Techdirt. Stories about "epic" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories about "epic"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:36:28 PST 'Offensive Lyric' Prompts Epic Records To Attempt The Impossible: 'Erase' The Track From The Web Tim Cushing http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130214/17545421990/offensive-lyric-prompts-epic-records-to-attempt-impossible-erase-track-web.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130214/17545421990/offensive-lyric-prompts-epic-records-to-attempt-impossible-erase-track-web.shtml they'll sue/pass legislation. But you simply can't do it. There are millions of people interacting with everything everyday, and there are millions of places to hide stuff someone else wants to have disappear.

The latest entity to believe it has a shot at bending the internet to its will is Epic Records, which is now making efforts to 'erase' a remix of Future's "Karate Chop" from the web. Why? Well, apparently an "unauthorized" mix leaked into the public ear with a particularly offensive Lil Wayne lyric attached. (I hear you asking: "In terms of Lil Wayne, how does one define "particularly offensive?" Well, read on.)
Lil Wayne caused controversy with a lyric on Future's"Karate Chop" remix where he raps, “Beat that pussy up like Emmett Till," eliciting a fiery response from Till's family.
If the name Emmett Till doesn't ring a bell and you're wondering why anyone would care, here's a bit of Till's bio which, tragically, has a whole lot more to say about his death than his life.
Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American boy who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14 after reportedly flirting with a white woman. Till was fromChicago, Illinois, visiting his relatives in the Mississippi Delta region when he spoke to 21-year-old Carolyn Bryant, the married proprietor of a small grocery store. Several nights later, Bryant's husband Roy and his half-brother J. W. Milam arrived at Till's great-uncle's house where they took Till, transported him to a barn, beat him and gouged out one of his eyes, before shooting him through the head and disposing of his body in the Tallahatchie River, weighting it with a 70-pound (32 kg) cotton gin fan tied around his neck with barbed wire.
His murderers were acquitted by an all-white jury and admitted to the crime several months later, protected by the "double jeopardy" shield.

Understandably, Till's family isn't happy with Wayne's choice of sexual metaphor, and with Rev. Jesse Jackson weighing in on the issue, Epic is feeling a little heat. So, its heart is in the right place and the offer to rid the web of the offending remix is noble, but there's no way it will ever accomplish that.
"We regret the unauthorized remix version of Future's 'Karate Chop,' which was leaked online and contained hurtful lyrics," the statement said. "Out of respect for the legacy of Emmett Till and his family and the support of the Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. ... we are going through great efforts to take down the unauthorized version."
Great effort will no doubt be made, but I can imagine there's going to be some collateral damage. We've already observed (several times) that many companies who attempt mass takedowns often remove legitimate content, up to and including their own offerings. Going into panic mode only exacerbates the problem.

Not only that, but is there any real reason to make this version nonexistent? I understand that many, many people will find Wayne's lyric incredibly offensive (because it is), but does erasing it from the web really serve any purpose? The information is already out there, in the form of posts like the one at HipHopDX. Killing off the remix, even assuming it were possible, changes nothing. The lack of aural evidence won't erase the written evidence. An official statement from Epic disowning this version should be all that's needed.

Let the "unauthorized" remix stay live. Bring this story to the front. This isn't anyone's problem but Lil Wayne's. He wrote it. He said it. He can live with it. No one needs to be tilting windmills on his behalf or on the behalf of those offended, and in the process, potentially taking non-offensive (OK -- less offensive) legitimate content offline.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> epic's-brand-of-'forget-me-nows'-no-more-effective-than-previous-bra http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130214/17545421990 Thu, 7 Jun 2012 13:17:00 PDT Fiona Apple To Label: Back Off, I'm Connecting With My Fans Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120606/15440619227/fiona-apple-to-label-back-off-im-connecting-with-my-fans.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120606/15440619227/fiona-apple-to-label-back-off-im-connecting-with-my-fans.shtml refused to release her album, because it "didn't hear a hit." Instead, the album leaked and started getting radio play, which got fans excited and, finally, Epic felt compelled to release it. The NY Times recently had an article about her latest album, which has actually been done for well over a year, but has been "held up" by shakeups at the label. However, what may be most interesting is a section where they talk about her recent appearance at SXSW, where her management basically told Epic to stay the hell out of the way and not do anything:
“The Idler Wheel” is counting on the devotion of Ms. Apple’s fans. Before she appeared at South by Southwest her manager, Andy Slater, said he told Epic Records: “ ‘I want you to do nothing.’ I said: ‘Don’t make any posters. Don’t make any cards. Don’t put out a single. Just don’t say anything. Let her play the show. It’s been a few years. Let kids go to the show, film the thing, put it on their blogs, and you don’t need to do anything.’ ” Almost immediately after her set amateur video clips were on YouTube.
There are a few interesting things here. First of all, we're always told that musicians need the big labels for "marketing" purposes. Yet, here's an artist specifically recognizing that the way a label does marketing can actually make things worse, not better. On top of that, what she (or her management, in this case) clearly recognize is that the way to really do "marketing" these days is to connect with fans and then trust them -- not treat them as criminals. Notice that no one wanted the label to release a video or put the music on YouTube. Instead, they full expected and were happy with the fact that the fans filmed the show and put it on YouTube. The same YouTube that is still being sued for a billion dollars for letting people do that. The same YouTube that people tell us needs to be more proactive in preventing the fans from doing exactly what they did and exactly what Apple appears to have wanted them to do.

