Archive for February, 2012

The FAPL, Sky and pub landlords – what happened next and what this means for pub landlords

Last autumn the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) responded to questions from the UK High Court about two cases regarding the use of foreign decoder cards by UK pubs to screen English Premier League Football matches: Football Association Premier League v QC Leisure and Others (a civil claim by the FA Premier League, Sky and others concerning the legality of importing foreign decoders) and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services (concerning the eponymous Karen Murphy using a Greek decoder in her Portsmouth pub, because subscribing to a Greek broadcaster is cheaper than subscribing to the UK rights-holder Sky).

The ECJ decided that national legislation banning the use of overseas (non-UK, but EU supplied) decoders amounted to an unlawful restriction on competition, and it was probable that only certain elements of Sky’s broadcast of match footage was protectable by copyright. 

The uncertainty on the copyright point led me to name my blog about the saga “What Happens Next?”

What Happened Next!
Football Association Premier League v QC Leisure and Others was decided on the 3rd February, with Kitchin LJ stating: “the showing or playing of a broadcast in a public house to members of the public who have not paid for admission does not infringe any copyright in any film included in the broadcast.”

Kitchin LJ acknowledged that copyright in artistic works broadcast along with the film (the match footage) might still be infringed, particularly the “FA premier league anthem”, but generally seemed quite sceptical about the possibility of this occurring  – provided landlords kept the sound turned down.  Further, by transferring the cases to the Patents County Court (which traditonally deals with lower value claims), Kitchin LJ also implied that the Football Association Premier League (“FAPL”) might not see much in the way of damages, or an account of profits, for any infringement.

As for Karen Murphy, on Friday morning her conviction under s.297(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (for dishonestly receiving a broadcast with intent to avoid payment) was quashed. (Murphy was originally prosecuted by Portsmouth magistrates, and the conviction was upheld by the Crown Court. She appealed to the High Court, which had stayed the proceedings with the referral to the ECJ.)

Stanley Burnton LJ made clear that this judgment does not go so far as effectively repealing s.297(1) – the offence under s.297(1) still applies in the case of:

  • broadcasts from broadcasters outwith the EU (eg Albania or Qatar – because the judgement is about enabling cross-EU provision of services and ensuring the EU isn’t partitioned – it’s  not about permitting any broadcast from anywhere); and
  • cases in which a decoder has “fallen off the back of a lorry” (see for example the recent prosecution of Essex landlord Frederick Young, who was ordered to pay more than £19,000 in fines and costs this month after being convicted of screening matches via Sky Sports without a commercial viewing agreement).

What does all this mean for pub landlords?
The FAPL has issued a bullish statement which sets out its intent to pursue pub landlords for copyright infringement. The mention of “criminal penalties” is arguably melodramatic as counsel involved in the Karen Murphy case have actually had difficulty deciding if they are involved in a civil or criminal case (the point is relevant to which party will pay costs, and remains outstanding). 

Furthermore, when the FAPL follows the referral in Football Association Premier League v QC Leisure and Others and visits the Patents County Court, what value is it actually going to try and place on a piece of music and some computer graphics, all of which are arguably incidental to the film (match footage) being broadcast?  Prior to widespread action, the FAPL will surely want to find out the scale of damages it is entitled to at the Patents County Court. I am not sure how long this referral will take.

All this means that, provided a landlord is using an EU decoder of some description, the consequences very much remain to be seen.  Perhaps the best way to summarise the current suituation is to borrow some football terminology:

  1. Win – Use a decoder supplied by Sky
  2. Lose – Use a decoder without paying for it, or a decoder obtained from/that accesses the feed of a non-EU rights holder
  3. Draw – Use a decoder supplied by a EU (but non-UK) rights-holder

Can we ultimately expect to see the Premier League review how it distributes broadcast rights in Europe, or Sky reduce its UK subscriptions to bring them more in line with European providers? I wouldn’t entirely be surprised.

Apps and privacy – who is responsible?

California’s attorney general last week announced a new rule, seemingingly agreed with the major apps vendors (Apple, Google/Android, RIM, Windows, HP and Amazon), requiring mobile apps to have in place clearly displayed privacy policies.

Of course, for those of us in Europe, this is nothing new; European data protection laws have required this for years.

However, to date many app providers have paid little attention to privacy rules.

