For a while now, we have been highlighting many stories about the successful crowdfunding of movies, music, books and games. This new source of funding for creative content has been an exciting time for indie artists and those wanting to break free of traditional funding models. However, this funding model is not without its risks, something that Kickstarter has recognized with a change in the way projects are presented.

So what exactly happens when a successfully funded project fails to meet its completion goals? Well, reader Marcus Wellby sent along a story about one successfully funded game project that has hit some major roadblocks to completion. Haunts: The Manse Macabre, although successfully funded, has run out of money and programmers and was in danger of never being completed.

Haunts sought $25,000 (£15,590) from Kickstarter but the project proved popular and meant the game's developers got $28,739 (£17,895) to fund completion of the game. Prior to the funding appeal, Haunts creator Mob Rules Games had spent about $42,500 getting the basics of the title completed.

The end result was supposed to be a haunted house horror game in which players could take on the role of the house's inhabitants or intruders investigating what lived within it.

Now Mob Rules Games boss Rick Dakan has revealed that the game's development has prematurely halted.

"The principal cause for our dire condition is that there are no longer any programmers working on the game," said Mr Dakan in a blogpost updating backers.

You can see Rick's full explanation of the problems the game has had over at Kickstarter. With all the cash and programming problems, Rick felt so bad about letting down the backers that he was willing to refund, out of his own pocket, anyone who wanted their money back. While most companies will silently kill off projects that do not meet expectations, his forthcoming post about the state of affairs actually had a positive effect on the project's future.

The next day, Rick posted the following update.

I've had a lot of interested emails from programmers offering their help. Thank you all very much! There's a lot to sift through and I'm not sure what the best way to proceed will be, but I am very encouraged by these offers and want to try and figure out the best way to take advantage of this opportunity. I've reached out to a good friend of mine who's an expert in collaborative open source development, and he and I will talk soon. I also want to discuss this exciting development with Blue Mammoth and get their take on it.

By being open about the problems he was having completing the game, the community came in to offer their help. Granted, this is a unique circumstance, but having such a dedicated fan base is wonderful. Had he let the game fester with no updates for longer than he had, he might have been met with more hostility than encouragement. That would have made it far more difficult to find any kind of solution.

Finally, in the most recent update, Rick announced that after considering the situation and the best way to move forward, he will be open sourcing the game with over thirty programmers offering their help to complete it.

We're going to finish developing Haunts: The Manse Macabre as an Open Source project. The source code has been open from the beginning, but now we're going to fully embrace open development model and making the game entirely open source. We've had about thirty programmers from a variety of backgrounds, including many proficient in Go, who have stepped forward and offered to help finish the game. We're still in the process of setting up the infrastructure for issue tracking, source control, documentation wikis, and other tools necessary before we can begin in earnest, but we hope to have that all up and running within the next week or two.

While this story is far from over, it is a great lesson in the risks of any project whether crowdfunded or not. Projects can fail, they can have problems, they can be shuttered. The key takeaways from this story, however, are (1) being transparent (rather than hiding) with supporters can do wonders and (2) being flexible and willing to change course can help. Rick notes that there's been plenty of press coverage about the supposed "failure," but much less about what happened after...

We've gotten a lot of press coverage, most of it in the general vein of, "Look, see, Kickstarter projects can go bad, so be careful!" I think that's a fair and useful point to make. But we're committed to being the follow-up story. You know, the underdog who comes back from the brink of collapse and proves a resounding success!

Yes, this is a story that highlights the risk in any kind of crowdfunding endeavor. Backers may be out the money they put in with nothing to show for it. However, if those who run these projects will be open and honest through the whole process, stumbles and falls included, even if the project never comes to fruition, then the potential that such a failure will damage their reputation and future projects can be mitigated. And heck, maybe you will be struck with a miracle and your project will come back to life.

Halloween is coming up, so there will be plenty of plastic spiders and fake cobwebs decorating suburban homes. But real spiders have been known to swarm over small towns and envelope sizable areas with acres of their webbing. If you're not too comfortable around spiders, you might not want to read further. But if huge spider populations sound more cool than creepy to you, here are just a few examples of arachnids taking over.

• The Indian town of Sadiya was overrun with spiders -- venomous ones that weren't known to be native to the area. Out of dozens of reported bites, two people died -- but the deaths might have been caused by inept medical treatments. [url]
• An invasive snake killed off a significant population of forest birds in Guam, causing the spider population to grow to forty times that of nearby islands. Normally, birds compete with spiders over eating insects, so when the birds died out, the spiders had an all-you-can-eat insect buffet. [url]
• Flooding in Wagga Wagga (Australia) forced spiders to seek higher ground to avoid drowning. The standing water caused an increase in the insect population and also resulted in vast blankets of spider webs covering fields like snow. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

For years, we've been covering a key legal fight in the music business, involving Eminem's producers, FBT, and Universal Music, over how much was owed on iTunes sales. The key issue: is an iTunes purchase a "sale" or a "license." Older music contracts that predated the internet era tended to focus on sales, in which artists tend to get about 15% royalties. "Licenses," on the other hand, tended to be for things like commercials or movies, but commanded around 50% royalties. But when you talk about iTunes songs, you can make somewhat compelling cases that it's either a sale or a license, depending on which details you focus on. Universal Music, of course, insisted that it was just like a CD sale. FBT argued it was just like a license. There are a ton of other similar lawsuits ongoing, but after losing at the district court level, FBT won on appeal. That resulted in a somewhat insane and contentious fight over how much Universal would have to pay up, with a judge slamming Universal for hiding revenue with tricky funny money accounting, and even trying to expense the cost of this very lawsuit back against what they owed.

However, the damages phase of the case was set to go to trial in the spring, and it would have (1) revealed an awful lot about the blackbox of Universal Music's accounting practices and (2) given a roadmap for the many other similar lawsuits against Universal Music (and the other major labels). Given that, it should come as no surprise that Universal Music scrambled to come up with a way to get FBT to settle... with the terms of the settlement being secret. This almost certainly means that UMG paid through the nose, with the hope that it makes it more difficult for other artists to get similar rewards, and while allowing Universal to keep its secrets secret... for now.

We recently ran an excerpt from Cole Stryker's new book, Hacking the Future about the importance of anonymity. Here's the second excerpt from this book, our latest book club selection. This time it's about navigating parts of the web that not everyone knows about... We'll be hosting a chat with Stryker in the near future, to be announced soon.

I first heard whispers of the deep Web on 4chan. It was often positioned by active users as a place where even the most hardened /b/tard (a nickname for heavy users who hang out on 4chan's "random" board a lot) can find things to shock the system. The deep Web is depicted there as the submerged portion of an iceberg. The Web that we know is the tip, and the massive portion underwater is the deep Web.

"I've just come back from the deep Web," they say, "and look what I found." They share ghastly images and stories, perpetuating the legend of this vast underbelly among underbellies. In these conversations I was led to believe that the deep Web—also called the invisible Web, the darknet, undernet, and several other sinister-sounding names—was home to the sort of content that would get you thrown in jail if it were ever traced back to you. This is true, to an extent, but technically the deep Web comprises anything that isn't crawlable by major search engines like Google. This can mean dynamic URLs that have a long string of parameters that might confuse spiders (the software that "crawls" Web sites to index them for search). Any content that's behind a pay wall or other password authentication is technically included in the deep Web. This would include your e-mail or a pay-to-view newspaper Web site. Any content that lies behind a form, like a survey or poll, often can't be crawled. Some sites purposefully exclude spiders using robots.txt, a file that tells spiders to steer clear of certain Web pages for various legitimate, legal reasons. Pages that are made up of flash content obviously can't be crawled because there's no raw text on the page. So to say that the deep Web is the seedy back alley of the Internet is not entirely accurate.

However, there are parts of the deep Web, accessible only with the use of certain anonymizing software, where baddies sometimes hang out. The deep Web is rife with readily available child pornography, terrorist rhetoric, drug and sex trade—all manner of taboo and hateful communication.

One such piece of anonymizing software is called the Onion Router, or Tor, briefly mentioned earlier. Tor reroutes communications coming from your computer around the world across a distributed network of volunteer-run nodes that make up the Tor Network. Tor passes users' traffic through three servers before sending it along to its destination. The network was originally sponsored by the U.S. Office of Naval Research to help military agents abroad bypass firewalls and other "censorware" in countries like China. For this reason, some speculate that the service is routinely monitored by the U.S. government and cannot be trusted.

Technically, Tor is not an anonymizing service so much as an obfuscating one. Tor alone can't keep anyone anonymous; it's merely one item in the smart anon's tool belt. Tor works to anonymize your Internet connection, but can also be applied to specific programs. The most popular program used in tandem with Tor is the Internet browser. The Tor team has built a Firefox extension that applies several "onion-like" layers of obfuscation to data communicated through Firefox. Because Tor routes your traffic around the world, it's not very fast. The more people volunteer to contribute their machines as nodes, the faster Tor will get.

I thought I'd check it out for myself. I downloaded the Tor software, ran the executable file, and installed the software. When I ran the program, within seconds a browser window opened saying, "Congratulations. Your browser is configured to use Tor. Please refer to the Tor Web site for further information about using Tor safely. You are now free to browse the Internet anonymously." I typed in a URL I found on 4chan for an underground deep Web portal called Hidden Wiki, waited about thirty seconds (an eternity in the era of Wideband and FIOS), and a blank page popped up, reading "Looking for Hidden Wiki?" The last two words were blue, indicating a hyperlink, so I clicked it, and up popped a page that looked just like Wikipedia. A sidebar listed the categories that are available to browse: blogs, books, political advocacy, but also drugs and underage erotica. I clicked on a link called "Killer for Hire."

This can't possibly be for real, can it?

You can call me Slate. All you need to know is that I am well trained and can perform what you need done. I do not need to know your situation with the hit and prefer not to. I’m hired when you want to make sure that the hit doesn’t get traced back to you.

• Minimum age for hit is 18.
• I do not care of the gender of the hit.
• I do not kill pregnant women.
• I do not torture the target.
• If hit is a political figure, or is in law enforcement (judges, policemen) there will be an additional fee.
• For an additional fee, I can set it up as a “suicide” or an “accident”
• Hit will take place within 4 weeks.
• Hits outside of the continental US will require an additional 2 weeks of logistics and $5000 in travel fees.
• Once the hit has been made I will message you with a picture or a video and the remaining balance must be paid in full.

A second hit-man site sounds like a Hollywood Russian mafioso wrote it. "It is mutual interest to make everything anonymously," he warns, insisting, "it is not a joke." He gives careful instructions on how to pay through Bitcoins (more on this soon) and reiterates the need for total anonymity on both sides of the transaction. "I don't know you and you don't know me." If these sites are jokes, they are convincingly conceived. Moving on from the hit men, there are firearm salesmen, hackers for hire ("destroy your enemies!"), an extensive list of Bitcoin traders, illegal gambling sites, white supremacist blogs, whistle-blowing blogs, new world order conspiracy chat rooms, transnational activists, Anonymous operation forums, hacker/phreaker communities, and porn. Oh, the porn. Genital mutilation, necrophilia, zoophilia, watersports, etc. Anything you can imagine is at your fingertips. Which brings us to child pornography. I don't have the guts or inclination to click through to any of these sites, but they're there. And according to people hanging out on 4chan, the stuff available from the Hidden Wiki is only a shallow fraction of what's out there were one prone to dig deeper.

Perhaps the most notorious site available through Tor is the Silk Road, a black market where users can find 340 different illegal drugs: weed, cocaine, heroin—a digital bazaar of pills, tabs, and powders. If I wanted, I could easily order up a smorgasbord of illicit substances and have it delivered within a few days. You have to pay a Bitcoin just to browse the site—its inaccessibility keeps out most looky-loos. The site doesn't have everything, of course. You won't find any chemicals that are easily weaponized. Sellers promote their wares through a reputation system that isn't much different from the one popularized by eBay. The site only accepts Bitcoins, which, along with mandatory Tor usage, help to ensure the anonymity of buyers and sellers. The Silk Road is one of many hubs for black-market drug trade on the deep Web. It's difficult to tell if the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) is going to crack down on this sort of thing, or if we're peering into the future. Anonymizing applications and efforts to pierce such software seem to be progressing apace.

Freenet is another piece of software used to mask identity online. It's been downloaded over 2 million times. Freenet's creator, Ian Clarke, is concerned about the freedom to communicate. He grew up in the south of Ireland in the ‘80s in a family of Protestants, whom he says are fastidious about staying out of Irish politics. From a young age he was interested in understanding people who held different views.

I remember reading [Sinn Féin' leader] Gerry Adams's autobiography at a time when most people considered him a terrorist. I can remember that if he was interviewed on TV they had to use an actor to do a voiceover, because it was illegal to broadcast his actual voice. It wasn't that I agreed with Gerry Adams' beliefs or actions, but I did feel that it was far more productive to understand where people are coming from, to try to step into their shoes, rather than simply demonizing them, which was official government policy at that time. It left me with a strong sense of the futility of censorship, and the value of free communication.

My experience with Freenet's "Linkageddon," one of several directories, is similar to that of Tor's Hidden Wiki. Some of it is innocuous (Bob Chapman's Financial Analysis), some of it funny (Anti–Harry Potter fundamentalists), and some of it horrific (ubiquitous underage porn). Everything looks like an old Geocities page.

Clarke describes Freenet like a decentralized postal system, where people carry each other's mail. For instance, you need to get a letter to your friend Bob in Boston, and your friend Diane is going to Boston for a business trip. You give Diane your letter and have her hand off the letter to James, who happens to live in Bob's neighborhood. The system is decentralized and doesn't rely on any one person more than the others. If Bob can't deliver your letter, you might ask Cheryl, who will be passing through Boston as well. The advantages to this system are such that James doesn't have to know who's sending the letter, and there's no central postal hub that can restrict the delivery of mail through censorship or incapacity. According to research by Freedom House, Freenet is one of the most popular anonymity systems used in China. This was no accident. Clarke says that he intended for the software to be used by activists.

Disney surprised everyone today by announcing that they've struck a deal to acquire Lucasfilm—famously 100% owned by George Lucas—and all its valuable film properties. Lucas himself is stepping aside, and Lucasfilm Co-Chairman Kathleen Kennedy will become president of the company under Disney.

As if all this wasn't enough of a shock for Star Wars fans, Disney has also announced that they will revive Lucas' abandoned plans for Episode 7 and aim for release in 2015. One can't help finding some irony in the statement from Lucas:

“For the past 35 years, one of my greatest pleasures has been to see Star Wars passed from one generation to the next,” said George Lucas, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lucasfilm. “It’s now time for me to pass Star Wars on to a new generation of filmmakers. I’ve always believed that Star Wars could live beyond me, and I thought it was important to set up the transition during my lifetime. I’m confident that with Lucasfilm under the leadership of Kathleen Kennedy, and having a new home within the Disney organization, Star Wars will certainly live on and flourish for many generations to come. Disney’s reach and experience give Lucasfilm the opportunity to blaze new trails in film, television, interactive media, theme parks, live entertainment, and consumer products.”

As most of us know, fans of Star Wars and other Lucasfilm properties have loudly criticized Lucas for retaining tight control on his old works and, worse still, meddling with them by releasing updated versions to replace the beloved originals. There has long been a wish that Lucas would let Star Wars "live beyond" him—but I doubt selling it to Disney is what anyone had in mind.

It's unlikely anyone has high hopes for the quality of future Star Wars movies, but if Disney built a Star Wars theme park, it'd probably be a hit. Meanwhile, what are the odds that Darth Vader will finally get paid?

One of the more ridiculous things about the government's ongoing campaign of secret surveillance on Americans is how hard it's fought back against anyone who has sought to have the policy tested in the courts. If the feds were confident that what they were doing was legal, they wouldn't be so aggressive in blocking each and every attempt. When the ACLU and others filed suit over the warrantless wiretapping under the FISA Amendments Bill (the Clapper v. Amnesty International case) the lower court rulings were especially troubling, because it was ruled that there was no standing to sue, because there was no direct proof of such spying. So that leaves the public in quite a bind. They can't complain about the program unless they can prove they've been spied upon, but they can't do that unless they know more about the program, which is secret. Someone page Joseph Heller.

The part of the case now at the Supreme Court is only over whether or not there is significant standing for Amnesty International and the ACLU to move the case forward. The government insists, quite vehemently, that as long as no one knows it's spying on them, they can't sue. The SCOTUS blog has a nice recap, saying that the Justices were "sensitive" to the lawyers who want to sue, but as we've warned before, what Justices say at oral hearings is not always a good barometer for how they'll eventually rule. Still, we might as well go through the transcript for some key points. The report kicked off with Solicitor General (and former entertainment industry litigator) Donald Verrilli being quizzed on the fact that, under his interpretation, no one could ever bring a lawsuit until after they were charged with a crime and knew about the details. That's neither fair, nor reasonable. Verrilli tries to cook up some other scenarios, but they all appear quite unlikely.

And, thankfully, Justice Ginsburg calls him on this point:

General Verrilli, can you be specific on who that person would be? Because, as I understand it, it's unlikely that, for example, the lawyers in this case would be charged with any criminal offense. It's more probable that their clients would be; but, according to the government, their clients have no Fourth Amendment rights because they are people who are noncitizens who acted abroad.

So it's hard for me to envision. I see the theoretical possibility, but I don't see a real person who would be subject to a Federal charge who could raise an objection.

In other words: "don't we have a problem when any effective oversight is written out of the law?"

Later, Ginsburg also wonders if the government will just claim state secrets to get out of having to provide info anyway. In the end, the debate comes down to if a lawyer just thinking that the government is spying on his phone calls, such that he's already modifying his behavior, is a form of "harm," and whether or not we trust the special FISA court (set up to monitor this stuff) to do a good job in weeding out abuses. Concerning "thinking" that the government is spying on a call, Verrilli tried to claim that there's no real harm there because a lawyer has an ethical obligation to take greater precautions. Seriously:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, is it really such speculation, General? I mean, just imagine that -- yourself in this lawyer's position, and the lawyer says, I'm representing a person associated with a terrorist organization, I'm representing KLM in the case of one of these lawyers, and I'm going to be talking to that person's family members and associates and trying to find out everything that I can.

Now, as a lawyer, would you take precautions, or would you pick up the phone and start writing e-mails to all those people?

GENERAL VERRILLI: If I took precautions, it would be because of a belief that I had to comply with an ethics rule, and the ethics rule would be the cause of me taking those precautions. It doesn't change the standard.

JUSTICE KAGAN: I don't even think it has to do with an ethics rule. If you're a good lawyer -forget the ethics rule and how the ethics rules apply. Are you really going to tell me that you, as a lawyer, would just pick up the phone in the face of this statute and talk to these terrorists' associates?

On the side of the lawyers seeking standing, their lawyer, Jameel Jaffer, tried to build on the hypothetical that the Justices raised, in which there's a "substantial risk" of having communications intercepted, leading them to change their behavior. Here Chief Justice Roberts kept pushing back that the standard is "certainly impending" rather than "substantial risk."