There's a big point here. If we shut down sites like YouTube, or force them to pre-block any and all content without proof of copyright or license, this kind of very, very successful marketing wouldn't be possible. Instead, you'd have nothing but Epic doing its thing -- which everyone seems to recognize would lead to a worse result for the artist...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> the-internet's-got-this http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120606/15440619227 Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:44:30 PST FTC Reminds EPIC That Suing The FTC To Get It To Investigate Google Might Not Be The Best Idea Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/13373317820/ftc-reminds-epic-that-suing-ftc-to-get-it-to-investigate-google-might-not-be-best-idea.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/13373317820/ftc-reminds-epic-that-suing-ftc-to-get-it-to-investigate-google-might-not-be-best-idea.shtml sued the FTC (pdf) to try to force it to investigate Google for its recent privacy policy change. No matter what you think of Google's privacy policy issues, it's ridiculous for EPIC to go that far, and the FTC is making that clear to the overzealous organization, pointing out that it has absolutely no standing whatsoever in terms of making the FTC do anything at all. The FTC may still investigate, but EPIC should have no part of that.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> standing? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120220/13373317820 Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:39:45 PDT Is Facebook Violating The Law Just By Encouraging You To Share? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/14484816139/is-facebook-violating-law-just-encouraging-you-to-share.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/14484816139/is-facebook-violating-law-just-encouraging-you-to-share.shtml a ton of data on people, and we absolutely agree that the way it implemented some of its frictionless sharing is ridiculously unclear, does that mean it should be illegal? The privacy group EPIC, who has such a low opinion of all of human kind that it feels that only it should decide whether or not you can share your own info, is asking the feds to ban Facebook's frictionless sharing -- even though it's entirely optional.

Again, we agree that the implementation is poor, but EPIC takes this to a whole different, and absolutely ridiculous level, suggesting that merely encouraging people to choose to share info is a violation of their privacy:
Encouraging or prompting users to share personal information is detrimental to consumer privacy
Wait, what? That makes no sense. I would agree that tricking people into sharing personal info is detrimental, but merely providing services and encouraging people to share info they want to share? How is that possibly detrimental? It's only deterimental in the eyes of organizations like EPIC, who think that they need to block people who want to share from doing so.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> paternalistc-instincts http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110929/14484816139 Tue, 15 Feb 2011 09:39:49 PST TSA Refuses To Provide Body Scanner Info In Lawsuit... Claiming Copyright Prevents Handing Over The Info Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/01395313100/tsa-refuses-to-provide-body-scanner-info-lawsuit-claiming-copyright-prevents-handing-over-info.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/01395313100/tsa-refuses-to-provide-body-scanner-info-lawsuit-claiming-copyright-prevents-handing-over-info.shtml suing over the TSA's decision to use the naked scanners at airports. Reader jilocasin alerts us to a bizarre update in that lawsuit. Apparently the TSA is refusing to provide specific evidence to the court first claiming that it was "sensitive security information," but also saying that it won't hand over the info because it's copyrighted material. Say what? This makes no sense. If it's US government documents, then it's almost certainly not covered by copyright. But even if it's a private company's documents and covered by copyright, there's nothing stopping it from being handed over to the court.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> uh,-what? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110215/01395313100 Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:57:35 PST Judge Says No To FOIA Request For TSA Body Scan Images Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/01431412648/judge-says-no-to-foia-request-tsa-body-scan-images.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/01431412648/judge-says-no-to-foia-request-tsa-body-scan-images.shtml Julian Sanchez points us to the news that a district court judge has rejected an attempt by the privacy-rights group EPIC to force Homeland Security to release some 2,000 full body scans from the TSA's new airport scanners. EPIC has been suing to get the new scanners banned, saying that the machines violate both the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches) and the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires a public review of such plans before the government can implement them.