I think this is down to a number of factors:

  • Apps are generally sold through app stores operated by Apple, Google and Microsoft etc – but these companies only act as agents in the sale. When you buy an app, you are buying a licence from the company that made the app – not Apple/Google etc (unless it is one of their own apps). The app store providers are not responsible for that app or how it is used. They just provide the app store infrastructure and provide payment processing services;
  • The app store environment has made it very easy for anyone to create and sell apps – a genuine cottage industry, where a niche app can suddenly become very successful. But many small start-ups will launch an app without properly considering legal and regulatory requirements;
  • App stores tend to operate on a global basis. This means that most app providers are unlikely to be aware of local law requirements in many of the countries in which their app is sold. Use of Apple’s App Store in the UK may be subject to UK specific terms and conditions, but the licence governing the user’s use of the app will often still be subject to US law, with little attention paid to local laws.

In relation to this last point, data protection law is a good example. There is currently some debate as to whether or not cookies deployed by websites hosted outside the EEA are subject to EU data protection rules. The position with apps is analogous with apps sold by providers outside the EEA. As part of the proposed reform of EU data protection law, the European Commission is pushing to make clear that EU data protection laws will apply to all websites and apps used by users in Europe – even where the website or app provider is located outside the EEA.

As I note above, app store providers are not generally responsible at law for ensuring that apps on their platform comply with data privacy rules. It is the provider of the app itself. However, it seems that recent incidents (for example tracking of geolocation data and uploading of address books) has led the Californian Attorney General to go after the people best placed to force app providers to improve the privacy of their apps. We can assume that following this undertaking privacy settings will now form part of the app approval process.

So what should I do if I am designing an app?
First of all, you should have in place a privacy policy, which sets out what information your app collects, what is done with that information, why it is collected, and who it is disclosed to.

However, it’s not enough to simply provide a privacy policy.

  • The privacy policy needs to be written in a way that is clear and transparent.
  • Particular consideration needs to be given to sharing of data with third parties and ensuring that the third party’s privacy policy is incorporated and accepted – for example, an app that overlays data on a Google Maps interface.
  • The user’s informed consent needs to be obtained. The privacy policy cannot be hidden deep in the app. Some revised rules on obtaining consent were issued last year.
  • In particular, if the app collects/uses geolocation data then you need to consider how consent is obtained from the user.

Do you need to collect the data in the first place?
In her speech announcing the new rules, the Californian Attorney General said that the new rules do not change what a mobile app can or cannot do, but instead simply require the app to be upfront about what it is doing.

This may be the case under Californian privacy law, but one of the key principles of European data protection legislation is that the data collected is not excessive, and that the processing is fair and lawful. This means that you need to consider whether the data that you are collecting and the processing that you are carrying out is reasonable – do you need to track a user’s location or upload his address book just because you can? You can’t simply rely upon a user’s consent.

Privacy by design
Finally, app developers should bear in mind forthcoming changes in EU data protection laws.

Under the proposed EU regulation, the requirement for privacy by design/privacy by default will be formalised. Under this concept, data controllers should design their systems (such as apps and websites) so that privacy is considered from the outset and the default setting is that the minimum amount of data is collected from the user, unless he agrees otherwise. If privacy by design is considered from the outset, then many potential privacy issues can be avoided.

You can find some more top tips for app developers (covering other legal issues as well as privacy) by following this link.

PS I’m pleased to see that the GSMA have just endorsed my recommendations that app designers take heed of the Commission’s privacy by design initiative, with the launch of new app privacy guidelines for apps developed by GSMA members. The guidance is well worth reading if you are involved in app development.

Techblogger article on the implications for businesses of the draft data protection regulation

I have an article on the proposed new data protection regulation on the Business Computing World blog.

You can read the article by following this link.

The article looks at some of the key issues for UK businesses under the new regulation. The draft regulation proposes a number of amendments to the law that move away from the more permissive and flexible approach taken under the UK implementation of the current data protection directive.

Whilst the final regulation may take some time to be agreed by the various EU institutions and member states, a number of the principles will be here to stay. Accordingly, businesses should start looking at some of the internal, organisational, changes that they will need to make to ensure that when the regulation does come into force they hit the ground runnning.

In the meantime, as Martin mentioned last week, the UK Department of Justice has launched an informal consultation to canvass views on the proposed new laws and its impact on businesses. We will be responding to that, and recommend that others do likewise.

