Online Gaming: Challenges in Protection of Intellectual Property

  • February 13, 2023
  • Mathews V C

IP protection is a crucial aspect of the gaming industry as it helps game developers in protecting their creations and ensures that they receive appropriate recognition and adequate compensation for their work. However, protecting IP rights can prove difficult in the digital world, especially in countries where IP laws are weak or nonexistent.

Introduction

The gaming industry in India has been growing and evolving rapidly over the past few years. According to estimates, the Indian gaming industry was valued at approximately US$1.1 billion in 2020 and is expected to reach US$2.1 billion by the end of this year. The massive growth in this domain could be attributed to the increase in smartphone use, growing middle-class population, easy access to high-speed internet connections, rise in disposable income, expansion of e-commerce, and extensive use of online modes of payments. These factors enable companies and investors to tap into opportunities offered by the industry.

The mobile gaming segment, which accounts for more than 70% of the total market value, is the largest and fastest-growing segment of the country’s gaming industry. Moreover, the esports market is proliferating, driven by investments and recognition of esports as a competitive sport.

Challenges Faced by Game Developers

The exponential progress in the field of gaming has brought about numerous challenges such as complications involved in the protection of Intellectual Property (IP), game cloning issues, etc. With the rise of digital distribution, it has become easier for rogue companies to copy popular games and market them as their own, thereby infringing on the original game’s IP and reputation.

One of the biggest challenges in protecting IP in online gaming is the issue of game cloning. Game cloning occurs when one company creates a copy of another company’s game and markets it as its own. This not only infringes on the original game’s IP, but it can also harm the reputation of the original game and the company behind it. Game cloning is particularly prevalent in the mobile gaming industry, where the low barriers to entry and the ease of access to development tools make it simple for companies to create a copy of a popular game. Game cloning may confuse consumers or users, resulting in a loss of revenue for the original game’s developers. Such cloning also harms the reputation of the original game. In some cases, game cloning can also lead to negative reviews and decreased ratings for the original game, further impacting its business performance and success.

Another challenge in protecting IP in online gaming is the issue of piracy. With digital games, it is easy for users to obtain and share illegal copies of the game, which can result in lost revenue for the game’s creators. This is particularly problematic for smaller game developers, who may not have the resources to invest in anti-piracy measures. While some companies have attempted to use digital rights management (DRM) technology to prevent piracy, this can also make the game less accessible for legitimate users and can result in technical issues.

Protection of Intellectual Property

To combat the challenges of protecting IP in online gaming, game developers can take several steps. Firstly, they can register their IP, including trademarks and copyrights, to have a more robust legal standing in the event of an infringement. Additionally, game developers can invest in anti-piracy measures, such as DRM technology, to prevent the illegal distribution of their games.

Another way to protect IP in online gaming is by enlisting the help of the gaming community and collaborating with its members. Game developers can work with players to report game cloning and piracy instances, allowing them to take swift action to protect their IP. Additionally, game developers can engage with players to gather feedback and improve their games, creating a loyal and engaged community invested in the game’s success.

Conclusion

Though the challenges of protecting IP in online gaming are complex and multi-faceted, game developers can mitigate these challenges and ensure the success of their games through IP registration, anti-piracy measures, collaborating with members of the gaming community, etc. The gaming industry is constantly evolving, and the challenges of protecting IP in online gaming will continue to change. In this rapidly changing marketplace, game developers must be proactive in protecting their IP to remain competitive and receive the recognition and compensation they deserve.

Image Credits:

Photo by Ron Lach : https://www.pexels.com/photo/group-of-teenagers-watching-a-man-play-game-on-computer-7849517/

Though the challenges of protecting IP in online gaming are complex and multi-faceted, game developers can mitigate these challenges and ensure the success of their games through IP registration, anti-piracy measures, collaborating with members of the gaming community, etc. The gaming industry is constantly evolving, and the challenges of protecting IP in online gaming will continue to change. In this rapidly changing marketplace, game developers must be proactive in protecting their IP to remain competitive and receive the recognition and compensation they deserve.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

Regulating Online Gaming Intermediaries - The Rules and their Implications

  • January 11, 2023
  • Padma Sinha
  • Ojasvi Agarwal

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has released the draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules to bring online gaming intermediaries within the ambit of the IT Rules, 2021.

