Ryan Black 🇨🇦⚖️🎮🏀

Ask Game Lawyers Anything Roundtable | 2025 Schedule | Game Developers Conference (GDC) Attend 750 sessions for game designers, programmers, artists, producers, audio, business, and marketing professionals over 5 days at GDC.

Very excited to be bringing this lawyer roundtable back again this year with @ryanjblack.bsky.social @abogamer.bsky.social @angeloalcid.com and Yan Perng! schedule.gdconf.com/session/ask-... #GDC2025 @officialgdc.bsky.social

There is a LESS THAN 0% chance that the CEO of a few companies worth USD Trillion+ is achieving rankings in grind-fest games like Path of Exile 2 and Diablo IV without (a) cheating or (b) being entirely derelict in those fiduciary duties. There aren't more >24h/day to "get gud."

Fellow VIC 20 starter! I recently dusted one off (from ebay) complete with a cassette tape player and the 8kb (from 3kb!) expander. I even wrote a little program on it. 10/10 by 1983 standards but was not that fun haha.

Tom Nichols????

I have to ask …

Lol

New Canadian law attempts to create a safer online world | DLA Piper In an attempt to usher in rigorous online protections for internet users, Canada's Online Harms Act was introduced in the House of Commons of ‎Canada on February 26, 2024 . While the Act emphasizes th...

At least @mgeist.bsky.social they took your commentary seriously! I think you were 1 of the 1st to highlight that Bill C-63 was bill in two parts, one relatively good and one hugely problematic.

My colleagues and I cited you in our piece on it! www.dlapiper.com/en-ca/insigh...

12/X Standard disclaimer: This is not legal advice, I'm not your lawyer, etc. Consult your own :)

If anyone finds these interesting, let me know and I'm happy to do more!

206 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who

11/X So the next time you see a STQ, just remember: it's a silly Canadian anachronistic thing that is still required to ensure that the contest-runner doesn't go to jail. (More realistically, one of those provincial gaming monopolies/authorities will come knocking on your door.)

10/X What happens if STQ fails? Yikes, is that contest runner in a difficult position! They want the positive vibes of awarding a prize/winner, but someone just failed a math question. The legal answer is clearly to deny the prize: the person doesn't win until they correctly answer the STQ.

9/X That's why contest rules commonly require the skill-testing question (STQ) be something difficult that needs to be answered without a calculator and in a time-limited fashion. Because with enough time and with computational assistance, almost EVERY math question would not be skill-testing.

8/X So at least a 4-step, multi-digit math question is skill. We've seen contest-runners push those boundaries (1+1=?, A question about a 2024 contest very clearly resulting in the answer 2024 i.e. What is 2000 + 24) and, likely, cross back from skill to no skill.

7/X You may have seen a math "skill-testing question", often used. This is because a relatively (relatively... 80s) modern case held as skill:
1) multiply 228 times 21
2) add 10,824 to the answer from Step 1;
3) divide the answer from Step 2 by 12; and
4) subtract 1121 from the answer to Step 3.

6/X A whole (ancient) body of Canadian caselaw fights about what is/isn't skill-testing. For a flavour of how oddly historical they are, 2 cases from 1902/1958 establish that shooting a turkey from a particular distance IS NOT skill (50 yards in 5 shots), while a greater distance/less shots may be.

5/X If a Canadian contest has both a truly free entry alternative (i.e., competitor doesn't have to "pay money or other valuable consideration") AND a genuine skill component (i.e., it is a game of "mixed skill and chance", then it is NOT- illegal under this section of the Criminal Code.

disposes of any goods, wares or merchandise by any game of chance or any game of mixed chance and skill in which the contestant or competitor pays money or other valuable consideration;

4/X A second part of our Criminal Code says that games of "mixed chance and skill" are also illegal, but there's a catch! They are only illegal when the competitor has to pay money or other valuable consideration to enter the contest. So, clever reader, I think you know where this is going...

206 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who (a) makes, prints, advertises or publishes, or causes or procures to be made, printed, advertised or published, any proposal, scheme or plan for advancing, lending, giving, selling or in any way disposing of any property by lots, cards, tickets or any mode of chance whatever; (b) sells, barters, exchanges or otherwise disposes of, or causes or procures, or aids or assists in, the sale, barter, exchange or other disposal of, or offers for sale, barter or exchange, any lot, card, ticket or other means or device for advancing, lending, giving, selling or otherwise disposing of any property by lots, tickets or any mode of chance whatever; (c) knowingly sends, transmits, mails, ships, delivers or allows to be sent, transmitted, mailed, shipped or delivered, or knowingly accepts for carriage or transport or conveys any article that is used or intended for use in carrying out any device, proposal, scheme or plan for advancing, lending, giving, selling or otherwise disposing of any property by any mode of chance whatever; (d) conducts or manages any scheme, contrivance or operation of any kind for the purpose of determining who, or the holders of what lots, tickets, numbers or chances, are the winners of any property so proposed to be advanced, lent, given, sold or disposed of;

3/X Why do we usually want to avoid a contest of pure chance? Because our Criminal Code essentially renders games of chance illegal unless operated or managed by a province. It's pretty oblique wording, but the net is: it's a jailable no-no (later exceptions allow provinces to conduct/manage these).

2/X WHOLE THREADS potentially, but my fave: Most contests avoid illegality in Canada with a free entry alternative (nothing valuable given by the entrant), common to many US jurisdictions. But, uniquely Canadian is our SKILL-TESTING QUESTION requirement, to ensure the contest isn't PURE chance.

Silver trophy

1/X One of my favourite lawyer jobs is explaining Canadian contests/sweepstakes laws. It involves history (gov't has largely left ancient Criminal Code alone), case law oddities, experience, good lawyering/drafting, solid understanding of what client is trying to accomplish... 10/10 lawyering fun!

Im just glad that there will be a second movie in the rotation cuz my daughter has a Moana obsession (!)

I loved the first movie but 100+ times….

My departing remarks, delivered at a farewell event in June 2023. @carolmliao.bsky.social's been trying to get these out of me for a year now.

Tell the world, stop the war

Here, vaccine saves daughters, sisters & mothers >25. 54-60 per year down to 13-15. Incredible.

Yes in effect, but also laying bare monstrous GBD/“let er rip”/natural immunity folks (cough NIH Dr B).

Pandemic IFR of COVID >25 is 0.001. Sounds small, but would be 105k dead Americans.

Monstrous.

I mean, money laundering and funneling funds for crimes, scams, and criminal organizations is a “practical application” of Bitcoin, just not one I would encourage.

It is absolute eugenic darwinism and its disgusting.

Getting immunity to a thing by… getting the thing… is pretty bold!

Have never understood the natural immunity argument. The whole point if immunity is to minimize the chance of getting it!

Getting it to avoid getting it never made any sense (either for chicken pox or COVID).

Cries in BC lawyer

You all MOCKED George Lucas and said this was boring or dumb but who’s laughing now???

Ouch right in the backlog.

You are missed.