Madeleine Worndl, Lilian Esene, Jennifer Manley, Ibrahim Arif & Natalie Bravo are competitors on Osgoode's 2023 Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot Team and JD Candidates at Osgoode Hall Law School.

This past weekend, students from Osgoode Hall Law School participated in the Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot. The students had an amazing experience participating in the moot and brought home some incredible awards.

The Respondent Team, consisting of Lilian Esene (’23) and Madeleine Worndl (’23) received the Gordon F. Henderson Award for Best Respondent Factum. Lilian and Madeleine also placed first among respondent teams from the preliminary oral rounds and advanced to the semi-final of the top four teams in an exciting round before sitting and former justices of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.

The Appellant Team, consisting of Jennifer Manley (’24) and Ibrahim Arif (’24), received the Award for the Runner-Up Appellant Factum. Jennifer and Ibrahim also placed third among appellant teams in the preliminary rounds.

The students explored an interesting and complex moot problem about infringement of a patent protecting a novel method of using W-band frequencies for telecommunications. The appeal raised issues about (i) whether the specific claim in the patent protecting the invention at issue was invalid due to overbreadth, and (ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief if the patent was held to be valid. The issuance of injunctive relief following a finding of infringement pursuant to s. 57 of the Patent Act is the usual remedy that upholds the bargain theory of patent law. However, since the plaintiff in this matter had not yet practiced its invention and had a history of procuring patents for their licensing program, the plaintiff’s conduct in this case raised concerns about whether injunctive relief should be denied on equitable grounds because the plaintiff may be characterized as a “patent troll.”

This was an incredible opportunity for the students to explore not only the technical aspects of patent law regarding the scope of claims, but also the equitable concerns related to the issuance of an appropriate remedy.

The students started to prepare for the moot in the fall by researching case law and secondary sources to formulate their arguments. Following this, the students began to draft and refine their facta. The students then practiced oral arguments on a weekly basis for a month before the competition.

The moot was held at the Federal Court in downtown Toronto and was the first return to in-person mooting since 2020.

The students would like to thank their coaches, Chandimal Nicholas and Kassandra Shortt for their guidance and unwavering support, as well as the team’s researcher, Natalie Bravo, for her support throughout the competition.

The post Osgoode mooters recognized for their oral and written advocacy at the Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Source: Screenshot of the Zoom Panel

Natalie Bravo is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

On November 24, 2021, the Osgoode Emerging Technology Association (OETA) hosted an interactive panel discussion with Professors and , led by OETA president and co-founder Murad Wancho.

from the Osgoode Fintech & Blockchain Association, OETA was founded in Spring 2020 and has quickly grown in popularity. As an OETA executive, I am honoured to share details of this informative event delivered by my dedicated colleagues.

Despite the fast-approaching exam season, the virtual event had an excellent turn-out of students and legal community members. The panel garnered traction preceding the event, with participants eagerly sending in questions on topics ranging from concerns to the future of (“NFTs”). Wancho began by thanking participants and snapping a lovely photo of everyone in the call (as seen above). Everyone rushed to turn on their cameras in time. I regrettably was too slow (or maybe Wancho was too fast!) This spontaneous moment of collaboration and engagement served as a fun icebreaker before introducing the esteemed guests.

Professor is an internationally renowned legal theorist and an Osgoode faculty member since 1982. His research interests include politics, constitutional law, and torts, and he teaches a wide range of courses. Hutchinson also authored an on the intersection between cryptocurrencies and the law, .

Professor has been at Osgoode since 2020. He is a research affiliate at for Internet and Society and a Research Fellow at the based at the University of Toronto. His research lies at the intersection of law, technology, and human rights. Penney recently designed and is currently instructing “” at Osgoode.

Cryptocurrency was the main topic of interest, along with the ever-prevailing questions surrounding its future. This form of decentralized digital currency has been around for but is growing in mainstream popularity. With a show of hands, over half of the participants expressed owning or wanting to own some cryptocurrency.