Background

Online gaming is one of the fastest-growing industries in India with the number of gamers expected to increase by 30 million from 2022 to 2023[1]. Following the increase in the number of users, it has become imperative that appropriate laws are introduced to regularize the online gaming industry. On January 02, 2023, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) proposed an amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules”). The IT Rules, in its current structure, provide regulation for social media intermediaries and significant social media intermediaries. The Draft[2] “Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules” (the “Draft”), which is open for consultation from the public, proposes to extend its ambit to ‘online gaming intermediaries’ forming a part of Part II (that relates to other intermediaries).

The Draft defines “online gaming intermediaries” and “online games” but lacks to provide a clear distinction between “games of chance” and “games of skill”, which has been a sticky issue over the years. The Draft further proposes (inter alia) the following changes –

  • All online games would be required to be registered with a ministry-approved self-regulated body by creating a self-regulatory framework, to be registered with MeitY. The self-regulatory body will be responsible for reviewing and registering the online games offered by its members, subject to certain prescribed factors. Games approved by the self-regulatory body may be offered with a visible mark signifying their registration.
  • The proposed rules also mention certain compliances that need to be made by the social media firms such as checking the registration of the online gaming intermediary and consulting the self-regulatory officer before allowing any advertisement on their platform.
  • The online gaming intermediary shall comply with the requirement of due diligence and shall additionally ensure they do not host any online game that does not conform with Indian laws and shall make additional disclosures to the users including the refund and withdrawal policy, financial risks, and other risks associated with gaming, measures that are in place to ensure the safeguarding of deposits, etc.
  • In addition to the above, a new set of due diligence requires compliance with mandatory know-your-customer(KYC) norms for user verification as per Reserve Bank of India norms.
  • Similar to the requirement for social media intermediaries, requirements of appointment of a resident ‘compliance officer’ and ‘grievance officer’ have been mandated along with ‘nodal officers’ for round-the-clock coordination with law enforcement agencies and officers.
  • The online gaming intermediaries need to have a physical address in India and the same is required to be published on their website.

Purpose of the Draft

The purpose of the Draft, if it becomes the law, is to protect the interests of different stakeholders, ensure the safety of players and encourage responsible gaming.  The Draft is also put together to bring about uniformity of laws that online gaming intermediaries may be required to follow by reducing the burden of following state-specific gaming measures making it, not just easier for online gaming intermediaries to comply with the law, but also helps the enforcement agencies since it becomes difficult for the governments of different states to ensure geographical checks are in place. According to the ministry, the final amendments to the IT rules would be notified by April 2023.

Discussions & Implications

While the Draft seems to have been aiming at shaping a burgeoning gaming industry, the concerns around the Draft seem to be supplementing the already existing questions on the existing IT Rules.

At the outset, the question of whether ‘online gaming’ should remain a subject of the ‘States’ (as betting and gambling have traditionally been) or the ‘Centre’, remains unresolved. MeitY had earlier, in affidavits before the High Courts, consistently stated that is not within its purview and power to legislate on the subject and that rests solely on the states. Therefore, the introduction of the Draft without consultation and consensus amongst states seems not quite in line.

The ambiguity further extends to a lack of clarity on whether the Draft bans ‘gambling’. While IT Minister, Rajeev Chandrasekhar stated that “online games that allow wagering on the outcome are effectively a no-go area” there is no clear prohibition on ‘gambling’. The Rules only state, as a part of due diligence, online gaming intermediaries shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that online gaming platforms do not contravene any gambling or betting laws in India, which again differs from state to state.

An online game has been defined in the Draft as a “game that is offered on the Internet and is accessible by a user through a computer resource if he makes a deposit (in cash or in-kind) with the expectation of earning winnings”- In the absence of a definition of “gambling” and “betting” in the Draft and clarity on which category of games are sought to be regulated if the online game for consideration is sought to be regulated on one hand and gambling or betting content is prohibited on the other hand, remains a question[3]. While it may be assumed that the ‘kind’ component in the definition has been introduced to cover ‘non-monetary token’ or ‘online gaming currencies’, it may lead to the consequence where games that do not require any monetary incentive may also be included within the meaning of online games here. The definition can almost broadly cover all ‘gambling games’ within the purview of ‘makes a deposit (in cash or in-kind) with the expectation of earning winnings’. Would that mean that ‘gambling’ is brought within the purview of these Rules?

The Draft classifies online gaming platforms as ‘intermediaries’. Our understanding of the term ‘intermediary’ includes one that acts on behalf of another entity. However, in the case of online gaming platforms, we notice that most of them publish the gaming content themselves and do not host games on behalf of another. In view of the above, in an earlier debate, a government task force submitted a study stating that gaming platforms should be categorized as ‘publishers’ and not as ‘intermediaries’[4]. The question that remains unanswered is why we now bring online platforms within the purview of intermediaries thereby giving them passage to ‘safe harbour protection’ under Section 79 of the IT Act.

Apart from the few above-mentioned points, the Draft may expect push-back from various industry stakeholders on the Government’s over-arching power on issues of revocation of registration of self-regulatory bodies and exercising regulatory power for KYC. It is to be observed therefore how MeitY resolves the already existing issues on the IT Rules pending before the courts and accordingly brings about an amendment to the current online gaming Draft Rules catering to the purpose it mentioned in its notes[5] accompanying the Draft Rules.

References:

[1] https://www.indiatimes.com/explainers/news/how-rapidly-is-the-gaming-industry-growing-in-india-589059.html

[2]https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Draft%20notification%20for%20amendment%20to%20IT%20Rules%202021%20for%20Online%20Gaming.pdf

[3] https://g2g.news/online-gaming-laws/draft-online-gaming-rules-have-contradictory-provisions-ambiguity-can-still-continue/

[4] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/govt-task-force-restarts-debate-on-status-of-online-gaming-platforms-101666896702910.html

[5] https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1888143

Image Credits:

Photo by Yan Krukau: https://www.pexels.com/photo/gaming-chairs-and-computers-9072216/

An online game has been defined in the Draft as a “game that is offered on the Internet and is accessible by a user through a computer resource if he makes a deposit (in cash or in-kind) with the expectation of earning winnings”- In the absence of a definition of “gambling” and “betting” in the Draft and clarity on which category of games are sought to be regulated if the online game for consideration is sought to be regulated on one hand and gambling or betting content is prohibited on the other hand, remains a question.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

Online Games Involving Money Now Banned in Karnataka

In a major setback to the Online Gaming platforms and all other gaming entities in Karnataka falling under the category of wagering or betting, the Karnataka Government on 5th October 2021 notified the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, (“Act”/”Amendment”) which prohibited all forms of online gaming involving a transfer of money.

The controversial legislation comes in the backdrop of the upcoming T20 World Cup involving a huge stake for online gaming companies, including MPL, Dream11, to name a few. Further, it is said to damage Bangalore/Karnataka’s position as the country’s start-up capital which houses about 92 gaming companies and employs over 4,000 persons. 

Key Amendments Made Through the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021

The Amendment widened the scope of certain definitions under Section 2 of the Act. Some of the key amendments are:  

The definition of the term “Gaming” under Section 2(7) has been revised to include online games that involve “all forms of wagering or betting, including in the form of tokens valued in terms of money paid before or after issue of it, or electronic means and virtual currency, electronic transfer of funds in connection with any game of chance“.

Similarly, Section 2(11) that defines “Instruments of gaming” has been substantially expanded and now includes “any article used or intended to be used as a subject or means of gaming, including computers, computer system, mobile app or internet or cyberspace, virtual platform, computer network, computer resource, any communication device, electronic applications, software and accessory or means of online gaming, any document, register or record or evidence of any gaming in electronic or digital form, the proceeds of any online gaming as or any winning or prizes in money or otherwise distributed or intended to be distrusted in respect of any gaming“.

The Amendment has also introduced a new Section 12(A) that defines “online gaming” as “games as defined in clause (7) played online by means of instruments of gaming, computer, computer resource, computer network, computer system or by mobile app or internet or any communication device, electronic application, software or on any virtual platform;“

Further, Section 78 has been amended to criminalize activities related to opening certain forms of gaming centres and penalize anyone who opens, keeps or uses cyber cafes, computer resources, mobile apps, the internet, or any communication device as defined in the IT Act for online gaming. Offences under Section 78 have been made cognizable and bailable.

The Amendment has also increased the nature of, and scope of punishments for various offences. Offences under Section 78 and Section 87 of the Act that deals with gaming in public streets are punishable with imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to ten thousand rupees. 

Punishments under Section 79, which criminalizes keeping common gaming house, and Section 80, which criminalizes gaming in common gaming-house, have been increased to imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of up to one lakh rupees. 

Previously, Sections 79 and Section 80 did not apply to wager in games of pure skill. The Amendment removed this exception, bringing games of skill as well under the purview of the ban.

Judicial Stand on Similar Bans Placed on Online Gaming

Recently in the case of Junglee Games v. State of Tamil Nadu[1], the Madras High Court struck down the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, which was similar to the Amendment in Karnataka, holding that such a blanket ban was excessive and disproportionate and that it was violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The Rajasthan High Court in Saahil Nalwaya v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [2] held that online fantasy sports, which functions under the Charter for Online Fantasy Sports Platforms of the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports, the self-regulatory body in the online fantasy gaming industry which we have discussed before, are protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court in Avinash Mehrotra v. The State of Rajasthan[3], dismissed an SLP from a decision of the High Court of Rajasthan, thereby upholding the judgements of the Rajasthan High Court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the Bombay High Court, that games such as Dream11 do not involve any commission of the offence of gambling and betting.

Considering these judicial stands, the constitutional and legal validity of the Amendment is also in question, and the Amendment will likely be challenged in Court.

 

Effects of the Amendment Banning Online Gaming in Karnataka

Immediately after the Amendment Act was notified, Online platforms started geotagging and blocking access to their apps for users in Karnataka. While MPL and PayTM First seem to have blocked access to their users in Karnataka, some other online fantasy sports apps are still trying to interpret and adhere to the new legislation.

Industry experts predict that the ban will impact over 10% of online transactions in the country and will cause around 7-12% loss of revenue to the online gaming industry other than damaging the investor-friendly tag of Karnataka. 

 

The Way Forward

This move is the latest of the numerous attempts by legislatures in different States of the Country to ban online gaming. Such actions are criticized for showcasing the misplaced concern of the legislature for online games, and critics advocate for regulation instead of an outright ban. While clarity is needed and perhaps the rules which are yet to be framed may help clear the air, the Gaming industry may not wait until then from moving to Court challenging the blanket ban.

References

[1] (2021) SCC OnLine Mad 2762.

[2] D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2026/2021.

[3] SLP (Civil) Diary No. 18478/2020.

 

Image Credits: Photo by Aidan Howe on Unsplash

The order of the Mumbai Tribunal has, indeed, widened the scope of ‘onus’ placed on the assessee to prove the genuineness of a particular transaction. Such ‘onus’ will not be deemed to be discharged by merely filing the documents before the tax authorities, but the assessee would have to go one step further to justify the rationale of such transactions in order to prove that the transaction has not been entered as a colorable device to defraud the Revenue.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT