<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;fans&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 11:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Makers Of Nutella Force Fan Who Created World Nutella Day To Shut It Down [Updated]</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/01450023148/makers-nutella-force-fan-who-created-world-nutella-day-to-shut-it-down-updated.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/01450023148/makers-nutella-force-fan-who-created-world-nutella-day-to-shut-it-down-updated.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
<b>Update: </b> <i>As of today, there are reports that Ferrero has been in contact with Sarah Russo and has <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-21/has-nutella-maker-ferrero-put-an-end-to-world-nutella-day" target="_blank">worked out an arrangement</a> by which Nutella Day will be reinstated with the company's blessing. The company is blaming the cease & desist on over-zealous lawyers as opposed to any public backlash. This may satisfy some people, while others will note that aggressive intellectual property laws and protection lead to this kind of collateral damage all the time.</i>
<br /><br />
Ferrero, the makers of Nutella, a hazelnut/chocolate spread that enjoys a love from people that I'll never understand (disclaimer: I hate chocolate), sure doesn't like anyone to use anything remotely like its name ever. You may not recall that it pushed back against the P2P network <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20010228/0240248.shtml">Gnutella</a> a decade ago over their name being too similar. While you could argue that might be at least somewhat understandable, how about when the company went legal on a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/18114120725/nutella-nastygrams-restaurant-promoting-its-product-opens-door-competitors.shtml">smoothie shop</a> for selling a shake that <i>used its product</i> and had the daring gall to, you know, tell people what was in it? Well, perhaps you think that at least Ferrero was targeting a commercial enterprise, even if doing so resulted in one less shop buying Nutella. I mean, it isn't like the company was going after ordinary customers who liked its product, right?
<br /><br />
<br /> Well, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/user/churchhatestucker">ChurchHatesTucker</a> writes in to inform us that Ferrero is doing exactly that, because f#$@ the fans, damn it. See, there is apparently something called World Nutella Day, which is ironically on my birthday (God, I hate Nutella...), where one website encourages everyone on the planet to cook something with Nutella. This, naturally, requires people to <i>buy</i> Nutella. Or it did, rather, until Ferrero threatened the creator of World Nutella Day with a cease and desist, <a href="http://www.nutelladay.com/" target="_blank">forcing her to shut down the site completely</a>. Via World Nutella Day founder, Sara Rosso:
<blockquote>
<i>On May 25, 2013, I'll be darkening the World Nutella Day site, nutelladay.com, and all social media presence (Facebook, Twitter), in compliance with a cease-and-desist I received from lawyers representing Ferrero, SpA (makers of Nutella). The cease-and-desist letter was a bit of a surprise and a disappointment, as over the years I've had contact and positive experiences with several employees of Ferrero, SpA., and with their public relations and brand strategy consultants, and I've always tried to collaborate and work together in the spirit and goodwill of a fan-run celebration of a spread I (to this day) still eat. </i></blockquote>
Yup, you read that correctly. The makers of Nutella darkened a website <i>purely</i> designed to promote its product, even after directly working with Rosso for the last seven years. It's almost as if Ferrero doesn't want anyone to eat Nutella, with which I happen to whole-heartedly agree. No attempt to work out some kind of an arrangement, no even-handed license of the trademark, no humanity whatsoever. It's just, "Hey, thanks for being a fan, now shut it all down because the lawyers flipped out and somehow think you're harming us."
<br /><br />
Honestly, the stunning part to me is how genteel Rosso appears to be about all this.
<blockquote>
<i>I've spent hundreds of hours interacting with you, the fans, collecting and sharing your contributions, updating the World Nutella Day website with more than 700 recipes which were painstakingly gathered from bloggers sending me their posts and by scouring the internet for the best Nutella recipes, Tweeting and sharing on Facebook your favorite sayings, stories, and links about Nutella, and encouraging everyone to try it just once! Thanks for letting me be a part of that &ndash; it was truly a labor of love by a fan and something I did as a fan, in my (very little) spare time, and I have a full-time job I love. I hope that February 5th stays alive in your hearts and on your spoons, and hopefully it's arrivederci (see you soon) and not addio (goodbye).</i></blockquote>
It's hard to imagine someone sounding so sweet over the company of which she's a fan pulling such a brash and damnable move. I'd be livid, not hoping to start the site back up once Ferrero had a stupidectomy. I might even be encouraging everyone within earshot not to buy from a company that would pull this kind of stunt. Then again, perhaps I'm not as sweet as Russo because I'm not filled with Nutella spread. Who knows, but I'm sure there are many former customers of Nutella today.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/01450023148/makers-nutella-force-fan-who-created-world-nutella-day-to-shut-it-down-updated.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/01450023148/makers-nutella-force-fan-who-created-world-nutella-day-to-shut-it-down-updated.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/01450023148/makers-nutella-force-fan-who-created-world-nutella-day-to-shut-it-down-updated.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>raining-on-everyone's-parade</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130520/01450023148</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:31:29 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Not Connecting: Miami Marlins Organization Threatens Season Ticket Holders With Lawsuit Because They Want To Change Seats</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130320/04335422388/not-connecting-miami-marlins-organization-threatens-season-ticket-holders-with-lawsuit-because-they-want-to-change-seats.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130320/04335422388/not-connecting-miami-marlins-organization-threatens-season-ticket-holders-with-lawsuit-because-they-want-to-change-seats.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Way back in ancient 2009, Mike wrote a piece highlighting one spectacularly awful example of a business going out of their way to alienate their fans. We talk a great deal about connecting with customers here, but when we saw the Washington Redskins <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0042326099.shtml">suing</a> season ticket holders, who weren't able to keep to their contract terms after the economic downturn, we had to point it out. In that case, the actual contract language was on the Redskins' side, although in similar cases, sports franchises rarely go after their customers in that manner. Instead, typically the team and customers work out an amicable deal to resell the tickets or provide for some kind of payment plan. In other words: suing your fans is a crappy way to do business.