Pinterest and copyright infringement

I have to confess that I hadn’t heard of Pinterest until a month or so ago. But over the past few weeks, the social networking site has been garnering a fair level of publicity.

For those that aren’t familiar with Pinterest, it is essentially a virtual pinboard that users can use to share photos, videos and other things. Pinterest appears to make its money (or at least some money – it is still running at a loss) through affiliate fees paid by retailers whose products are “pinned” to the website by users. That’s all fine and good for retailers, who receieve additional publicity (and therefore increased sales) through sharing on Pinterest; it’s a win-win.

The problem is that content pinned to Pinterest is actually copied and hosted on Pinterest’s servers.

So if I spot a photo I like on another website, and want to share it on Pinterest, Pinterest will duplicate that photo and host a copy of it locally. If that is done without the consent of the copyright holder in that content, then that is potentially copyright infringement.

Of course, if a website allows users to view content hosted on another website without actually visiting that other website, that other website will lose out on traffic. Losing out on traffic means less advertising revenue for sites that make their money through advertising.

Pinterest puts the onus on the user to ensure it is entitled to share the content in question. But that hasn’t stopped widespread sharing of third party content.

A right to opt-out
So to answer concerns from rights holders, earlier this week Pinterest announced that it was allowing websites to “opt-out” of Pinterest. The move measure is quite simple: websites simply need to add this line of code to each page:

<meta name="pinterest" content="nopin" />

Once the code has been added, users will be unable to share content from that website on Pinterest. Pinterest has also introduced a process for copyright owners to have their content removed from the website. This take down process is similar to what other content sharing websites (such as YouTube) offer, and is required under US law in order for the wbesite operator to qualify for “safe harbor” protection from copyright infringement claims.

Blipfoto’s stance
The first website I am aware of to announce an opt out is the photoblog website, Blipfoto. Blipfoto’s founder, Joe Tree, posted a blog yesterday explaining its decision, and stating that the system should operate on an opt-in basis, rather than and opt-out.

Whilst an opt-out approach would go against the ethos of the internet and social media (see below), Blipfoto does raise some valid points.

Most notably, whilst Blipfoto’s website encourages sharing of photos posted on Blipfoto, such sharing (through Facebook and Twitter etc) always links back to the photo hosted on Blipfoto’s servers. This not only avoids potential copyright infringement by those sharing the content, but also gives the user who posted that photo control – if he wishes to delete a photo, he can do so. Contrast this with the same photo shared on Pinterest and the user no longer has control. Indeed, he or she may not know that it has been (re)posted on Pinterest.

If I were being cynical, I’d point out that Blipfoto does not own the copyright in (or have an exclusive licence to) its users’ photos either, and that it should surely be up to each Blipfoto user (not Blipfoto) to decide whether to allow Pinterest sharing. But regardless of whether Blipfoto’s decision is a commercial one or a moral one, comments on the official Blipfoto blog suggest that its users are with it on this one.

History repeating itself?
We have, of course, been here before with content sharing websites such as Napster and YouTube (as this discussion on LinkedIn discusses), and with each of those sites a mature solution was found to address the interests of rights holders.

Had YouTube and others needed the copyright owner’s opt-in at the outset, it is almost certain those sites would have failed years ago. At least the Pinterest’s opt-out process gives rights holders an effective way to prevent content appearing on Pinterest in advance.

In the meantime, it will be interesting to see how content owners (or gatekeepers like Blipfoto) respond to the right to opt-out. If enough sites opt out, then Pinterest may be forced to re-engineer its site to link through to the original image.*

*Even this may still cause problems with Blipfoto. Blipfoto’s terms of use state that

You are not permitted to hotlink (or “inline” or “direct” link) to our site’s files, for example by using an <img> tag to display a JPEG image on our site in such a way that it will appear on another site.

Quite how this squares with Facebook sharing (which does exactly this) is unclear. [Updated 23/2/12 @ 17:40: see comments below for clarification from Blipfoto on Facebook sharing.Thanks to Joe for the comment.]

Techblogger article on the regulation of online marketing and social media

I have an article in this month’s edition of The Grocer, looking at recent changes to the regulation of non-paid for online advertising.

Non-paid for advertising (such as an organisation’s own website, or its use of social media networks) now comes within the remit of the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA).

The ASA has issued a number of decisions which emphasise that the same rules that apply to paid-for offline advertising also apply to the use of social media and websites. Whilst this article looks at decisions involving companies in the food and drink industry, the principles behind the decisions are applicable to all organisations.