Hutchinson shared details on his upcoming book and his thoughts on regulation. While no one can accurately predict the future of cryptocurrency, Hutchinson discussed the merit in theorizing unique regulatory approaches to the decentralized system(s). and self-regulation were of notable interest. Many participants asked whether further external regulations would detrimentally affect the appeal and use of cryptocurrencies. The implications of overarching regulatory actions, such as securities or tax, are looming realities of NFTs and cryptocurrency, as we are now witnessing in multiple regions, Penney shared the sentiment of cryptocurrency as a speculative asset that likely cannot succeed without further mainstream support and usage. He also explored the environmental impacts of cryptocurrency , as crypto- utilizes large amounts of energy. Remarking on China’s recent , Penney expressed that some major cryptocurrency players have simply migrated their mining practices elsewhere.

The conversation shifted to career guidance within the legal technology field. This discussion was particularly interesting for 1L students developing their legal paths. Both professors offered pertinent advice on professional development, emphasizing networking. Penney highlighted the importance of reaching out to tech companies for any legal work available. Companies are increasingly incorporating emerging technologies within their operations, such as and algorithms, which may require legal expertise to ensure legal compliance. As innovative technologies emerge, so will the demand for technology lawyers.

Following the event, Professor Penney added, “In the coming years, emerging technologies like cryptocurrency and NFTs will pose a range of complex challenges for law, policy, and broader society. This was an excellent panel discussion, and OETA is showing great leadership in bringing students and faculty together to discuss and debate.”

While no one can ever fully predict the future of cryptocurrency and NFTs, both Penney and Hutchinson provided insightful perspectives. They both have extensive work related to technology that can help us theorize when looking forward. The panel elicited strong engagement and interactive feedback from participants. It was refreshing to learn more about technology law outside of the classroom setting and see different perspectives and interests within the field. I encourage everyone to explore the work of both professors and follow the OETA’s socials below for more information about our next event!

OETA Socials:

LinkedIn:

Twitter:
Facebook:
Instagram:

The post Osgoode Emerging Technology Association Panel with Professors Allan Hutchinson and Jon Penney appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Eric Krull ()

Natalie Bravo is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

is an online free-to-play gaming platform where users can develop games and play online together. Its increasing popularity among teenagers and children, especially during the pandemic, has sparked multiple . Music has become a large component of Roblox, with artists like Lil Nas X hosting . Roblox even lets users upload songs for game-building, a feature that resulted in a copyright lawsuit.

Back in June 2021, The National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) Roblox for allowing users to upload copyrighted music without paying a licensing fee. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of various music publishers, including major players like Kobalt Music Publishing America and Universal Music Corporation. The in copyright damages, among other court orders to enhance control over in-game piracy on Roblox.

The Association “Roblox actively preys on its impressionable user base and their desire for popular music, teaching children that pirating music is perfectly acceptable.” Roblox actively encourages music uploads, charges users, and even sells virtual items to allow for in-game listening. The lawsuit further alleged that Roblox has established control and a moderation team to address content that is against policy but does not monitor music licensing in uploads.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Roblox signed music partnerships with both and to license many popular songs. Along with these deals, Roblox expressed a commitment to monitoring DMCA complaints. On September 27, Roblox announced that they have their lawsuit with the NMPA, and further that the settlement “sets the foundation for future partnerships with global publishers that will unlock new creative and commercial opportunities on its platform.” The agreement encompasses an expansive licensing agreement between Roblox and the music publishing industry that allows individual publishers to opt-in or enter into individual negotiations.

The settlement is great news for the gaming company and its outlook after on the New 91��ɫ Stock Exchange earlier this year. While the deal does not explicitly cover licensing for all songs, it shows that Roblox has a lot more in store on the music front. Hopefully, this means more virtual concerts!

The post Playing with Piracy: Roblox Settles $200M Music Copyright Lawsuit appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Martin Katler ()

Natalie Bravo is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

, a Canadian accessories company notorious for its tongue-in-cheek marketing, taunted Sony earlier this year after launching an unofficial Sony PlayStation 5 (“PS5”) product. Unsurprisingly, Sony sent DBrand , which the Canadian company published and used to generate marketing for a newer, allegedly “not illegal,” albeit similar, product.

