via re-title.com:

Critical Art Ensemble / Institute for Applied Autonomy

Seized

7 June 2008 to 18 July 2008

SEIZED examines the physical artifacts of the 2004 FBI investigation of Buffalo artist Steven Kurtz. The items the FBI seized from his home are represented here in photographs of the negative spaces they left behind: missing computers, books, notes, props from performances, lab equipment and unfinished manuscript. Balancing these empty spaces is the voluminous pile of garbage left behind by federal authorities at the Kurtz residence, providing a rare window into the anatomy of a "bioterror" investigation. Hand drawn maps, "to do" lists, and countless articles of protective clothing are set against a backdrop of several hundred energy drinks and over thirty pizza boxes. To date, none of the seized items have ever been returned.

In addition, documentation and ephemera from the Critical Art Ensemble projects confiscated by the FBI and Department of Justice are on display. Finally, we present Marching Plague -- the project the FBI attempted to stop through seizure of the research and materials needed for its production and presentation.

Hallwalls Contemporary Arts Center
341 Delaware Ave
Buffalo, NY 14202

[...] The resulting exhibition will offer a strange amalgam -- part survey of CAE's recent body of artwork, and part exploration of an attempted bioterrorism investigation.

www.critical-art.net
www.caedefensefund.org
www.appliedautonomy.com

Also (via email):

ARTIST CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES IN PRECEDENT-SETTING CASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 11, 2008

CONTACTS:
Email: media@caedefensefund.org
Dr. Steven J. Kurtz: (716) 812-2968
Lucia Sommer, CAE Defense Fund: (716) 359-3061
Edmund Cardoni, Hallwalls Contemporary Arts Center: (716) 854-1694

ARTIST CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES IN PRECEDENT-SETTING CASE
Department of Justice Fails to Appeal Dismissal
Kurtz Speaks about Four-Year Ordeal

Buffalo, NY--Dr. Steven Kurtz, a Professor of Visual Studies at SUNY at
Buffalo and cofounder of the award-winning art and theater group Critical
Art Ensemble, has been cleared of all charges of mail and wire fraud. On
April 21, Federal Judge Richard J. Arcara dismissed the government's entire
indictment against Dr. Kurtz as "insufficient on its face." This means that
even if the actions alleged in the indictment (which the judge must accept
as "fact") were true, they would not constitute a crime. The US Department
of Justice had thirty days from the date of the ruling to appeal. No action
has been taken in this time period, thus stopping any appeal of the
dismissal. According to Margaret McFarland, a spokeswoman for US Attorney
Terrance P. Flynn, the DoJ will not appeal Arcara's ruling and will not seek
any new charges against Kurtz. [Download CAE-Cleared.rtf - full press release]

more info...

Image via

Posted here are two pieces: the first, an excerpt from today's Op-Ed by NYTimes columnist Paul Krugman, offers a view of the future of technology with (uncharacteristic) optimism; the other is a press release about several major record labels currently suing Spain's own P2P pioneer, Pablo Soto. An interesting juxtaposition. The money quote is about litigation not being a particularly "valid business model".

Bits, Bands and Books
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 6, 2008

Do you remember what it was like back in the old days when we had a New Economy? In the 1990s, jobs were abundant, oil was cheap and information technology was about to change everything.

Then the technology bubble popped. Many highly touted New Economy companies, it turned out, were better at promoting their images than at making money -- although some of them did pioneer new forms of accounting fraud. After that came the oil shock and the food shock, grim reminders that we’re still living in a material world.

So much, then, for the digital revolution? Not so fast. The predictions of '90s technology gurus are coming true more slowly than enthusiasts expected -- but the future they envisioned is still on the march.

In 1994, one of those gurus, Esther Dyson, made a striking prediction: that the ease with which digital content can be copied and disseminated would eventually force businesses to sell the results of creative activity cheaply, or even give it away. Whatever the product -- software, books, music, movies -- the cost of creation would have to be recouped indirectly: businesses would have to "distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships."

For example, she described how some software companies gave their product away but earned fees for installation and servicing. But her most compelling illustration of how you can make money by giving stuff away was that of the Grateful Dead, who encouraged people to tape live performances because "enough of the people who copy and listen to Grateful Dead tapes end up paying for hats, T-shirts and performance tickets. In the new era, the ancillary market is the market."

Indeed, it turns out that the Dead were business pioneers. Rolling Stone recently published an article titled "Rock's New Economy: Making Money When CDs Don't Sell." Downloads are steadily undermining record sales -- but today's rock bands, the magazine reports, are finding other sources of income. Even if record sales are modest, bands can convert airplay and YouTube views into financial success indirectly, making money through "publishing, touring, merchandising and licensing."

What other creative activities will become mainly ways to promote side businesses? How about writing books?

[read on...]

via PRWeb, June 5, 2008:

Major Record Labels Sue Spanish P2P Pioneer Pablo Soto, MP2P Technologies, Suit Seeks $20mm USD

Lawsuit, Believed to be Unprecedented, Claims "Unfair Competition"

Madrid, Spain (PRWEB) June 5, 2008 -- MP2P Technologies (http://www.mp2p.net/) announced today that it has been served with a lawsuit from what remains of the four major record labels. The lawsuit, WARNER MUSIC SPAIN S.A., UNIVERSAL MUSIC SPAIN, S.A., EMI MUSIC SPAIN, S.A., SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, S.A., PRODUCTORES DE MUSICA EN ESPANA (PROMUSICAE) v. PABLO SOTO BRAVO, OPTISOFT, S.L., PIOLET NETWORKS, S.L., MP2P TECHNOLOGIES, S.A. (filed in Madrid Court for Commercial Matters # 2807910001898), seeks $20mm in alleged damages from the technology upstart.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this shake down attempt by the major label cabal," said Pablo Soto, founder and CEO of MP2P Technologies. "Rather than embracing technology, they have chosen a path that will ultimately lead to their own demise, as evidenced by the labels consistent decline over the past decade. Litigation is in itself not a valid business model for them, however, it has been a dogged and futile pursuit of theirs since the advent of P2P."

"PROMUSICAE (Spanish branch of the IFPI; international arm of the RIAA) tried to proceed with civil suits against users of P2P networks in Spain and, after being halted by the Court of Justice of the EU, it has now decided to go against a neutral communication tool such as P2P technology," added Soto.

MP2P Technologies innovates technology offerings including Piolet (http://www.piolet.com/), Omemo, (http://www.omemo.com) and Blubster (http://www.blubster.com).

Pablo Soto is considered one of the pioneers of P2P, together with other distinguished luminaries such as Justin Frankel (Gnutella) and Shawn Fanning (Napster). He is a frequent panelist at national and international forums and serves from time to time as a visiting professor at the University of Valencia and the University of the Basque Country. His progressive accomplishments in technology have garnered worldwide press recognition, including CNN, The New York Times, Reuters, AP, USA Today, C/Net, Rolling Stone, CBS News, San Jose Mercury News, among many others.

About MP2P Technologies
MP2P Technologies' software offerings have been downloaded millions of times by scores of people from around the globe. Founded by renowned technology developer Pablo Soto in 2000, MP2P Technologies today remains a leader in the P2P sector and consumer technology. MP2P Technologies is headquartered in Madrid, Spain. For more information, visit http://www.mp2p.net.

For more info, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Music_Economy

via Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF):

May 21st, 2008      

B-24 Liberated!

Posted by Corynne McSherry      

Last month we told you about Lockheed Martin's effort to use trademark infringement claims to cause the removal of digital images of classic military aircraft from TurboSquid, a stock images site. The central mark at issue was the term "B-24," which Lockheed managed to register as a trademark for use in connection with scale models of airplanes. We sent an open letter to Lockheed’s licensing agency, demanding that they withdraw their improper objections. We're pleased to report that Lockheed has decided to withdraw its claim, and TurboSquid is putting the images back up forthwith.

This is a good outcome, but the problem remains. Because online communication and commerce often depends on intermediaries like TurboSquid, who may not have the resources or the inclination to investigate trademark infringement claims, it is much too easy for trademark owners like Lockheed to ignore fair use and shut down legitimate content. And not every target of improper claims is going to have the resources to push back.

One way to help prevent future overreaching claims is for trademark owners to learn that a trademark registration doesn’t give you a right to control everyday use of regular descriptive terms. Another is for large trademark owners to set up websites or email "hotlines" where the targets of trademark claims can seek review and prompt withdrawal of the claim if the takedown request was in error. Such a hotline won't stop real abuse, but will provide a relatively painless way for trademark owners to correct honest mistakes. Finally, service providers should institute a form of counter-notice procedure that would allow those who believe they have been accused unfairly to quickly determine the basis for a takedown, and request reconsideration. Real infringers won't bother to take advantage of such a procedure, but fair users could use it to show that their use is permissible (and therefore does not put the service provider at risk).

Related Issues: Free Speech, Intellectual Property

via BoingBoing:

WWII Bomber: "Trademark Infringement"

Posted by Mark Frauenfelder, March 21, 2008  9:32 AM

John Macneill is a kickass 3D illustrator whose work frequently appears Popular Science and other national magazines. He also contributes to the Turbo Squid 3D model site. Recently In 2002 he uploaded his model of a WWII B-24 Bomber to Turbo Squid. Lockeed Martin came across it and yesterday it wrongfully (illegally?) used the DMCA to force Turbo Squid to remove the file.

A photographer can take a photo of any type of car and sell the photo; look at any car magazine. A painter can create a painting of anything and sell that, remember Andy Warhol's famous 1968 painting of a can of Campbell's tomato soup? But a CG artist cannot create a sculpture of a Ford Mustang and sell that, at least not on Turbo Squid. There is obviously a double standard here. So where does this leave CG artists? Until a stock company becomes willing to fight back against these takedowns, there seems little any individual artist can do.

UPDATE: Cory [Doctorow]has the following to add:

Turbo Squid, a large 3D stock image site, has been systematically removing models of contemporary and vintage vehicles, after their manufacturers sent in improper DMCA takedown notices alleging that publishing 3D models of old cars and airplanes infringed on their trademarks (this isn't true, but even if it was, the DMCA deals with copyright, not trademark). Yesterday, 3D artist John MacNeill had his model of a WWII bomber removed after Lockheed sent a letter to Turbo Squid, alleging that this 60-year-old plane infringed on its trademark.

A Turbo Squid spokesperson is quoted as saying, "The thing you need to keep in mind is that you cannot make money off someone else's registered Trademark." This is simply untrue. Trademark does not protect owners from others profiting on their marks -- trademark's purpose is to prevent vendors from misleading the public about the origin of goods and services. If you use someone else's trademark ("Charger works with Nokia phones!") you're totally in the clear, provided that the purchaser doesn't get confused about whose product he's buying.

Trademark law is clear: Turbo Squid can sell unauthorized models of cars, planes and other trademarked objects, provided that they make it very clear that these models weren't authorized, made or marketed by the manufacturers of the cars, planes and objects. [read on...]

A visitor to Van Gogh's bedroom in Second Life. Versions of the original painting are in the Art Institute of Chicago, the Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam, and the Musée d'Orsay, Paris

via The Art Newspaper, May 22, 2008:

Copyright, conflicts of interest, and how to deal with Uncle Sam

US museum lawyers met last month to discuss the most pressing issues they are currently facing

Martha Lufkin | 22.5.08 | Issue 191

Over 200 museum employees, lawyers and interested parties convened in Scottsdale, Arizona, for the 36th annual conference on Legal Issues in Museum Administration in April.

The course, which brings legal know-how to museums without lawyers on staff, is offered by the American Law Institute-American Bar Association, and is co-sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution with the cooperation of the American Association of Museums (AAM).

In an address on the state of museums, AAM president Ford W. Bell told the group that museums are facing challenges including tight government budgets, a perception that charities serve the rich and negative press about perceived abuses at certain museums. The conference discussed new ways of dealing with intellectual property in the digital age, museum policies on corporate governance and conflicts of interest under increasingly probing government scrutiny.

The Second Life syndrome

Sharon Farb, associate university librarian at UCLA Library in Los Angeles, said that as museums put more images and content online, more users will ask to use it; she advises that museums not require licences for everything. Instead, they should make clear on their websites which content can be reproduced without permission, and should post all licence forms for those objects which require them. Virginia Rutledge, Vice President and General Counsel of the non-profit Creative Commons, San Francisco (CC), described the CC licence which piggybacks on existing copyright law to let copyright holders "signal when it is just fine" for a user to copy, or even alter, a work. The New Museum in New York, for example, uses CC licences to permit copying. The CC website posts six different licence forms to choose from, and tells you how to mark your content so users will know what copyright rules apply (http://creativecommons.org).