You can read the article by following this link.

Victoria Moore

Tribunal finds that use of online news clippings services requires NLA licence

Businesses should review their licensing arrangements for any press-aggregator or news alert arrangements they have in place in light of the latest ruling on the long running dispute between Meltwater and the Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA).

Meltwater provides press-aggregator services where, for a fee, it sends updates to clients when articles containing key words appear in the online press. Meltwater’s service is similar to the free service provided by Google Alerts. The NLA represents a number of key publications in the UK and has historically collectively licensed reproduction and sharing of newspaper articles.

The NLA has long been concerned about the threat of the internet and online services to its traditional licence models, and was of the opinion that both the press-aggregators themselves and their customers were breaching UK copyright laws by providing or using these services without the relevant licence from the NLA. Meltwater argued that licences weren’t required as their customers were only receiving headlines or short excerpts of the relevant articles, which was too insubstantial to be considered a copyright work.

Last week, the Copyright Tribunal found in favour of the NLA and has stated that a licence is required where links to articles are circulated to businesses – whether the link is accompanied by an extract of the relevant article or simply with the headline.

Although the tribunal found in NLA’s favour it did make a valuable concession. It agreed to reduce the applicable licence fees payable by Meltwater, and other press-aggregator service providers, publishing a sliding scale of licence fees based on the number of end users of the service.

Implications for users of paid-for aggregation and alert services
Following this decision, users of paid-for news services should review the agreements that they have in place with their aggregation/alert service provider to see who is responsible for ensuring that the user’s use of the service is properly licensed.

If it is the user, then users should ensure they have in place an appropriate NLA licence.

Even if it is the provider that is contractually responsible, users may wish to check to see what contractual protections exist (such as an indemnity) in the event of a claim from the NLA for past infringement.

How does the ruling effects in-house services?
Some businesses provide press-aggregator services in-house which will also be caught by the ruling, and therefore, if your business does currently carry out these services itself then according to this ruling it will require a NLA licence to do so. Strictly speaking, this will be the case even if this service is as simple as an employee circulating a list of ‘hits’ that have been generated by a free on-line service.

How does it affect the use of free services like Google Alerts?
Importantly, the court held that free services, such as Google Alerts, shouldn’t be subject to a different set of rules to those companies, such as Meltwater, that charge a fee for their services. As the tribunal says, Google is not a charity – it simply uses a different revenue model. The underlying issue of copyright infringement remains the same.

In principle, this means that if a business uses Google News or Google Alerts then it will require a licence from the NLA to do so, otherwise it will be in breach of copyright laws.

However, on a practical level, the NLA has stated that it has been mandated only to licence organised link-forwarding of Google News and Google Alerts by commercial end users (though it doesn’t appear to be something that the NLA is actively pursuing at present and nor does the NLA appear to be going after Google…yet). General business use of Google News and Google Alerts i.e. use which doesn’t include forwarding (though technically also requiring a licence) seems to be out-with the NLA’s current mandate. In a press release the NLA has clarified that “ad hoc forwarding of interesting articles, tweeting [and use of] Facebook” will not require a licence from the NLA.

This means that, in the long-term at least, businesses shouldn’t rely on Google Alerts as a free alternative to a paid-for aggregator service, simply to circumvent the need to pay for a NLA fee.

On-going litigation
Certain aspects of the dispute remain. An appeal is yet to be heard by the Supreme Court on whether simply browsing the internet can be a copyright infringement – this is in relation to a finding made by the High Court last year.

On the other side of the Atlantic, on the day of the UK judgment, the Associated Press (which, broadly speaking, is the US equivalent of the NLA) filed a law suit against Meltwater’s Californian subsidiary with the New York courts. US copyright laws, and as such, the cases put forward by both parties are and will be different from in the UK, but nevertheless it will be interesting to hear what the outcome of this is – watch this space.

Leigh Kirktpatrick

99 Problems? Trade marking Blue Ivy Carter

Rolling Stone has reported that Jay-Z and Beyonce want to trade mark the name of their new daughter, “Blue Ivy Carter”.

It’s being claimed that the new parents have plans to reserve their child’s name in the US for possible use as a brand name for a line of baby-related products, including “carriages” (prams), and “diapers” (nappies).