<br /><br />
But what if I told you that there's a worse example of a professional sports franchise threatening to sue their own fans? What if I told you that the customers they were threatening were <i>perfectly happy to continue paying</i> for their seats, despite the team doing everything in their power to alienate the fans, but the customers <b>just wanted to sit in different seats</b>, which they say the contract allows for? And what if I told you that all of this hate and bile comes from the team with the most obnoxiously festive stadium in pro sports? <center>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/48913243@N00/7085542779/" title="Marlins Park, Miami by @mikepick, on Flickr"><img alt="Marlins Park, Miami" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7139/7085542779_6b61bdb47d.jpg" width="300" /></a><br /> <span style="font-size:10px;">Little known fact: the entire stadium is made out of tropical flavor skittles<br /> Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/48913243@N00/7085542779/">source</a>: CC BY 2.0</span>

</center>
 Don't believe that all of the above could be true? Let me <a href="http://extramustard.si.com/2013/03/19/miami-marlins-continue-mission-to-alienate-every-last-fan-of-team/?sct=uk_t2_a5">introduce you to the Miami Marlins of Major League Baseball</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>The flea-market ownership of the Miami Marlins have let down their fans too many times to count through the years, whether it's running one of their traditional fire sales &mdash; see: November's $160 million salary dump &mdash; or pocketing revenue-sharing money intended for players. Or, lest we forget, getting South Florida taxpayers to plunk down 80 percent of the cost for a new $634 million baseball park. But this might take the cake even for them.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The team has threatened to sue Bill and Jan Leon, season ticket holders since 1998, <b>for having the gall to ask for a different seat location &mdash; as they say the ticket agreement permits &mdash; and refusing to pay when the team failed to comply</b>. The New Miami Times reports the Leons signed a two-year agreement for their tickets (at $25,000 per year) with the option of changing their seats if they were unhappy with their location after the first season. Which they were, thanks to a sign that obstructed their view.</i></blockquote>
Yes, you read that right. After bilking taxpayers out of a huge chunk of money to build their stadium, the team is suing two season ticket holders for asking to switch seats. Now, I know what you're thinking: surely this must have happened because the team couldn't accommodate their request to move their seats. You're thinking that all the rest of the seats in the stadium must have been gobbled up by Floridians. Well, if you are, you're wrong. The <a href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2012">Marlins drew enough attendance last year</a>, the first year of their new stadium (generally considered to provide a bump in attendance), to not quite fill 75% of the seats. In other words, if the team had wanted to be amicable, they had over a quarter of their skittle stadium to choose from to reseat the Leons. Instead they're suing, because evil doesn't do logic.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130320/04335422388/not-connecting-miami-marlins-organization-threatens-season-ticket-holders-with-lawsuit-because-they-want-to-change-seats.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130320/04335422388/not-connecting-miami-marlins-organization-threatens-season-ticket-holders-with-lawsuit-because-they-want-to-change-seats.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130320/04335422388/not-connecting-miami-marlins-organization-threatens-season-ticket-holders-with-lawsuit-because-they-want-to-change-seats.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yes,-seriously</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130320/04335422388</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:47:45 PST</pubDate>
<title>The NHL Comeback And The Opportunity In Streaming</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/10073721607/nhl-comeback-opportunity-streaming.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/10073721607/nhl-comeback-opportunity-streaming.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I have long been a proponent of more <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/06070417275/dear-pro-sports-leagues-can-i-watch-game-please.shtml">widely available</a> sports league streaming options as a method for building revenue. While I firmly believe in the concept of blackout-less and minimal cost streaming for anyone who wants to watch a game on the computer, tablet, or phone instead of on their television, I do understand that there are some hurdles to consider. Chief amongst those hurdles is the&nbsp;<i>enormous</i> contracts many of these leagues have with broadcasting partners, particularly network TV partners, which can present a great deal of friction to streaming services that aren&#39;t their own.<br />
<br />
With all that said, if ever there was an opportunity to jump that hurdle, one embattled league would have it easier than the others, and that&#39;s the NHL. For anyone who isn&#39;t a hockey fan, the NHL lockout is essentially over and there will be a season this year. Like any league that has a work stoppage, however, one major concern is <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2013/01/07/nhl-lockout-is-over-but-will-the-fans-come-back/">whether or not fans will come back to the sport </a>after being denied the product for so long.