In February of this year, DBrand released unlicensed PS5 Darkplates, which are essentially a different shell/casing for the console. The PS5, if you are lucky enough to find one, can only be found in white. Until Sony releases official options, consumers who want a different colour must resort to purchasing skins, painting their consoles, or buying a different casing altogether. In the past, other companies have tried to sell custom plates for the PS5. PlateStation5.com, for example, after Sony threatened legal action over a trademark dispute. DBrand is apparently aware of Sony’s efforts to suppress these custom products, as they marketed their Darkplates with the tagline ��

The DBrand Darkplates were available in multiple colours and allowed for They also featured a textured pattern that is reminiscent of Sony PlayStation logos: the circle, square, triangle, and X. DBrand itself stated the pattern was “a familiar-but-legally-distinct apocalyptic spin on the classic PlayStation button shapes.”

Photo by

Until Sony caught on, the Darkplates quickly sold out and were placed on back-order. The cease-and-desist letter can be found . The 7-page document expresses that DBrand is infringing Sony’s copyrights in numerous ways, notably by selling plates that replicate Sony’s protected design, featuring the Sony PlayStation family mark logo and shape symbols, and using the PlayStation name to promote their product.

Sony further stipulates that, under both Canadian and US Copyright law, they reserve the right to protect their goodwill and associated intellectual property. The letter refers to the tagline “Go ahead, sue us,” and requests a resolution from DBrand. In response, DBrand pulled the products in issue, published a rather , and later re-released a new similar product: , touted to circumvent any legal issues. The 2.0 model is a different shape, devoid of all Sony logos, and features brand new vents for increased air circulation. The marketing is riddled with references to legality and the conflict with Sony. Even on the header, a scrolling text reads “FUND OUR LEGAL DEFENSE – FREE SHIPPING TO THE USA…” The new model’s tagline? “Checkmate, lawyers.”

Checkmate or not, DBrand’s transparency on the matter and relentless taunts are a curious marketing twist. Whether DBrand has closed the loop on their legal trouble with the brand-new design remains to be seen. Personally, I love the slimming effect of the design. I hope that Sony launches an official option soon.

The post “Go Ahead, Sue Us”: Sony sends Cease-and-Desist after Taunts appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Screenshot from

Natalie Bravo is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

Anita Baker is a legendary soul and R&B singer-songwriter who rose to fame in the 1980s. The iconic singer has won and various notable awards for her popular and timeless ballads. Earlier this year during Grammy season, Baker requested that fans not . Through Twitter, she expressed that she had outlived all her recording contracts and that her master recordings should legally belong to her. On September 3, Baker in her masters fight and gave fans the go-ahead to listen to her music once more.

Baker’s tweets and subsequent support from fans come as no surprise. In recent years, popular artists have spoken out about compensation from and Ownership of masters within the music industry has become a contentious and popular matter, particularly after Taylor Swift’s legal battle resulted in This case is a bit different as it likely relies on a lesser-known section of U.S. copyright law. When Baker described outliving her contracts, she was referring to her , which lets her reclaim her copyright after 35 years. states that authors or their survivors are entitled to “terminate grants of copyright assignments and licenses that were made on or after January 1, 1978 when certain conditions have been met.” It is not clear what the conditions were in this case besides length of time, however Baker advocated for ownership effectively and succeeded.��

Baker was not only upset that she did not own her masters, but also that the current recordings available were of inferior quality. Baker that the songs currently available lacked the original instrumentation, the recordings were sped up, and the vinyl sold today are not from analog masters, but rather re-processed digital copies. She believes her fans deserve better. Fans encouraged her in a dedicated fashion, with some stating that they just so they could enjoy her music without having to stream it.

Between March and September, Baker frequently provided legal updates through short tweets. Notably, she shared that with Warner Music Group (formerly WEA Records) began in May 2021 and that she was making progress. Finally, on September 3, she published a photo of her catalog and announced that all . Her advocacy on Twitter garnered tremendous support from her fellow musicians. Fun fact: Taylor Swift and tweeted following Baker’s success.

In the words of Anita Baker, “.”