However the happy parents may not actually want to run the world – they perhaps just wish to knock the hustle of third parties taking advantage of their daughter’s distinctive moniker.

Is a trade mark the same as a brand, and does it apply all over the world?

A trade mark is a sign which distinguishes goods and services of an organisation from those of its competitors, indicating particular origin and usually an associated level of quality. 

The classic distinction between trade marks and brands is that a trade mark is the “intellectual property” of a brand.  However the terms are increasingly used interchangeably (thanks, I think, to television programmes such as The Apprentice and Dragon’s Den mentioning “brands” every ten seconds as if they are pieces of gold).  Even the UK’s Intellectual Property Office doesn’t seem too bothered about the distinction anymore.

 Trade mark rights are established in a particular jurisdiction, and the rights are generally only enforceable in that jurisdiction.  However, there are a range of international trade mark conventions which facilitate the protection of trade marks in more than one jurisdiction.

It’s not known if Beyonce and Jay-Z intend to register Blue Ivy Carter in the UK, and they haven’t contacted Brodies (yet).  Nevertheless it’s good to be prepared, so I have had a look at the relevant law.

The Trade Marks Act 1994 and distinctiveness

In the UK the applicable legislation is the Trade Marks Act 1994 (“the Act”), and section 1 states clearly that a trade mark means “any sign capable of being represented graphically which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertaking”, and that “a trade mark may, in particular, consist of words (including personal names)”.

Applicants seeking to register their personal name must meet the essential criteria for trade mark registration, and in the vast majority of cases this will mean meeting section 3(1)(b) of the Act by showing that their name has distinctive character.

Distinctiveness depends on a variety of factors, but as a rule of thumb, the more common the name is the less likely it will be considered distinctive as there may be many others with the same name. Likewise, the more unusual the name is, the greater the distinctiveness, and the greater the likelihood that registration will be granted.

It’s worth noting that a speculative registration of Blue Ivy Carter by a third party separate from Beyonce or Jay-Z is likely to be rejected in the UK under section 3(6) of the Act (bad faith).

The proprietor of a registered trade mark has exclusive use of the mark for the class of goods or services for which it is registered. There are 45 classes in total (and we will mention some of them below).

The “Image Carriers” Exception

To discourage celebrities seeking to register their names in every class, the Trade Marks Registry has offered guidance that, in many cases, the famous name attached to any product will indicate to consumers that the product is “about the person whose name it is rather than as an indication that the goods/services are supplied by, or under the control of, one undertaking”.

In this situation, any use of the celebrity’s name in relation to the product will not be taken as an indication of the origin or quality of the goods (the purposes usually performed by trade marks), but as descriptive of the subject matter of the goods.

This means that applications to register a famous name in relation to classes of goods involving “image carriers” (posters, calendars etc) may fall within the absolute grounds for refusal set down in section 3(1)(c) (descriptiveness) of the Act.

Additionally, unofficial merchandisers who use the names of celebrities in descriptive or decorative ways would seek to rely on the statutory defence which permits honest use of descriptors (section 11(2) (b)), or the more fundamental argument that such use does not denote trade origin.

Celebrities on the trade mark register

If Blue Ivy Carter isn’t yet on the UK trade mark register, who is?

Unsurprisingly, David Beckham has several trade marks related to his name, the most recent being a Community trade mark registered in November in Class 25 (Clothing; footwear; headgear; underwear). (The Community Trade Mark system is the trademark system which applies in the EU, whereby registration of a trademark with the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market leads to a registration which is effective throughout the EU as a whole.)

As befits his surname, Russell Brand’s name is registered in the UK in Class 06 (Key rings) Class 09 (pre-recorded media eg CDs; DVDs), Class 16 (calendars; cards; greeting cards; stationery; posters or prints), Class 21: (household or kitchen utensils), Class 28 (toys) and Class 41 (entertainment services).  (As discussed above, it’s questionable whether the use of Russell’s name in some of these classes could be relied upon in any infringement action.)

Kylie Minogue’s trading company (KDB Pty) holds about 40 trade marks containing “Kylie”,  including marks distinguishing her lingerie and perfume goods.

Quite surprisingly, the currently ubiquitous Holly Willoughby and Philip Schofield don’t appear to have their names trade marked.  Perhaps they don’t have time to consider endorsing goods!

“Before you finish – my name is Blue Ivy Carter and I am a fisherman from Arbroath – am I going to lose my name?”