As web users find new applications for museum images, including those possibly obtained without permission, how should museums respond? Phoenix lawyer Connie J. Mabelson described websites which regularly violate copyright laws, although the usual copyright enforcement steps still apply. At Second Life or similar sites, virtual art--the hard copies of which may be owned by real museums--is being bought and sold by paying participants for virtual money, which can be exchanged for real dollars.

Visitors create an avatar which can enter a virtual, 3-D rendition of a famous bedroom scene painted by Van Gogh or buy furniture inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright's designs. If the original work is protected by copyright, Ms Mabelson asks, should a museum take steps to enforce it, or do the virtual reworkings fall within a "fair use" exception to copyright infringement? (Perhaps the issue will be debated at Second Life's virtual bar association, which does exist.) Ms Mabelson advises that a museum's fair use policy should address what the museum should do if a museum image appears on a wiki, an online site where any user can add content.

The museum comes first

Recent scandals over alleged misconduct by top US museum officials have caused museums to review their conflicts of interest policies regulating board members and employees. Conflicts arise when a trustee's duty of loyalty to the museum is compromised, says Lori Fox, acting vice president, general counsel and secretary at the J. Paul Getty Trust; she advises that museums have a well-written conflicts of interest policy that defines the trustees' duties, prohibits potential conflicts, and provides a way to resolve them.

For example, conflicts can arise if a trustee collects art that the museum might collect; trustees should be forbidden to buy deaccessioned art, or to use inside information for their own benefit, such as to buy an artist's work before the museum announces its purchase of art by the same artist, which could drive up prices. Museums should also require annual disclosure forms from trustees and some employees to identify possible conflicts, including asking about the trustee's art acquisitions and whether the trustee has received gifts from museum staff or anyone the museum does business with. For example, trustees may seek favours from museum staff, such as asking a conservator to restore a privately owned manuscript, which would take the conservator away from his duties. While this may be a way to cultivate donors, the Smithsonian Institution prohibits using staff time and services for private uses.

When a conflict with a board member arises, the trustee's interest in a possible transaction should be disclosed and the trustee must be excluded from the decision, which the board's audit committee or even the state attorney general can be asked to review. The board must still ask whether the proposed transaction is in the museum's best interests, which it might be, says Frederic Goldstein, general counsel to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Each situation should be reviewed on its facts: while an exhibition of a trustee's collection of local maps by a small museum may increase the collection's value, the benefits to the museum and its community may be so great that the display is still in the institution's best interests.

Government scrutiny

Congress is seeking to stop perceived abuses in the non-profit world, and is using the tax law to do so. The new revision to the annual tax return for non-profit organisations, Form 990, seeks significantly more information about how museums are run. Organisations will first file the return for tax years beginning this year. The form "shows the government's increased role in governance and conflicts of interest", says Marsha Shaines, deputy general counsel to the Smithsonian Institution. The information that charities provide on the forms will be publicly available. The museum must summarise its missions and activities, changes in its programmes and its achievements of its exempt purpose.

New questions about governance and management mean that the museum should have policies in place before the form is filed, Ms Shaines advises. For example, the form asks whether the board and committees contemporaneously documented their meetings during the year, whether the organisation has a written conflicts of interest policy, and whether officers, trustees and key employees are required to disclose annually any interests that could give rise to a conflict. The form asks whether the charity enforces its conflicts policy, and whether it has whistleblower protection and document retention and destruction policies. Museums must further disclose whether they determined director compensation using an independent review and comparability data, and contemporaneously substantiated their decision-making process. The form also requests the dollar details on first class travel, travel for companions, and housing allowances for directors and trustees.

While it is not clear whether the Internal Revenue Service will be able to process all this information, the public and press will now be able to review it.

Don't get political

US charities are prohibited from participating in political campaigns, and cannot attempt to influence legislation. The rules are complex, and stiff penalties can apply. For example, museums cannot tell people to urge their congressmen to vote in favour of art funding.

A conference participant asked anonymously if a museum can host an exhibition on the anti-war movement within the Democratic Party? Under the law, a "facts and circumstances" test applies. The test is used to determine whether a non-profit is participating in a political campaign, and one factor could be how close in time the activity is to the campaign. The anti-war exhibition could raise an issue if it includes present-day events and differentiates between political parties. Both political parties should be covered, or the subject should be restricted to the past, says Marcus Owens, a lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale in Washington, DC. "If you think a political statement is going to pop out of a visiting artist's mouth at a lecture, you might want to start the programme with a disclaimer."