The post Legendary: Anita Baker Reclaims Masters appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Source: Screenshot of Night of the Living Dead (1968) opening credit / Public Domain

Natalie Bravo is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

Halloween season is just around the corner and who doesn’t love a good zombie movie? While many might rather shy away from frightening films, dedicated modern-day zombie enthusiasts live among us. The multi-billion-dollar zombie craze in horror today was popularized by George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, an independent film released in 1968. The film curiously entered the public domain due to a slight error, allowing widespread accessibility and reproduction. The film made over , with the creators seeing little to no share of the profits. The release, paired with the copyright error, changed the horror movie genre and the independent film industry forever.

At the time of the film’s theatrical release, the US required notice to maintain enforceable federal copyright protection. The original distributor, The Walter Reade Organization (WRO) from Night of the Flesh Eaters to avoid confusion with the 1964 film . In doing so, WRO accidentally failed to add the copyright indicator (©) onto the prints. The symbol was not in the opening credits of the movie, the image above - that’s it. Imagine that! Without the symbol and the year of publication, the law specified that you lost copyright and the work enters the public domain forever. While a first print with the original name included the symbol, it was lost in a . Romero later attempted to sue the original distributor who made the error, but the organization declared bankruptcy in the 70s and dissolved. Today, copyright notices are no longer required thanks to the (US); sadly for Romero though, the act does not extend protections to his 1968 film.

Due to the oversight, anyone could copy and distribute the film for free. Hundreds of copies of the film were manufactured in different formats, ranging from VHS, Betamax, LaserDisc, DVD, and Blu-ray throughout the years. (A lifelong Living Dead fanatic and collector, Geoff Turner, has created a project called , in an effort to catalogue all of the releases of the film. Over a hundred fans donated almost $20,000 in a campaign to assist Turner. He even has checklists available for download on his webpage for those with the spirit and the storage!)

Before Night of the Living Dead, zombies were – they were typically only seen in Caribbean folklore, and not portrayed in the way they are today. Romero’s film created a , a re-imagined, brain-eating, re-animated corpse who could be quite literally anyone unlucky enough to be bitten. Romero’s specific traits and rules associated with his zombie characters that have lived on through the years. The film’s entry into the public domain allowed it to be licensed free of charge to any distributor. It also allowed non-affiliated remakes and sequels to follow. Romero could not own the copyright in his specific zombie caricatures due to the mistake, and therefore could not stop anyone from including the same interpretation in their own films. The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Zombieland, and many more could not exist in the same way today – or would have had to be licensed by Romero, had the distributor correctly added copyright notice. and would have been completely free to do so, without having to pay Romero anything.

While Romero and his team expressed regret at the error, they subsequently agreed that the mistake allowed them to garner popularity and recognition. In a , Romero stated “But that film really gave us our careers. I have no complaints.” The filmmaker passed away in 2017, but not before creating official zombie sequels and . Suffice to say, public domain means the zombie genre refuses to die. If interested, check out Night of the Living Dead for on most streaming platforms, or the .

The post Public Domain of The Living Dead appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Jimmy Jin ()

Natalie Bravo is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

In August, Apple made headlines by . These new features are purported to expand protections for children through modified communication tools, on-device algorithm learning within , , and , and Search . Although protecting children as a vulnerable group should be of utmost importance to all, many security experts find some of these proposed changes troubling as they may undermine the company’s longstanding reputation in privacy preservation and enable future security .

Over the years, Apple has cultivated a strong reputation as a One of their core values and s is that After all, their security and privacy designs are so powerful that Apple allegedly can’t access encrypted user data—. In 2015, Apple CEO Tim Cook that while issues such as national security are important, Apple would not implement any technology which malicious actors could misuse as a backdoor to encrypted user data. Now, in 2021, Apple’s ironclad encrypted system has one exception.

As one of the changes, Apple intends to introduce photo-scanning technology for all users to identify any Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). This well-intentioned technology is already widely used online to identify known explicit materials, including terrorist propaganda and other violent content. Some consumers worry that all their private images will be scanned in search of illegal content; however, Apple is not proposing that. The technology scans for the “” of a file and matches it to a known hash. If a certain threshold of known CSAM is found, barring false positives, then law enforcement is contacted. Strangely enough, Apple has noted that users can opt to disable photo uploads to iCloud, expressing that CSAM is only identified within their servers, and not on users’ devices. Some experts interpret this as

Some security experts expressed strong s over modified communication tools for children. Apple alleges that device software will detect any explicit content (not hashes) within a minor’s Messages conversations—a feature that can be turned on or off by a guardian. This will alert a parent if their minor has received any image that is flagged as explicit. This seems appropriate to allow some supervision to protect vulnerable children from online predators; however, the algorithms currently used to detect explicit images are . It is widely known that benevolent, non-sexual content, particularly , is consistently To add to this, child advocates worry about the possibility of minors in abusive households being monitored by such a faulty and algorithm.

Though is not a new concept, these changes will suddenly affect billions of consumers. It’s been reported that when a child, like any other user, experiences negative behaviour online, they . However, there is currently no way to report messages within Apple’s Messages application. . After causing a tremendous stir in both the privacy and child advocacy communities, Apple that Messages scanning would only apply to those under 13, not teenagers, and have attempted to offer limited clarity on the new technologies.

Despite the changes, . Children need to be protected and prioritized in terms of technology experience, but their privacy matters too. It will be interesting to see the roll-out of Apple’s polarizing changes, particularly how they will affect Apple’s reputation and ecosystem security and if Apple will introduce any more changes moving forward as it responds to community concerns.

The post Privacy Plight: Apple’s Proposed Changes & Consumer Pushback appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by ()

Natalie Bravo is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

Brief History of Insulin

In 1921, Dr. Frederick Banting, Charles Best, and James Collip successfully isolated the hormone , discovering a new life-saving treatment for managing diabetes in humans. By 1923, insulin was widely-produced and available to the general public.

Dr. Banting and research facilitator Dr. Macleod, refused to put their names on the patent for the drug, with Banting stating Thus, the first patent application for an insulin patent was filed under Best and Collip’s names. However, as all the co-inventors believed that the medicine should be widely available and not restricted by costs, they sold their intellectual property rights to the University of Toronto for Today, contrary to the co-inventors’ intentions, insulin is highly unaffordable for individuals around the world who rely on the lifesaving treatment, including in the United States.

Insulin Price Rise

Over 30 million people in the U.S. live with diabetes and around a third of them require insulin to survive. From 1960 – 2019, the price of a vial increased from , over forty times the rate of U.S. inflation. Soaring prices have left many with few options besides rationing or skipping doses altogether, a practice that has harmful and To put it in perspective, a carton of insulin costs . Many researchers and doctors attribute these price hikes to lax regulatory measures on drug-pricing in the U.S. How do patents play into this? Only a handful of companies control the market and those companies are increasingly modifying their insulin products, improving them, and typically protecting them with additional patents. It’s a practice that some call the “cost of innovation”. However s for the consumer. Most patients are prescribed the newer, modified formulations, instead of the older ones. Unfortunately, no true affordable generic is currently available. Enter : a group of individuals who hope to make insulin more accessible for everyone. ��

Insulin Bio-hackers

is essentially a do-it-yourself (DIY) approach to biology. works to create insulin that is , easily replicable, and most importantly, affordable. The group is comprised of volunteer scientists and community advocates. The . Di Franco himself lives with Type-1 diabetes and was motivated to create the project after witnessing the rising prices of insulin in the U.S.

The project is not limited to the U.S. and, if successful, seeks to provide insulin to other parts of the world where patients similarly struggle to access insulin. To date, the project has made some strides in their discoveries. They announced their first major milestone at the end of 2018, . Open Insulin estimates that they may be able to develop a version of insulin that - a stark difference in price from what is currently available. While optimistic, the project faces various regulatory obstacles. The group will not be able to produce market insulin without the approval. They may, however, publish their findings to help support other biohackers around the globe.

Even if they are unable to release generic insulin to market, their innovative research and goals are making waves, increasing awareness, and inspiring others to push for solutions to the insulin cost problem. Check them out at !

The post Insulin Biohackers: Shaking Up a Billion-Dollar Industry appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Natalie Bravo is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

Do you ever get weird emails that are poorly-veiled attempts? Strange requests for payments? These phishing attempts are occurring more frequently, but they are just the tip of the ransomware iceberg. Cybersecurity breaches are a serious concern and the ever-evolving technological landscape is an endless playing field for dedicated malicious actors. Widespread breaches exemplify the need to updated software and security policies across all sectors which use online services. With the pandemic and many working from home, these attacks are on the rise. The Canadian Centre for Cybersecurity reported that ransomware is an and

Many Canadians have not heard of , a malicious software (“”) that attacks computers by user files so that malicious actors can request monetary ransom to decrypt or unlock the files. These are typically, though not always, carried out by an unauthorized or unknown transfer of a Users may download and/or open a file that appears legitimate and unknowingly infect the operating system with malware. Accompanying ransom demands are usually requested in the form of Bitcoin due to the presumed anonymity of the transactions. The use of Bitcoin is rampant in these types of attacks – so much so that they have impacted (“K�۰�”) . Sometimes hackers . In a recent report, McCarthy Tétrault’s Cyber/Data Group estimated that Canadian organizations . Ransomware attacks damaging more than finances as they can disrupt operations and corrupt or destroy sensitive data. During the pandemic, hospitals are of utmost concern. The click of an ad, a visit to a website, or a simple file download could risk your data.

In 2017, a high-profile ransomware attack named devastated various organizations worldwide. The automatically spread throughout networkers and did not require users to open or download any files. It encrypted user files and demanded Bitcoin ransom payments to decrypt them. WannaCry targeted “end of life” or outdated versions of and exploited certain vulnerabilities within the software. Operating systems must frequently be updated to implement security patches that prevent such exploits. However, updates for older computers are usually discontinued as technology progresses. Microsoft quickly released further following the mass attack. The international event was and reported to have impacted more than 200,000 computer systems and caused an estimated hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in damage. The WannaCry attack affected organizations such as factories, telecommunication companies, hospitals, governments, and delivery systems. Years later, ��

WannaCry was terrifying when it happened, but many more concerning high-profile cybersecurity attacks have occurred ��within the past year . Just imagine . Some alarming events in the past three months include the following:

• In May 2021, the largest petroleum pipeline in the United States, Colonial Pipeline is reported to have been hacked via a . The password had access to the company’s internal network and was also unfortunately leaked on the dark web. The hackers utilized the credential to attack and extort Colonial Pipeline. The systems started to shut down and the ransom demanded was $4.4 million in payment. The company stated they had no choice but to
• In June 2021, one of the largest meat producers in the US, JBS made the difficult decision to pay the $11 million USD ransom in Bitcoin to resume plant operations.
• On July 4^th, 2021, the ‘,’ allegedly conducted by Russian-associated hackers REvil, hit during the US holiday weekend. Kaseya, a software firm, was targeted in the . Supply-chain attacks, in brief terms, involve compromising a trusted supplier therefore sabotaging the distribution system. The Kaseya attack largely affected US businesses, but Canada was also impacted. Between 800 and 1,500 organizations across the globe were impacted and essentially paralyzed. They demanded from affected users/companies and expressed some willingness to .

It is difficult to know what will happen next with technology, computers, and software. It is best to be proactive and cautious. I have compiled some tips, supported by and the , to help keep your data and your employer’s networks safe:

• Check your computer(s) for updates frequently, and make sure your operating system is still receiving new updates.
• Back up your data periodically and preferably offline. If you are targeted and your data becomes inaccessible, you will feel so much better knowing you had a back-up or two handy.
• Make sure you are running a trusted anti-virus program, sometimes they are installed on your computer.
• Understand how to your data in the event of a breach and practice the recovery methods.
• Keep your passwords safe and unique - reusing passwords is never a good idea.
• Familiarize yourself with common types and methods of malware. You can find a handy list .
• Contact your organization’s IT department whenever you see anything suspicious, just in case.

Stay safe, don’t interact with strange emails, and always update and backup if possible! Feel free to comment below any tips or advice you may have.

