, it does seem like there are a lot of legacy contracts out there (which are tied to a lot of ongoing revenue via the back catalogs for the major labels) where this could be an issue. In other words, the record labels may owe a ton of money to artists.

And they still think infringement is the biggest challenge they face?

Filed Under: copyright, eminem, license, sale
Companies: universal music