The 2008 course book "Legal Issues in Museum Administration," containing licence forms, conflicts of interest policies, employee standards of conduct and other materials, can be obtained from ALI-ABA at www.ali-aba.org or tel: +1 800 253-6397

[image Via]

Larry Lessig does not support the Orphan Works bill:

via NYTimes:

Op-Ed Contributor

Little Orphan Artworks

By LAWRENCE LESSIG

Published: May 20, 2008

function getSharePasskey() { return 'ex=1369022400&en=af6d685002b2942f&ei=5124';} function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20lessig.html'); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent('Little Orphan Artworks'); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent('The problem of “orphan works,” those works whose owners cannot be found, is real, but the solution before Congress is both unfair and unwise.'); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent('Copyrights,Law and Legislation,Regulation and Deregulation of Industry,Art,Congressional Research Service'); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent('opinion'); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent('Op-Ed Contributor'); } function getShareSubSection() { return encodeURIComponent(''); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent('By LAWRENCE LESSIG'); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent('May 20, 2008'); }

CONGRESS is considering a major reform of copyright law intended to solve the problem of "orphan works" - those works whose owner cannot be found. This "reform" would be an amazingly onerous and inefficient change, which would unfairly and unnecessarily burden copyright holders with little return to the public.

The problem of orphan works is real. It was caused by a fundamental shift in the architecture of copyright law. Before 1978, copyright was an opt-in system, granting protection only to those who registered and renewed their copyright, and only if they marked their creative work with the famous ©. But three decades ago, Congress created an opt-out system. Copyright protection is now automatic, and it extends for almost a century, whether the author wants or needs it or even knows that his work is regulated by federal law.

The old system filtered copyright protection to those works that needed it; the new system regulates indiscriminately.The Congressional Research Service has estimated that just 2 percent of copyrighted works that are 55 to 75 years old retain any commercial value. Yet the system maintains no registry of copyright owners nor of entities from which permission to use a copyrighted work can be sought. The consequence has been that an extraordinary chunk of culture gets mired in unnecessary copyright regulation.

The solution before Congress, however, is both unfair and unwise. The bill would excuse copyright infringers from significant damages if they can prove that they made a "diligent effort" to find the copyright owner. A "diligent effort" is defined as one that is "reasonable and appropriate," as determined by a set of "best practices" maintained by the government.

But precisely what must be done by either the “infringer” or the copyright owner seeking to avoid infringement is not specified upfront. The bill instead would have us rely on a class of copyright experts who would advise or be employed by libraries. These experts would encourage copyright infringement by assuring that the costs of infringement are not too great. The bill makes no distinction between old and new works, or between foreign and domestic works. All work, whether old or new, whether created in America or Ukraine, is governed by the same slippery standard.

The proposed change is unfair because since 1978, the law has told creators that there was nothing they needed to do to protect their copyright. Many have relied on that promise. Likewise, the change is unfair to foreign copyright holders, who have little notice of arcane changes in Copyright Office procedures, and who will now find their copyrights vulnerable to willful infringement by Americans.

The change is also unwise, because for all this unfairness, it simply wouldn't do much good. The uncertain standard of the bill doesn’t offer any efficient opportunity for libraries or archives to make older works available, because the cost of a "diligent effort" is not going to be cheap. The only beneficiaries would be the new class of "diligent effort" searchers who would be a drain on library budgets.

Congress could easily address the problem of orphan works in a manner that is efficient and not unfair to current or foreign copyright owners. Following the model of patent law, Congress should require a copyright owner to register a work after an initial and generous term of automatic and full protection.

For 14 years, a copyright owner would need to do nothing to receive the full protection of copyright law. But after 14 years, to receive full protection, the owner would have to take the minimal step of registering the work with an approved, privately managed and competitive registry, and of paying the copyright office $1.

This rule would not apply to foreign works, because it is unfair and illegal to burden foreign rights-holders with these formalities. It would not apply, immediately at least, to work created between 1978 and today. And it would apply to photographs or other difficult-to-register works only when the technology exists to develop reliable and simple registration databases that would make searching for the copyright owners of visual works an easy task.

A hired expert shouldn't be required for an orchestra to know if it can perform a work composed during World War II or for a small museum to know whether it can put a photograph from the New Deal on its Web site. In a digital age, knowing the law should be simple and cheap. Congress should be pushing for rules that encourage clarity, not more work for copyright experts.

Meanwhile, over at the Art Law Blog, Donn Zaretsky dispels some lingering misconceptions about the new bill (thanks Ed!):

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Orphan Works Update    

A House panel unanimously approved the orphan works bill yesterday.  Daryl Lang of Photo District News looks at the split among photo associations that the legislation has "exposed" (pun intended, I assume).

Lang also addresses some of the misinformation about the bill that's been floating around:

"One point of disagreement concerns whether the bill would require artists to register their work with commercial databases to get copyright protection .... Holland has used this point to argue against the bill in several articles. The APA used similar language in a five-page position paper published Tuesday: 'All works, professional or personal, published or unpublished, will have to be registered with as-yet-to-be-created private, commercial registries.' No such requirement appears in either bill currently before Congress, and Perlman and PACA attorney Nancy Wolff say the statement is untrue. Both versions of the amendment mandate the creation of private databases of copyrighted works to facilitate the search for rights owners, but registration would not be mandatory for all creative works."              

posted by Donn Zaretsky at 9:26 PM

KRIEGSPIEL
Guy Debord's 1978 "Game of War"
Produced for computer by RSG
Screen shot courtesy of m.river, flickr.com

via post.thing.net and interactivist info exchange, 04/23/2008:
{additional links courtesy of newsgrist}

Guy Debord's Widow Threatens NYU Professor with Copyright Violation Professor Is Accused of Infringing the Copyright of a Man Who Opposed Copyright

By ANDREA L. FOSTER, http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i33/33a01603.htm

Guy Debord, a Marxist philosopher who died in 1994, was no fan of private property. But apparently his widow is one.

A lawyer representing the widow, Alice Becker-Ho, has threatened Alexander R. Galloway, an associate professor of culture and communication at New York University, with legal action. Mr. Galloway says the lawyer has sent him a letter demanding that he stop distributing his online war game, which the lawyer says infringes a copyright held by the Debord estate. The French philosopher had created a similar board game 30 years ago.

But copyrights and some forms of intellectual property were anathema to Debord, says Mr. Galloway. The Situationist International movement, which Debord founded, in 1957, is a mix of anarchism and Marxism. Its followers scrawled "Abolish copyright" on walls during the May 1968 student uprisings in Paris.

The humor in defending the property rights of Debord, a Marxist, has not been lost on scholars, who have publicized the case on their blogs.

Mr. Galloway does not deny that the two-person computer game he developed is based on Debord's creation, the Game of War. The philosopher, an avid student of war strategy, released a few handcrafted copies of the board game in 1978. The object of the game, which resembles chess, is to corner and destroy opposing pieces. Debord and his wife wrote a book about it that was translated into English last year.

<Image via, tirée du film In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni, Guy Debord, 1978.

One of Debord's games, cast in silver and copper, is on display at Columbia University's Buell Center for the Study of Architecture, alongside Mr. Galloway's computer version, called Kriegspiel. The object of Kriegspiel, German for a generic 18th-century war game, is the same as in Debord's game.

A computer programmer, Mr. Galloway says he spent about a year designing the digital game, which can be downloaded from the Web at no charge. "It's part of my scholarly research into how antagonism is simulated in war games and computer games," he said. "It's also part of my research into the work of Debord."

Despite the similarities between his creation and Debord's, Mr. Galloway disagrees that he is breaking the law. "I don't think I'm infringing on anyone's copyright in the creation of this game," he says, declining to discuss his legal situation further.

John Beckman, a spokesman for New York University, says only that it received a similar cease-and-desist letter and has responded.

Wendy M. Seltzer, a fellow at Harvard University's Berkman Center for
Internet & Society, is familiar with Mr. Galloway's case. The Debord estate, she says, is overreaching in accusing him of copyright infringement.

The idea for a game is not copyrightable, she argues; only the image of a game is. Mr. Galloway's game uses the idea of Debord's game, she says, but does not duplicate its artistry and detail. {note: this perfectly illustrates the Idea-Expression Dichotomy }

Ms. Seltzer, a visiting assistant professor at Northeastern University School of Law, sees similarities between Mr. Galloway's case and one involving the Facebook-based word game Scrabulous. In that case, the owners of the board game Scrabble have accused the developers of Scrabulous of infringing their copyright. Ms. Seltzer says that claim, too, is without merit.