The post Cyber Horrors: Ransomware and You appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by (

Natalie Bravo is an��IPilogue��Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at��Osgoode��Hall Law School.��

��

is a 1994 (RPG) released in North America on the . It is the second entry in Nintendo’s series and the first to be translated and released outside of Japan. The game is satirical, featuring many zany characters and subversive content that mostly provides commentary and homage to Western culture. The soundtrack is just as strange, featuring , despite the of . The game’s 8-bit songs are inspired by genres ranging from to . Everything about the game defies what you would expect from a typical RPG, especially one from 27 years ago.

It also happens to be my all-time favourite game. ; the game has established itself as a . videos (LP) are a YouTube staple and popular games will have many LP series. Earthbound is no exception,

History of Earthbound

Though mass-marketed in a , Earthbound failed replicate its Japanese success in North America. Copies of the game along with a gamer’s guide packaged in special extra-large cardboard boxes sat unsold on shelves for months. Due to low sales ( sold in North America), the game remained a hidden gem for years until Earthbound’s main character appeared in the popular 1999 fighting game for the (and ), sparking a newfound interest in the forgotten series.

As popularity increased throughout the years, . Since many did not originally own or buy Earthbound, dwindling supply allowed the cartridges’ price to far beyond that of a regular SNES game. , software meant to emulate a game system, instead of shelling out over $100 USD to purchase the game. Thankfully, after endless lobbying from thousands of dedicated fans, Nintendo eventually re-released Earthbound for the Nintendo and for the in 2016—a move that finally allowed fans legal and affordable access to the game. The re-releases have also enabled many to broadcast their playthroughs with greater ease than previously possible. As it’s not on the yet, many who don’t own the older consoles may still enjoy watching others play online.

Let’s Plays & YouTube
Gamers and streamers often upload their gaming content onto sites like YouTube hoping to share their experiences with viewers. This type of video documentation is called “Let’s Play”. Legally publishing videogame footage largely depends on who the developers are and what they allow.

In late 2018, Nintendo discontinued the and implemented the . Nintendo “will not object to your use of gameplay footage and/or screenshots captured from games for which Nintendo owns the copyright (‘Nintendo Game Content’) in the content you create for appropriate video and image sharing sites,” as long as the guidelines are followed. The rules allow streamers to via “methods separately specified by Nintendo.” Nintendo further mandates “creative input and commentary” and explicitly disallows videos lacking such commentary. The remaining guidelines detail Nintendo’s reserved rights, Nintendo’s non-affiliation with YouTubers utilizing their intellectual property, and a FAQ section.

Copyright Claims
Earthbound content and music have remained mostly unscathed on YouTube for many years. Unfortunately, in recent months, many Earthbound players who uploaded their Let’s Plays have been struck with , effectively demonetizing the videos or, in some cases, outright removing them. One YouTuber, recently lost their Earthbound LPs’ ad revenue and their videos were removed. The YouTuber , with many fans responding with similar experiences and concerns.

How Does Sony Fit into This?

Nintendo owns the game’s brand and composed its music, but licensed the first two Earthbound series soundtracks to Sony for . Many fans were unaware of Sony’s Earthbound connection. Even though Nintendo allows LP videos, Sony can take down LPs and related content to protect its rights in the music. Users have attempted to dispute copyright claims, only to allegedly be hit by counterclaims from Sony. Google’s likely automatically detected Earthbound music and subsequently initiated the claims. , leading game developers to introduce “copyright-free” and . Earthbound is an old game though, and nobody seemingly knew Sony’s music license for the Japanese album even existed, until these claims arose.

The entire situation is noticeably disheartening for fans of a game where the music is integral to the plot and experience. Even though it is likely an algorithmic flagging issue, and Sony is entitled to defend their IP, the issue seems to indicate a larger problem. YouTube gaming is many users’ livelihood and/or dedicated hobby. Even if Sony eventually allows videos to return, unexpected copyright issues like these make the gaming process unnecessarily burdensome and financially detrimental. Suspended video publication interrupts potential ad revenue; while this may not have consequences for most, it can trouble users with millions of viewers. While potentially disingenuous to the experience, muting or changing the audio might be the easiest workaround to continue publishing LPs.

The post Copyright Confusion: Sony Upsetting Nintendo YouTubers appeared first on IPOsgoode.