Don’t worry Blue Ivy Carter- section 11(2)(a) of the Act states that “a registered trade mark is not infringed by the use by a person of his own name”.

ps baby names is an interesting topic.  The Freakonomics chaps theorised in 2005 that “once a name catches on among high-income, highly-educated parents, it starts working its way down the socioeconomic ladder.”  It seems however that their theory may be disproved.

Techblogger article in Supply Management magazine

I have an article in this month’s edition of Supply Management, the official magazine for members of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (CIPS).

The article expands on this blog from last November on problems with the Royal Mail’s website in the run up to Christmas and the importance of change freeze periods.

The article also gives organisations some practical tips on how to manage change freeze periods with key suppliers (who may be responsible for outsourced functions such as website hosting, inventory and logistics and transaction processing), and contractual mechanisms to mitigate the effect of problems encountered during IT upgrades, to ensure that your business is not disrupted during your key trading periods.

You can read the article online on the Supply Management website.

Brodies outsourcing expert featured in special report on outsourcing

The Herald has today published a free business supplement that includes a special report on outsourcing.

The article features a discussion with Brodies’ head of outsourcing, Andrew Rigby. The report looks at the value that outsourcing specialist functions can add to a business.

Industry expert Andrew, who leads a team renowned for its work on cutting edge deals, comments on the current market and recent trends including the increase in middle office outsourcing, and the trend for business process outsourcing coming back onshore.

The supplement only appears to be available in print (not online), but is free with today’s copy of the Herald.

Blast Data Processing: DP and the games industry

Back in the 90s I was most definitely a Sega Kid, buying every piece of exploitative Sonic the Hedgehog merchandise I could find,  and humourlessly lecturing my Nintendo-owning friends about the merits of Blast Processing.  (Sega’s European marketing, incidentally, was carried out by Virgin Interactive – a Richard Branson company – which probably explains why it was so distinctive.)

As a grown adult I don’t play video games much anymore, but nevertheless gaming remains a very interesting industry, and unlike record companies, the games industry business model appears to be keeping pace with technology.

Mobile and web-based social game creators are driving down prices for basic games, but charging premiums for in-game virtual goods or premium content. This “freemium” model is generating good income streams, and small “freemium” companies are being targeted for acquisition by major developers such as Zynga or Electronic Arts.

Privacy risks
A typical small games company is probably focused on issues such as deciding whether or not license core intellectual property, keeping core programmers, and so on. It’s arguably less likely to be thinking about data protection. Yet data protection is an area which, if neglected, has the potential for severe financial and reputational risk – see for example the tumble in Sony’s share price following data breach revelations.

Games companies are now gathering volumes of data about their gamers that would have been inconceivable even a decade ago, including performance data (to help developers fix bugs), data which enables gameplay, password details, names, addresses, dates of birth, speech, photos, videos and so on.

Although companies seek to anonymise this information, it can still be considered personal data if it is reasonably likely that it could be used (now or in the future) to link with other information which identifies an individual. These treasure troves of data are becoming increasingly attractive targets for hackers.

Key data protection issues for gaming companies
Broad data protection and privacy issues that games companies need to be aware of include:

  • According to the ICO, parental consent is required if personal data is collected from children aged under 12;
  • Gamers must be informed in a clear and unambiguous way about when their data is being gathered, and the extent to which their personal data is being shared with third parties (such as providers of targeted advertising);
  • Companies shouldn’t hold more personal data than they need. For example, is holding the residential address of a gamer always necessary?
  • For a company to gather, control and ultimately process geolocation data, express consent should be positively obtained before the data is processed (that is, not obtained via a statement buried in Ts & Cs);
  • Compliance with the new laws on cookies (which Martin has been keeping up to date with), which may impact on cookies placed on a gamer’s browser or device; and
  • The enduring obligation to take appropriate technical and organisational measures against unlawful or unauthorised processing of personal data (as the quantity and sensitivity of personal data held by gaming companies increases, then the technical and organisational measures which they take to protect that data should be increasing also);
  • Keep abreast of the new data protection rules that are likely to come into force in Europe in the next few years – in particular, there are likely to be new obligations on gaming companies located outside the EU.

Some quick tips then, but remember – to be this good takes AGES.

Twitter: @BrodiesTechBlog feed

February 2012
« Jan   Mar »

%d bloggers like this: