You’d think the top search results on the matter would be newer than 1999, but that’s where you’ll find this NYT article and PubLaw item story, both from precambrian times. Worse, both of those articles suggest that my links to them may not be entirely kosher.

The problem is probably that US courts have not spoken clearly on such a case. A Danish court in 2006 did, but I think that no case in the US has gone far enough to actually set a precedent. Another chance at settling this issue was lost earlier this month when BlockShopper settled, rather than continue a costly defense of such a case. The EFF is confident BlockShopper could have won, but that means little when the legal bills come in.

Related at EFF: Kelly v. Arriba Soft and Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

The New Hampshire House is considering a ban on texting while Driving. Please, no.

I caught the following story on NPR’s All Things Considered (RealAudio stream) last night:

New York is known for its vibrant nightlife, yet in many bars and restaurants it’s illegal to dance. Now, a law professor is challenging the “Cabaret Laws,” claiming they violate a dancer’s right of free expression. The city says dancing by patrons is not a protected right — and can prove it. (link added)

This was a big surprise to me, and a bigger surprise to learn that it’s not just some blue law. It turns out that bar owners get fined thousands of dollars for allowing people to dance, or even “move rhythmically” to music. Surprisingly, there are only 316 places to legally dance in Manhattan.

Amusingly — in that circle of life sort of way — Lynne Taylor-Corbett, choreographer for Footloose, is among the challengers. She can’t believe the fact that the city she claims to have given birth to break dancing and hip hop should restrict dance only to bars that have a cabaret license. The license is the result of 1926 ordinance that decried jazz clubs for their “wild strangers” and “foolish natives,” according to the story.

The suit is being handled by NYU Law professor Paul Chevigny, an occasional tap dancer who gained standing on these matters by successfully challenging an earlier law that blocked many forms of live music in 1988. That doesn’t mean the city is rolling over on this. They’re fighting back, and all parties are looking to see how the courts answer the city’s motion to dismiss.

tags: blue laws, cabaret, cabaret license, dance, dancing, first ammendment, foolish natives, footloose, free expression, free speech, jazz clubs, law, legal challenge, license, lynne taylor-corbett, manhattan, new york, new york city, new york new york, newyork, ny ny, nyc, nyny, paul chevigny, rights, wild strangers

Matt says my attempts to analogize online roleplaying games to more familiar contests like chess or automobile racing are “just silly.” But his response appears to reinforce my point rather than refute it. It is the responsibility of the gamers and gaming organizations to create and enforce rules. People violating those rules are subject to sanctions by the gaming organization first, but it’s hard to imagine how any contestant who follows the rules of a (legal) game can be subject to legal sanction.

I said as much in my comment on his post, naming sports and game organizations like the World Chess Federation, National Scrabble Association, and National Hot Rod Association that have been successfully enforcing and arbitrating game rules for years. But as better examples of the well trod path between law and game rules, I might have offered smash-up derbies or boxing. Outside the game, drivers and fighters would be subject to civil and criminal penalties, but inside the game, where participants are expected required to be aware of the rules and the risks of the game, we find ourselves intolerant of legal interference. Not that the overall legality of violent sports like boxing hasn’t been question, but that where it is legal, the game rules are the first (and often final) authority in the ring.

tags: game, game world, game worlds, gamers, games, gaming, in game, law, mmo, mmorpg, multiplayer online games, online games, online role playing, online role playing games, real world, real world violence, role playing game, role playing games, rpg, story world, video game, video games, virtual, virtual economy, virtual world, virtual worlds

Matt started talking up the weird issues developing around multiplayer online games a few weeks ago. Then soon after he blogged it, a story appeared in On the Media (listen, transcript)

Short story: online gaming is huge — one developer claims four million paying customers. More significantly, the interplay between real and virtual worlds might create new challenges for this real world legal system. “Theft” of in-game money and equipment among players in the online world is possible, but it’s lead to the real-world arrest of at least one person and the murder of another when authorities refused to act.

One argument is that these games occupy players time and cost money, so in-game theft results in real-life loss. Baloney. Chess and Monopoly occupy great deals of time, but try telling the cops I rooked your knight. Money? A huge number of Americans invest time and money on building and racing cars on the approximately 1800 racetracks around the country. Real time and and hard-earned money are lost when cars crash, but the track has its own rules “rubin’s racin, Cole” — and none of us would excuse a driver for off-track violence against a competitor.

tags: crime, game, game money, game world, game worlds, law, loss, mmo, mmorpg, multiplayer online games, murder, online games, real world, real world violence, role playing game, story world, theft, video games, video game, virtual, virtual economy, virtual world, virtual worlds, weird issues

Copyfight is pointing to the EFF’s new Legal Guide for Bloggers. Most of the content is about liability, but it also addresses issues of access and privilege that are generally granted to journalists, election law, and labor law. From the introduction:

Whether you’re a newly minted blogger or a relative old-timer, you’ve been seeing more and more stories pop up every day about bloggers getting in trouble for what they post.

Like all journalists and publishers, bloggers sometimes publish information that other people don’t want published. You might, for example, publish something that someone considers defamatory, republish an AP news story that’s under copyright, or write a lengthy piece detailing the alleged crimes of a candidate for public office.

The difference between you and the reporter at your local newspaper is that in many cases, you may not have the benefit of training or resources to help you determine whether what you’re doing is legal. And on top of that, sometimes knowing the law doesn’t help – in many cases it was written for traditional journalists, and the courts haven’t yet decided how it applies to bloggers.

But here’s the important part: None of this should stop you from blogging. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy, and Internet bullies shouldn’t use the law to stifle legitimate free expression. That’s why EFF created this guide, compiling a number of FAQs designed to help you understand your rights and, if necessary, defend your freedom.

To be clear, this guide isn’t a substitute for, nor does it constitute, legal advice. Only an attorney who knows the details of your particular situation can provide the kind of advice you need if you’re being threatened with a lawsuit. The goal here is to give you a basic roadmap to the legal issues you may confront as a blogger, to let you know you have rights, and to encourage you to blog freely with the knowledge that your legitimate speech is protected.

Continue reading the EFF’s Legal Guide For Bloggers…

Technorati Tags: blogger, bloggers, blogging, copyright, court, eff, free expression, free speech, freedom, law, legal, legal guide, liability, stifle