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You have two arguments; one is likelihood of future injury and the other is present obligations or cause. I want to focus on the former. Our standard is certainly impending, and you articulated it by saying, substantial risk. There is obviously a vast difference between those two.

MR. JAFFER: Well, I don't think, Your Honor, that the Court has settled on certainly impending. The cases that the -- the Government cites are cases like -- I think that the one that the Government cites, relies on most heavily is Summers. But in Summers, the distinction between likelihood and certainly impending was not one that the Court relied on in -- in that decision. The Court said that plaintiffs couldn't meet even the lower standard. So I think that the discussion of certainly impending -

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But both in Summers and Monsanto the Government tells us: We knew that the governmental act was occurring, and then once we knew that, the question was substantial risk.

MR. JAFFER: Justice Kennedy, the -- the -the cases that we rely on, Monsanto, Laidlaw, Meese v. Keene, these are cases in which the Court didn't look to the certainly impending standard at all. The question that the Court asked in those cases was: Is there a substantial risk? Is there a substantial risk that effectively compels the plaintiffs to act in the way they are -- they are acting?

Meanwhile, Justice Scalia seemed to think that the FISA Court could really be trusted to automatically ferret out 4th Amendment violations without, say, lawyers being spied upon being able to raise the issue themselves. Scalia, it would appear, is tremendously trusting in the powers of the FISA Court to actually stop excessive surveillance. While Jaffer points out that the current fight to renew the FISA Amendments Act suggests otherwise, since it removed the basic tests that the FISA Court had to look at the specifics (about the particular person or location being monitored) and gives the government much more leeway to spy broadly:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Does that assessment take into account the fact that a court is going to pass upon the Government's ability to intercept these communications?

MR. JAFFER: It does, Justice Scalia. I mean you -- you are right that there is a court that in some sense stands between plaintiffs and the future injury that they -- that they fear.

JUSTICE SCALIA: With the obligation to apply the Fourth Amendment.

MR. JAFFER: I don't think it's that simple. The -- the -- the court, the FISA court, is tasked with assessing the reasonableness of targeting and minimization procedures. But the statute itself forecloses the court from imposing the kinds of limits that plaintiffs think the Fourth Amendment requires. So for example, the statute itself in section (g)(4) says that the Government is not required to identify the facilities to be monitored. And the statute itself in defining targeting procedures defines them to be procedures intended to ensure that the targets are outside the United States.

JUSTICE SCALIA: But if as you say those procedures violate the Fourth Amendment, it doesn't matter what the statute says.

MR. JAFFER: Well, the Court would have to -

JUSTICE SCALIA: If those statutory provisions would produce a violation of the Fourth Amendment, they are null and void, right?

MR. JAFFER: Well, I think that's right.

The -- the court -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Okay. So the FISA Court would presumably know that.

MR. JAFFER: Well, I think if that had happened over the last 4 years, the Government wouldn't be seeking reauthorization of the statute now.

Later, he pushes back again, noting that the FISA Court doesn't get enough details to make the determination:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how the rest of your challenge or your challenge to the remainder of this statute can be characterized as a facial challenge, because it necessarily assumes that the FISA court will mistakenly say that there has been no Fourth Amendment violation, doesn't it?

MR. JAFFER: I don't think that's so, Justice Scalia. Our concern is not -- not that -- that the FISA court will make mistakes, although it well might. The concern -- the main concern is that the reasonableness inquiry that the FISA court engages in is a narrowly cabined one. They court can't say this is unreasonable because you haven't identified the facilities. They can't say this is unreasonable because you haven't identified a specific target.

On the whole, it does seem like it may be difficult to convince a majority of the Justices that there is standing here. This is unfortunate, because clearly some of the Justices are worried about the implications of the federal government being able to pass a law for secret spying that no one can ever challenge since they'll never know about it. But, if they can't prove that the spying actually took place, then it's tough for them to be able to show the actual harm. Hopefully the Court recognizes that the uncertainty surrounding the likely monitoring of communications is legitimate harm... but it seems like a longshot.

One of the best things you can do for your business is have the guts to stand up and take full responsibility for your screwups. Too often, businesses tend to minimize their errors or sweep the screwup under the rug. This works right up until the public notices and when they do, there's all kinds of hell to pay. Word spreads fast on the internet, much faster than most companies seem to realize.

On the bright side, good news travels equally fast when companies do the right thing and take care of their customers. This is one of those all-too-rare occasions when a company goes above and beyond what anyone expects and turns customers into lifelong fans.

The Consumerist has an amazing story of customer service gone exactly right. The company is Stardock, the publisher behind "Elemental: War of Magic," a strategy game that was released as a buggy mess a couple of years back. This (unfortunately) isn't unusual. Games get rushed to market for several reasons and end users are left to either deal with something nearly unplayable or install patch after patch to get their brand new purchase up and running. So, while screwed up releases may not be unusual, what followed absolutely is. Customers who purchased "Elemental" received a letter from the CEO of Stardock that not only apologized for releasing a lousy game, but actually offered something way more valuable than lip service:

Dear Stardock customer,

My name is Brad Wardell. I’m the President & CEO of Stardock. Two years ago, you bought a game from us called Elemental: War of Magic. We had great hopes and ambitions for that game but, in the end, it just wasn’t a very good game.

Elemental was an expensive game. You probably paid $50 or more for it. And you trusted us to deliver to you a good game. $50 is a lot of money and companies have a moral obligation to deliver what they say they’re going to deliver and frankly, Stardock failed to deliver the game we said we were going to deliver…

Its design just wasn’t adequate to make it into the kind of game it should be. So we decided to start over. From scratch. We made a new game called Fallen Enchantress.

So even though it’s been two years, we haven’t forgotten about you. This week, we released Fallen Enchantress. It is a vastly better game and, we believe, lives up to the expectations set for the original Elemental. This game is yours. Free. It’s already been added to your account…

Thank you for being our customers and your patience.

Sincerely,
Brad Wardell
President & CEO
Stardock
bwardell@stardock.com
@draginol http://www.twitter.com/draginol

Not only is it highly unusual for developers to apologize for crafting an underpar game, it's even more unusual for them to take the extra step and offer their latest game absolutely free. Wardell takes advantage of the technology at hand to keep the affected users from having to make any effort on their part to get their replacement game ("It's already been added to your account...")

Stardock realizes that each game its customers purchase takes a bit of their time and money, and both commodities are in limited supply. This gesture doesn't ask for any more of those two commodities, and goes a long way towards securing something else only available in limited quantities: trust.

Wardell and Stardock are investing in their own future by taking care of their customers now. By doing the unexpected, fans who were burned by "Elemental" will be more likely to take a look at Stardock's upcoming offerings. And even if they felt "Elemental" wasn't that bad, hey... free game! How often does that happen? Either way, a ton of goodwill and positive word-of-mouth is being generated, something no company can purchase.

Update: After hearing from a few people at Huffington Post, it appears that the original explanation from Isaf was unclear, and led us to believe they were moderating comments based on advertiser preferences. However, Huffington Post has now clarified that they use the same AI just to determine how to post ads on certain content -- and that's what Isaf meant with his remarks. Not that they moderate comments based on advertiser preferences.

We've been somewhat excited that we're rapidly approaching one million total comments on Techdirt. We thought it was quite a nice milestone. But we feel a bit small to learn that the Huffington Post already has over 70 million comments just this year alone. Over at Poynter, Jeff Sonderman has a fascinating interview with the site's director of community, Justin Isaf, about how they manage all those comments. Apparently they have a staff of 30 full time comment moderators, helped along by some artificial intelligence (named Julia) from a company they bought just for this technology.

Now, obviously, sites have lots of different philosophies on moderating comments. Our own is pretty open. We have a spam filter that tries to cut out obvious spam (of which we get about 1,000 per day, last I checked) and other than that comments are basically unmoderated. We do have a system that allows the community to vote on funny and insightful comments (which we then round up in a weekly "best of" post). We also, just recently, introduced our first word/last word feature, which lets the community promote certain comments. Finally the community can also "report" comments they find problematic, which then minimizes those comments, though they remain available for anyone to see with one click. We've found that this system of trusting the community works pretty damn well overall.

HuffPo, on the other hand, between the technology and the moderators, seems more focused on nudging the conversation themselves. I can understand and respect that choice, but there was one detail that struck me as a bit questionable:

I’m a big fan of having machines help us with the lower level tasks, freeing up time, resources and brain power for more interesting and complex tasks. Julia [the artificial intelligence system that HuffPo owns] takes that a few steps further and helps us with a lot of other aspects of HuffPost in addition to helping weed out abusive members, including identifying intelligent conversations for promotion, and content that is a mismatch for our advertisers. She has allowed us to do a lot more with a lot less.

(Note: see update at the top). I recognize that these are all advertising businesses, but I'm a bit surprised to see HuffPo so blatantly admit that they moderate comments if they're "a mismatch for our advertisers." I've seen plenty of sites say they'll moderate inappropriate commentary, but leave reasonable commentary alone even if it's critical. But HuffPo is basically saying that if advertisers aren't likely to like the comments, they may moderate them. It's their system, and they can do what they want with that, but personally, that makes me feel uncomfortable. We've always tried to promote the fact that our own community is very opinionated (and not shy about it) when we've spoken to advertisers, and we use that as a way of explaining why things they do should be authentic and real, rather than forced and phony. And, because of that, we'd like to think that we're able to drive more interesting engagement. If you leave open the possibility of moderating comments that advertisers won't like, that seems to only encourage bogus and annoying advertising, since marketers may never learn that people don't actually like that kind of thing.

In the end, HuffPo's position is obviously self-serving, even as they pretend that it's best for advertisers. What they may end up doing is hiding the fact that the advertisements are bad, rather than improving the quality of the advertising. Now, obviously, I'm sure AOL does quite fine with HuffPo's ad selling (and they're a hell of a lot bigger than us), but it still struck me as interesting to see the company so blatantly admit how it reacts to content their advertisers might think is "a mismatch."

Over the weekend, the NY Times had an article about how the movie industry is struggling to remain relevant as a bunch of "culturally relevant" content seems to be moving to TV, where some of the top hit series have taken their place in the cultural landscape the way movies used to. Apparently "film people" are particularly ticked off that Seth MacFarlane will host the Oscars this year since his biggest claim to fame is from TV, rather than movies (even though his movie Ted recently became the highest grossing R-rated comedy ever). Of course, what's ignored in the article is that the movie industry isn't really suffering that much economically.

What did strike me as interesting, however, is that the article highlights a key point that many of us have been making. The industry really only has itself to blame for continuing to churn out expensive remakes and sequels, rather than investing in quality -- the continued quest for "$100 million films" rather than figuring out how to make good movies for less money. The article makes that point, referring to critic David Denby:

“They feel puzzled,” said the critic David Denby. “They’re a little baffled.” He was referring to those who have applauded his argument — made both in a New Republic essay “Has Hollywood Murdered the Movies?” and in a new book, “Do the Movies Have a Future?” — that the enduring strength of film will depend on whether studios return to modestly budgeted but culturally powerful movies.

“If they don’t build their own future, they’re digging their own graves,” Mr. Denby said.

This seems like such common sense advice... and yet, it's not what we see. We see Hollywood being more timid, but rarely actually translating that timidity into focusing on more products with lower budgets and compelling storytelling. It's all just about rebooting old stories with bigger special effects.

As we were discussing, on Monday, the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in the Wiley v. Kirtsaeng case over whether or not you have the right to resell (or even display) a product you bought that was made outside of the country, which contains content covered by copyright. First off, a big caveat that needs to be mentioned every single time we write about oral arguments in a court case: it is not uncommon for what is discussed, and the questions asked, to really have almost nothing to do with the final decision. Everyone loves to read the tea leaves based on the questions the Justices ask, but, quite often, the questions (and answers) don't necessarily have much bearing on the final decision. The written briefs usually have a much bigger impact. That said, it doesn't mean the questions are meaningless, or that we can't learn a little bit from them.

It shouldn't be much of a surprise that the Justices were pretty pointed in their questions (pdf) for all three presenters (Wiley gave some of its time to the US government, who actually argued for a "middle ground" interpretation between the positions of both Wiley and Kirtsaeng). Justice Ginsburg, who in my opinion tends to get awfully confused when it comes to copyright cases, definitely led the attack on the lawyer representing Kirtsaeng, Joshua Rosenkranz, though he appeared to handle himself well. Still, there were clear concerns by Ginsburg and some of the other Justices over how far Kirtsaeng's interpretation of copyright law might go. The key issue there was the definition of "lawfully made under this title." If you haven't followed the case closely, that line is a key part of the first sale doctrine -- with Wiley (and various copyright holders) arguing it means that the first sale doctrine only applies to works made in the US, but not to those made elsewhere and imported. Kirtsaeng argues, instead, that the important part is "lawfully made" -- such that works, that are legally made elsewhere and which fit under the general characteristics of US copyright law, get first sale doctrine support when imported into the country. That is infringing copies (the Justices refer to "piratical" copies) wouldn't get such rights, but "lawfully made" products would.

What really comes up is that, depending on how you read it, there could be a significant conflict between two parts of copyright law: Section 109, which discusses first sale rights and Section 602, which talks about importation of copyright covered works. The argument is what to do when those two collide. Kirtsaeng argues that 109 is the key, and when it comes to first sale, we allow it. Wiley argues that 602 is more important since Congress wanted to allow for market segmentation and stop gray markets. The government advocated for a bizarre middle ground based on effectively ignoring the actual language of 109 and going all the way back to a century old ruling, from which the language in 109 eventually came (sort of).

The reality appears to be that Congress really did not think much about the possibility of this issue being a problem. In the one case where the possibility of a conflict was discussed, the discussion was that thought needed to be put into how to deal with it... but none really was. And that brings us to the arguments by Wiley's lawyer, former Solicitor General Ted Olson (a favorite lawyer for copyright maximalists). The Justices hit him pretty hard on a number of points, focusing mainly on a "parade of horribles" that might occur should his interpretation be accepted by the Court, and Olson seemed woefully unprepared to deal with these questions. Seriously, Wiley should be pretty upset by Olson's handling of the case here. The Justices kept bringing up examples, and Olson hit back weakly with "well, perhaps fair use fixes that" as an argument for why some absolutely ridiculous scenario might not apply should he win. This happened over and over again. There's a discussion on giving a book bought overseas to family members, and then a bunch of other examples. In one key exchange, Justice Breyer pointed out that under Wiley's interpretation, people wouldn't be able to resell their own Toyotas, since they have software covered by copyright:

JUSTICE BREYER: Imagine Toyota, all right? Millions sold in the United States. They have copyrighted sound systems. They have copyrighted GPS systems. When people buy them in America, they think they're going to be able to resell them. Now, under your reading -- now, this is one of their horribles, I gather, and I want to know your answer to it. Under their reading, the millions of Americans who buy Toyotas could not resell them without getting the permission of the copyright holder of every item in that car which is copyrighted?

MR. OLSON: There may be -

JUSTICE BREYER: Is that right?

MR. OLSON: There may be just -

JUSTICE BREYER: Am I right or am I wrong? Am I off base or am I wrong -- am I right?

MR. OLSON: There are other defenses, but that is not this case. This case is not

-JUSTICE BREYER: Well, how do you distinguish? How do you distinguish?

MR. OLSON: The government -- the government would argue for a broader interpretation under what was made under this statute, whether that would include the importation or the distribution in commerce. That's an argument that the government makes, but it's not necessary to decide this case.

JUSTICE BREYER: Now, explain to me, because they're horribles if I summarize them, millions and millions of dollars' worth of items with copyrighted indications of some kind in them that we import every year; libraries with three hundred million books bought from foreign publishers that they might sell, resale, or use; museums that buy Picassos that now, under our last case, receive American protection as soon as that Picasso comes to the United States, and they can't display it without getting permission from the five heirs who are disputing ownership of the Picasso copyrights.

Those are some of the horribles that they sketch. And if I am looking for the bear in the mouse hole, I look at those horribles, and there I see that bear.

So I'm asking you to spend some time telling me why I'm wrong.

MR. OLSON: Well, I'm -- first of all, I would say that when we talk about all the horribles that might apply in cases other than this -- museums, used Toyotas, books and luggage, and that sort of thing -we're not talking about this case. And what we are talking about is the language used by the statute that does apply to this case. And that -

JUSTICE BREYER: But we need -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Don't those horribles -

JUSTICE BREYER: -- interpretation -

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But you have to look at those hypotheticals in order to decide this case.

MR. OLSON: Well, and that's -

JUSTICE KENNEDY: You're aware of the fact that if we write an opinion with the -- with the rule that you propose, that we should, as a matter of common sense, ask about the consequences of that rule. And that's what we are asking.

That feels like the key exchange here, because the Justices recognize that Wiley's interpretation can lead to some really crazy results. Olson's repeated attempts to argue that such concerns are overblown because we haven't seen that "parade of horribles" yet doesn't seem to have convinced the justices. Later in the conversation, Justice Breyer explained that there's a plausible explanation for not seeing the "parade of horribles:" the fact that companies haven't yet seen a bright line from the Supreme Court that allowed them to commence said "parade of horribles:"

JUSTICE BREYER: The main point is that horribles haven't occurred. Right?

MR. OLSON: The main -- main -

JUSTICE BREYER: Sometimes horribles don't occur because no one can believe it.

Now, for example, I believe there is going to be a storm, but it hasn't started yet.

So I would like to know -- I would like to know, if you were the lawyer for the Toyota distributor, and if you were the lawyer for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or you are the lawyer for a university library, and your client comes to you and says, my God, I just read the Supreme Court opinion. It says that we can't start selling these old books or -- or lending them or putting them in our word processor or reselling the Toyota without the -- without looking -- displaying the Picasso without the permission of the copyright holder, who may or may not be Toyota itself.

What, as their lawyer, do you tell them? Do you tell them, hey, no problem; or, do you tell them, you might become a law violator; or, do you tell them, I better litigate this? What do you tell them?

Olson responded that each scenario has different sets of facts, and then went back to his "well, there's fair use" routine, which Chief Justice Roberts finally called him on, asking Olson to expand on what else there is besides fair use, and wondering if it makes sense for all of these kinds of situations (i.e., displaying a Picasso or reselling your Toyota should rely on fair use law). Olson stammered around for a bit before trying out "implied license" also, which doesn't seem like a very strong answer. And, from there, much of the Justices' concern appeared to be that Wiley/Olson's reading of the law just doesn't make much rational sense. As per the clash between sections 109 and 602, Justice Sotomayor pointed out that since it seems obvious there's a conflict, shouldn't the court look for what makes the most sense, rather than come out with an obviously ridiculous ruling and leave Congress to fix it?

Isn't it incumbent upon us to give the statute what is plainly a more rational plain meaning than to try to give it a meaning and then fix it because we understand that the meaning doesn't make sense?

Justice Kagan also pointed out that Olson keeps going back to Section 602 (about importation of copyrighted goods) as the crux of his argument, but that's actually not the part of the law up for discussion. The whole point of the case is the interpretation of Section 109, and Justice Kagan pointed out that Wiley/Olson's interpretation there leaves much to be desired:

I mean, I -- you spend a lot of time talking about the legislative history and the purposes behind 602. But the language that we're supposed to be interpreting is the language in section 109. And the language in section 109, as far as I can see, there's really nothing to support your argument that that language was intended to address this gray market problem.

Olson hit back by saying that 109 and 602 were passed together in the same law (1976 Copyright Act), but that ignores the fact that most of 109 is actually just a holdover from the 1909 Act, and thus it's not like the two pieces were written together. And, as noted earlier, there was at least some awareness that the two might conflict and something should be done to clarify that.

One final interesting tidbit. Wiley gave some of its time over to the US government, whose brief in the case tried to chart out this "middle ground" between the two sides. Wiley must have felt that the government's argument would favor it in the end, since it gave over its time to the US government, but when the US's lawyer, Malcolm Stewart, was asked point blank which would be worse, he was finally pushed into a corner and admitted that things would probably be worse if Wiley got its way.

Once again, you shouldn't read too much into what's said at the oral arguments, as the final decisions often turn on very different issues, but at least there is some clear skepticism of Wiley's argument that you can't possibly really own anything purchased overseas.

A couple years ago, we wrote about Hebrew University suing GM for using an image of Albert Einstein in an ad without first getting permission (i.e., paying up). Einstein left his assets to Hebrew University (of which he was a founder and a big supporter), and Hebrew University has taken that to an extreme, more or less arguing near complete ownership over Einstein's likeness, and has been ridiculously aggressive in trying to enforce those rights -- to the point of tricking print shops into printing Einstein images, only to threaten them with lawsuits. All this despite the concept of publicity rights barely even existing in Einstein's time, and no indication that he cared one way or the other about such things.

Hebrew University came up short in the GM case recently, as the district court rejected the publicity rights claim -- but for bizarre reasons. Part of the issue is that publicity rights are both relatively new and are a part of state law (where they exist), meaning they differ from state to state. And, a big issue is whether or not they apply after death. In some states they do. In some states they don't. In others... the law doesn't say. That's the case here, where the publicity rights law in question was New Jersey's (where Einstein resided when he died) -- and it's just common law, as opposed to actual regulations. Thus, there just isn't any clear statement in terms of publicity rights after death, since there's no actual law on the books. So what did the court do? It just went ahead and decided randomly that publicity rights do live on after death, but just for 50 years. Why 50? Well, for one reason, it's one more than 49 and one less than 51.

A maximum 50-year postmortem duration here would be a reasonable middle ground that is long enough for a deceased celebrity’s heirs to take advantage of and reap the benefit of the personal aspects of the right.... The obviously humorous ad for the 2010 Terrain having been published 55 years or more after Einstein’s death, it is unlikely that any viewer of it could reasonably infer that Einstein or whoever succeeded to any right of publicity that Einstein may have had was endorsing the GMC Terrain.

Actually, the defense of the 50 number is even more bizarre. The judge looks to copyright law -- in part because Hebrew University argued that copyright's "life plus 70 years" made sense. The judge, used some of that -- saying copyright was a good measuring stick, but rejected the 70 years after death, because at the time Hebrew University got the rights (1982), the copyright term was 50 years after death -- so the judge used that as the base. Huh? First of all, copyright and publicity rights are entirely different things, for different purposes, designed to deal with different issues, and coming from different legal concepts. They come out of entirely different legal theories. Mixing and matching them makes no sense. Even then, if we accept the judge's thinking that we should go with the length as of 1982, it still doesn't make much sense. Since he's basing this (for reasons we still can't fathom) on copyright length, it seems worth pointing out that copyright term extension (thank you Sonny Bono) took everything to 70 years... retroactively. So works created in 1982 get life plus 70 anyway. So, the life plus 50 is supported by... nothing.

The judge tries really hard to make the case that there are enough similarities between copyright and publicity rights for this arbitrary number to make sense, but it's a really strained argument:

There are certain similarities between the goals of copyright and those of the right of publicity. In a sense, both rights evolve from an act of creation, whether it is the creation of a “work” such as a writing or the creation of a cultivated persona. These acts of creation are the product of an individual’s choices and self-expression.

But that's not true, even if he cites some other courts making the similarly baseless claim. Copyright is federal law designed for the "promotion of the progress." Publicity rights are this quasi-restriction that has really only appeared in the last few decades, and seems much more similar to trademark than to copyright. That's because it's more about avoiding having the public think the person in question "endorsed" a product when they did not. That's completely unrelated to copyright. The real culprit here is the ridiculous lumping of completely different concepts into the "intellectual property" bucket. Lazy judges are saying "well that's intellectual property and that's intellectual property, so they're analogous." Even when they're not. At all. The judge quotes a bunch of courts who make really really wrong statements. For example, the Zacchini case, where a judge argued that publicity rights are "closely analogous to the goals of patent and copyright law, focusing on the right of the individual to reap the reward of his endeavors and having little to do with protecting feelings or reputation." Again, though, that's not true. The "reap the reward" part (in both cases) is the means, not the end. But the end point in both cases is entirely different. Frustrating that judges could get something so simple so wrong.

The judge notes some differences between publicity rights and copyright, but just lists out some (though, certainly not all -- or even the major) differences, and leaves it at that. He then just looks at other states, and how they handle the term of publicity rights, and decides that 50 years fits within the reasonable range, and that since we're (just) past that, Einstein's "persona should be freely available to those who seek to appropriate it as part of their own expression, even in tasteless ads."

Well, I agree with that last part, at least. But the whole life-plus-50-years rationalization sets a random precedent based on a judge's fabrication -- and that seems problematic.

Just a reminder: when you think you get past an attempt by certain legacy industries to shove through bad laws with questionable international trade agreements, there's always at least one (and probably more) such agreements lurking. So, from ACTA we went straight into TPP... and following TPP, it looks like the US and the EU are already discussing a new US-EU Free Trade Agreement to be worked out soon. A "working group" to get the process started put out a report about what the agreement would include... and, of course, there will be a section on "intellectual property." The USTR has made it clear over the past few years that it thinks free trade agreements are the perfect vehicle for intellectual property maximalism. This makes little sense, since intellectual property is the exact opposite of "free trade." It's whole purpose is to be a trade barrier and a monopoly. But...

Both the EU and the United States are committed to a high level of intellectual property protection, including enforcement, and cooperate extensively through the Transatlantic IPR Working Group. Both sides agree that it would not be feasible in negotiations to seek to reconcile across the board differences in the IPR obligations that each typically includes in its comprehensive trade agreements. Before the launch of any negotiations, both sides would further consult on possible approaches to deal with IPR matters in a mutually satisfactory manner.

So, at the very least, there would be some limits on what such an agreement would get into, given existing "differences," but they still seem to want to include something about "dealing with IPR matters," which can only mean ratcheting things up. It's still early, but you can bet that the legacy industry lobbyists are already well aware of this and involved in the process -- so it needs to be on everyone else's radar as well.

Oh, and both Obama and Romney have indicated they support such an agreement, so it's not like either one is better than the other going into next year.

We've raised questions in the past about the relevance of "Klout" scores. If you don't know, Klout is one of a few companies that try to measure "influence" online by looking at your social media activity. The whole process seems kind of silly, but for whatever reason, once you put a number on things, people take it seriously, no matter how bogus the number might be. Lots of companies now use Klout scores to determine who they should give special perks to, leading to plenty of people just trying to game their scores. However, should Klout scores count towards your grade as a student? Adam Singer sent over examples of two separate journalism professors who think so.

In both cases, the professors admit that Klout scores may not be particularly accurate, but both have interesting defenses for including the score as part of the grades that students get. Todd Bacile, from Florida State University, argues that even if people think Klout is inaccurate or silly, since others are taking it seriously, students need to take it seriously too. Even if it's a problem-perpetuating situation, he argues that he's being something of a realist and merely preparing his students for the real world, where they'll be judged by their Klout scores whether they like it or not -- and thus one project (but not the entire grade for the course) will be graded based on Klout scores:

Most people seem to either love or hate Klout, so the notion of assigning a portion of a student’s grade to their respective Klout score may cause some to react … what’s a good word to use here … fretfully. Yet, as an educator teaching electronic marketing at the collegiate level I owe it to my students to introduce them to every and any concept that will help them land an internship or fulltime job. Klout matters to employers

And here is an inescapable fact. Many firms are sizing up college student’s Klout scores as a quantitative metric to use for job applicant screening. Therefore, I decided to create a class project in which the final grade earned is solely determined by a student’s Klout score.

For whatever it's worth, he notes that his students have massively increased their Klout scores because of this. He also claims that by having them focus on Klout scores -- something that could constantly be measured -- it actually kept students more engaged:

An experiential project like this proved to be enjoyable for the students and maintained their attention and enthusiasm throughout the semester. Many students would compare scores and discuss different techniques used to engage with powerful opinion leaders within the social world. Which students had higher scores became a friendly competition causing students to work even harder at engaging others. Imagine that: students wanting to work more to develop skills that current marketing employers are searching for!

Bacile has since noted that when he presented this idea at a conference, other professors told him they were going to do the same thing.

The second story Singer sent over is from Ryan Thornburg, who teaches journalism at UNC, and who is also using Klout as part of the grade (in this case, counting as 20% of it). Thornburg also admits, quite directly, that Klout is probably "overly simplistic." So why is he doing this? Because he thinks that it forces students to do actual experiments in which they can all learn how Klout works, and see if they can improve it.

How is that possibly fair to students who are struggling to raise this arbitrary number that's contrived inside a black box? It's fair because it transforms the class from a workshop on button-pushing to an exercise in hypothesis testing, strategy and critical thinking. Students -- who often approach grades with calculating economy of effort -- don't know what they have to do to boost their Klout scores, so they are forced to design simple experiments, isolate variables, and generalize their findings.

In the end, he notes that perhaps his best students will actually be able to build a better Klout.

I'll admit that my initial reaction to these stories was horror. The idea of basing grades on a silly system like Klout certainly feels very, very wrong. However, the explanations and defenses from both professors have me rethinking that stance somewhat. Is it really all that different from "teaching to the test", as some teachers do for standardized testing? An SAT score may not really tell us much of anything, but it is important for many colleges, so is it a surprise that teachers help their students optimize for it? While we can quite reasonably worry that focusing on Klout has students optimizing less useful skills, from an experimental standpoint, perhaps it's not such a crazy idea.

As the UK continues to struggle with their laws and the impact on free speech via social media, its citizens are receiving mixed messages from government officials. We've got competing ideas going on here, with one side advising citizens to give social media sites false information and the other suggesting that citizens should be encouraged to do the exact opposite.

Andy Smith, an internet security chief at the Cabinet Office, said people should only give accurate details to trusted sites such as government ones. "When you put information on the internet do not use your real name, your real date of birth," he told a Parliament and the Internet Conference in Portcullis House, Westminster. "When you are putting information on social networking sites don't put real combinations of information, because it can be used against you."

It apparently didn't occur to Smith that internet users might also be afraid of their own governments, but it would't seem to be a controversial opinion that citizens using government sites should probably be giving accurate information. His remarks were focused on what he called "trustworthy" sites versus those users were unsure of, which makes the idea rather benign. Despite social media sites and other sites, like YouTube, encouraging the use of accurate user information, one would think that inputting a fake name or fake birthday would't have much of an impact overall. In addition to perhaps providing some low-level defense against fraudsters, as is Smith's focus, anonymity is an important component of free speech.

Not so fast, says MP and all-around hand-wringer, Helen Goodman. That false data used to keep away the fraudsters? It's that kind of thing that promotes criminal behavior.

His advice was described by Labour MP Helen Goodman as "totally outrageous". She told BBC News: "This is the kind of behaviour that, in the end, promotes crime. It is exactly what we don't want. We want more security online. It's anonymity which facilitates cyber-bullying, the abuse of children. I was genuinely shocked that a public official could say such a thing."

That is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous. There is a rather wide swath of false or inaccurate data on social media sites. People concerned about the aforementioned fraudsters. People concerned with data mining by the sites they're visiting. Parody social media accounts. None of that "promotes crime". And, while anonymity may embolden some folks that want to engage in bullying (let's do away with the "cyber" prefix please; bullying is bullying), are any us of really ready to say that the benefits of anonymous speech, whether online or elsewhere, should be undone for the sake of a "for-the-children" argument? This is, of course, not to say that I am unsympathetic to the plight of children being bullied. But that situation is not a catch-all rebuttal against free speech.

In the end, it's important to divorce policy from arguments that are essentially an appeal to emotion. I'd probably consider the absolute need for fake data due to fraudsters a bit on the paranoid side, but an attack on anonymity that boils down to a "for the children" quote is wholly unconvincing.