The group had filed a Freedom of Information Act for a variety of information about the scanners a while back, and while Homeland Security provided some documents, it withheld 2,000 test images that were done with volunteers. EPIC then went to court, but the judge claimed that the government has no obligation to hand over such info, and that providing such info could "provide terrorists and others with increased abilities to circumvent detection by TSA and carrying threatening contraband onboard..." In other words, the judge buys into the TSA's strategy of security by obscurity.

Frankly, if it's really true that releasing some images of what these scans look like make it possible for terrorists to beat these machines, then these machines are clearly useless. The TSA is delusional if it thinks that terrorists can't get their hands on these kinds of images. If the machine is so weak that having some images teaches you how to beat it, then the machine shouldn't be used in the first place.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> suspect-reasoning http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110113/01431412648 Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:07:00 PDT Privacy Group Wants FTC To Shut Down Gmail... Again Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/0010124159.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/0010124159.shtml shut down as a privacy violation. Most people responded by getting Gmail accounts as quickly as they could.

Apparently, EPIC isn't giving up this fight, even though five years have gone by and Gmail has become a popular email service for many, many people online. EPIC has now asked the FTC to shut down all Google online applications, from Google Docs to Gmail, claiming that they're unable to "adequately safeguard the confidential info" of users -- and comparing those apps to a faulty car seat for kids (hyperbole, much?).

This all seems designed to get EPIC attention rather than to actually help consumers. The likelihood of the FTC agreeing with EPIC seems slim (which even EPIC seems to admit). People are pretty aware of what risks they're taking on by putting stuff on Google's servers, and Google has a pretty clear track record of doing its best to keep that info private. But most people feel that the risk is slight and the trade-off and value from the services is obviously worth it. Thus, it's not actually a privacy issue at all -- because most people are comfortable with the situation. So, why is EPIC trying to take away such useful services from millions of people who have come to rely on them?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> give-it-up http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090318/0010124159 Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:48:19 PDT A Few Extra Virtual Maps Isn't A Real Reason To Buy A Video Game Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/1155542591.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/1155542591.shtml used game sales for console games (there's been a bit of confusion in the past tying this to video game DRM -- which is more focused on PC games). We noted that EA was among those concerned, but was hoping to give people more reasons to buy new, rather than second hand. However, some folks in the comments complained about the methods EA was using, and that's worth a further discussion, especially as other examples are being shown. Reader DEF points out that another video game company, Epic, is trying to encourage original purchases by giving buyers a free voucher for certain in-game items, such as special maps. Such vouchers would only work for the initial buyer, thus, in theory increasing the value of the initial purchase.

There are a couple of problems with this approach. While I do think it's better to come up with "reasons to buy" rather than trying to sue people or pass laws requiring a cut of the secondhand market, this approach may get it backwards. Effectively, they're selling "infinite goods" rather than scarce goods, and that seems likely to backfire, for a few reasons. First, it actually diminishes the value of the game. One aspect that buyers take into account is the resale market. An active second hand market increases how much people are willing to pay for the original product, because they recognize that they can sell it later.

Second, when the focus is on charging for infinite goods (or only promising them to those who buy first hand copies), the incentives get risky. Suddenly, gaming companies are put in a position of choosing what "virtual" items are allowed in the game for first hand buyers vs. second hand buyers, and that leads them to make bad decisions in locking up important aspects of a game, frustrating potential buyers.

Plenty of games have shown that money can be made in charging for the service (a scarce good) of connecting and accessing an online world or community. If video game makers focused on that, then the entire issue of the second hand market wouldn't be such an issue. In that case, they'd want to get the actual games distributed as widely as possible, with as many features enabled as possible, to make the idea of playing in the online environment even more appealing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> it's-about-the-scarcity http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081020/1155542591