Slashdot just posted a story about a representative of Massive named JJ Richards vying for in-game advertisements as adding to a gamer’s experience. His argument is sound enough: if a game takes a player somewhere he should expect to see adverts (like Times Square) then it adds to the immersion to have those ads be current, realistic, and updated in real time. It would indeed be interesting to play a game you’d put down two years ago, only to find that all of the background noise like billboards, newspapers, televisions, and the like were updated to current times, but this is not without a very resounding caveat.

While in-game adverts as described above could prove valuable for game-play, they’re also making money. And anytime there’s a chance for media to make more money, there’s little stopping bad ideas from ruining good ones. In this case, my main fear is seeing in-game adverts where there shouldn’t be any at all – dated or current. After all, look at 3-D movies. Some treat 3-D technology as a twist and a draw to get you to see the film in theaters, but most of these films revolve around the technology, not a strong story, good acting, or solid directing. Films such as My Bloody Valentine are horrid movies without 3-D because that became the point of the movie, not an added feature to heighten immersion. Sound familiar? It’s the same thing that could happen with in-game adverts.

Too, this is the sort of thing that will add too little value to garner loyalty to the store-bought version of the game. Those who would pirate the game will be more than happy to bypass updated billboards or modern songs playing on the in-game radios. In fact, pirates might very well make it a point to avoid games which “phone home” – even if it’s only to upload more adverts. For many, it could smack of a privacy issue. It would – at the very least – communicate to someone how and how often you play your games. That alone is enough to make some gamers wary.

Last week began a case that could spell trouble not only for media owners, but for the resell market as well. It’s between Timothy Vernor and the software company Autodesk (who sells mostly drafting software). It seems Autodesk petitioned eBay to remove not only Vernor’s auctions of Autodesk products but to boot him off eBay for good.

Since eBay is akin to a chihuahua who rolls over at the first sign of dominance, they obliged. The only problem? Vernor wasn’t selling pirated copies of Autodesk: he was selling legally-owned, used copies.

This has long been protected by copyright law by what’s called the “first-sale doctrine”. However, Autodesk is trying to get around this by saying they merely lease the software, not sell a copy of it. Tomato, tomAto…

This debate is nothing new: the rights we have to resell products is the very reason that DRM and tricky EULAs about “leasing” software exist. But this is a slippery slope. The moment you control how someone can resell software – even something as expensive as Autodesk – what’s to stop the RIAA from using the case as precedent for outlawing the sale of secondhand CDs? How about DVDs or even VHS tapes?

This is the bread and butter of companies such as EB Games, but the industries have always loathed resell and have looked to ban it for years. It’s not because resale is illegal: it’s simply to make more money – nothing more. However, if I am not allowed to buy a secondhand copy of any media, and can’t afford the newest version, I’d be more prone to pirate, wouldn’t I?

Hopefully, the judge will see this as more industry hair-splitting rhetoric and semantic balderdash. It’s still a legal copy, and the guy has a right to sell it. Let Autodesk do what other companies such as Blizzard are doing, and limit the number of times it can be installed, suffer the inevitable consumer backlash, and then reverse their tactics like any other company trying to defy the after-market. Letting law interfere with something that is perfectly regulated by consumer spending would be a grave mistake. It would hurt consumers and many companies making a living off resale, and only make a handful of companies more wealthy than they already are.

Point of fact, I highly doubt there are media manufacturers out there closing their doors due to the resale market, but if such outfits are allowed to bypass the first-sale doctrine, you can expect to see plenty of other companies doing just that – hanging the going-out-of-business sign.

A story on Slashdot tells of a watershed moment in the fight between athletes and game manufacturers who use their likenesses. A district court judge considered the digital representations “expressive works” comparable to paintings and photos of celebrities and athletes, which are protected and require no payment to the athlete or celebrity.

On one hand, the game company playing defense in footballer Samuel Keller’s class action lawsuit is Electronic Arts, not some one-man band just trying to eek out a living writing games. While EA didn’t use the players’ names, other features such as style of play, haircut, skin color, and facial features so closely resembles the athletes that there’s little question it was intentional. This – in the long game – could persuade gamers who want to play with famous atheletes to opt for EA Sports’ titles, even though EA paid nothing for the celebrity status.

On the other hand, we’re not talking about a group of people that otherwise makes no money. Athletes are paid to play a sport, not build star power enough to market their likeness. They already get pretty substantial payouts for acting gigs, endorsements, and special appearances, on top of what is almost universally considered inordinately large salaries and signing bonuses.

Too, let’s not forget ’90s singer Deee-Lite, who tried suing Sega over her supposed likeness in Space Channel 5 for the Dreamcast, lost, and then had to pay $600,000 in court costs. Not an easy fiscal pill for a has-been to swallow. With older players such as Jim Brown hopping on Keller’s coattails, they’d better keep in mind that any lawsuit bears a chance of not only failure, but significant losses.

The rise of video game profits, popularity, and prestige means that this is a market for celebrities and athletes alike, and not one that should be ignored so that giants like EA can make money off another’s celebrity. However, I applaud the ruling because the line has to be drawn somewhere on how ridiculous lawsuits about likeness can be. After all, if all game manufacturers caved and settled in cases like this, you’d have everyone from Miley Cyrus to PDiddy looking for any chance to sue, claiming that any singer with extensions and cut off jean skirts must be Cyrus’ likeness, or that any character with cornrows and bling must be PDiddy.

In the end, this whole affair may not matter, since the moment that gamers realize that 99% of sports games are slapped together regurgitation of last year’s code, maybe they’ll pass for a decent game instead.

There is so much wrong with the current patent system, that this post will do little to even scratch the surface. However, a recent story by The Wall Street Journal posted on Slashdot illustrates that patent trolling may be reaching ludicrous speed. It seems Microsoft is selling patents to Linux in order to protect them from patent trolls.

While I’ll not get into the gory details here, this act alone shows how horrid and restrictive the patent system has become. It should be obvious by now that when Microsoft plays ball with a competitor, either the sky is indeed falling or patents are clearly out of control (I’ll let you guess which).

For those just joining us, a patent troll is one who buys up patents in order to sue companies that violate those patents later – knowingly or unknowingly. The only criteria seem to be that the company being sued has the money to settle. Picture if the RIAA sued only rich, white, trust-fund babies for file-sharing – you get the idea.

The fundamental harm here should be obvious: the troll contributes nothing, and only stops (or stalls) those who are contributing. This goes against everything our constitution stands for when reading that such laws are to “ensure the progress of science and the useful arts”. Many would argue that what can be patented has simply grown too wide for its purposes. To receive a patent, something must be: 1. New 2. Useful 3. Not obvious. Sure, there are whole textbooks detailing this, but the point being that when trolls can patent such broad concepts only to trap other businesses later, there’s something wrong.

Perhaps the answer is that the patent owner has so many months to actually attempt creating something with his patent or else sell it or have it fall back into public domain. What good is a patent when the person filing it is not the same person creating the patented design or object? This would still allow failed companies to reap some rewards for having pioneered what some other company perfected, but would discourage companies whose only operating model is leeching off an imperfect intellectual property system.

Though the answer is likely not so obvious as I’ve suggested, I can certainly tell you what isn’t working: our current system. If someone has other ideas, leave a comment.

Recently, an Ars Technica story spoke to GameStop’s latest tactic to up sales. They are making deals with game manufacturers to offer extended content to those who pre-order or reserve games. Pre-orders are indeed a great way for companies to test the market waters, and have increased in popularity as of late.

So what does this mean for those who would rather buy their games at a retailer such as Target or Wal-Mart, or simply don’t want to pay full price. Video games have a very short lifespan of selling at the $50 (PC) or $60 (console) price caps. Sometimes only weeks after initial release, a game will sell for two-thirds the initial retail price. This holds especially true for bad games, of which there are plenty. Inspiring pre-orders or at least sales at full price are key for pushing crummy games, where the market would quickly let gamers know if a game is not worth the cost.

The story highlights another positive in that this could bridge the rift between the gaming industry and sellers such as GameStop, which share a notoriously antipathy. The industry doesn’t like that GameStop and others can sell used games. They only receive money for the first sale, even if the game is sold, bought, and resold a hundred times. This is the real reason for DRM and limitations on how many times certain games can be installed.

What the industry needs to realize, however, is that this will do nothing to curb piracy. Pirates will be the first to enjoy the extra content, as this would provide extra prestige for any release group putting the pre-order game with extras onto file-sharing networks. The only people who will suffer are the spendthrifts and those who purchase their games elsewhere. So long as extras are confined to a magical item or an extra board, this is fine. But if and when whole portions of the game are relegated to pre-orders and pirates, there’s a real problem.

Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, because the answer would be that more spendthrifts would opt for piracy than purchasing.

The issue of net neutrality – the inability for ISPs to discriminate between information packets on the Internet – is back in congress for review. Don’t quote me on the Time-Warner figures, but my message is clear: prioritized packets means more money from consumers and for big business. That is all.

Listen to more on this article.

Big media lawyer makes RIAA/MPAA stance clear on the limitations consumers should have in using their own media.

Listen to more on this article.

What effect will the Pirate Party’s agenda have on movements to make existing copyright better? Creative Commons and General Public License work on top of current copyright structure, and some worry that abolishing facets of the copyright structure could weaken copyleft ideas along with it.

Listen to more on this article.

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) ordered that video of musician Calvin Harris be pulled from YouTube. Only one problem – it was Harris who posted it.

Listen to more on this article.

EA Games’ newest game in the C + C series only operates while connected to the Internet. What’s at play here: Anti-piracy or extra content?

Listen to more on this article.