<blockquote>
<i>The pact is expected to last 10 years and split revenues 50-50 between owners and players, similar to the CBAs in the NFL and NBA. The players are set to return to the ice, but will NHL fans come back as well? The 2004-05 NHL lockout that wiped out an entire season did not keep fans away when hockey returned in October 2005. In fact, it was the exact opposite in many cases. Attendance increased for the majority of teams with nine teams experiencing a bump of at least 5% compared to the 2003-04 season. The Pittsburgh Penguins led the way with a 33% gain, as recent top draft picks Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin made their Pens&rsquo; debut. Attendance for the Carolina Hurricanes rose 26% thanks to the team&rsquo;s Southeast Division crown and first Stanley Cup title.</i></blockquote>
All of that is absolutely true, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, other leagues that have had work stoppages haven&#39;t faired nearly as well. The best modern era example of a post-stoppage negative effect is the MLB player&#39;s strike of 1995, after which there was a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994%E2%80%9395_Major_League_Baseball_strike#Consequences">nearly 20% decline in attendance</a> and TV revenues fell sharply.<br />
<br />
Secondly, not all NHL teams felt the post-stoppage bump described above. Those that did not tended to be the teams with limited television exposure in 2005. The best example of this is the Chicago Blackhawks, which blacked out all home games before and after the strike, with home attendance numbers falling in &#39;04 from 13k fans per game to just under that number by &#39;07. However, something magical happened in 2008: owner and blackout proponent Bill Wirtz died and his son immediately lifted the blackout restrictions. Attendance immediately rose as fans had a way to embrace the team regularly and then bought tickets, climbing to a peak of over 22k fans per game in &#39;09.<br />
<br />
Finally, note that the NHL is in the&nbsp;<i>weakest&nbsp;</i>position in terms bargaining power over TV contracts, because it receives so relatively little in revenue percentage from their main contract with NBC (who does offer limited streaming of one game per week or so).
<blockquote>
<i>NHL teams derived 47% of their revenues last season from arena revenues controlled by the fan. These include gate receipts, concessions and parking. The other half of revenues hail from media contracts, luxury suites, sponsors and non-hockey events. Of the major U.S. sports, baseball is the next highest at 46%, but that figure is set to drop with the explosion of local media deals in the sport like the impending Los Angeles Dodgers deal worth more than $6 billion. The corresponding percentages in the NBA and NFL are 34% and 24% respectively. The NHL simply does not have the media rights fee millions (or billions) the other sports possess.</i>
</blockquote>
This lockout presents the&nbsp;<i>perfect opportunity&nbsp;</i>for the NHL to embrace wide streaming of their games as a method for building current and future revenue through an expanded fanbase. We know that stoppages can and have hurt attendance. We know that the more options there are for fans to watch their teams play games, without restrictions, the better attendance comes back after stoppages. Finally we know that the NHL does not get the kind of broadcast fees the other leagues do, so they have the least to lose by going the non-traditional route. 
<br /><br />
The time for the NHL to embrace internet streams is now. Not with some NHL package that blacks out all the games of someone&#39;s home team. Real streaming, real exposure, real broadening of the NHL fanbase, leading to better attendance, more options for ad revenue, and ultimately more lucrative broadcast contracts.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/10073721607/nhl-comeback-opportunity-streaming.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/10073721607/nhl-comeback-opportunity-streaming.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/10073721607/nhl-comeback-opportunity-streaming.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-league-with-the-least-to-lose</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130108/10073721607</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Dec 2012 07:32:34 PST</pubDate>
<title>Sega Goes Nuclear On YouTube Videos Of Old Shining Force Game</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/17321021296/sega-goes-nuclear-youtube-videos-old-shining-force-game.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/17321021296/sega-goes-nuclear-youtube-videos-old-shining-force-game.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Sega has a history of being less than friendly to their fans and customers. Recall that they were unable to respond to one customer's concerns about SOPA, other than to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/17455117394/sega-gets-it-right-about-sopa-its-time-hard-reset-copyright-law-congress.shtml">ramble on</a> about reboots and hard resets. Then there was their <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081119/1212442886.shtml">DRM fiasco</a> when an iteration of their popular Football Manager franchise had DRM every bit as functional and effective as Congress.
<center>
<p>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/83015819@N00/4683413551/" title="DSC_0030 by jonworth-eu, on Flickr"><img alt="DSC_0030" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4013/4683413551_6dc464c5a3.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
<span style="font-size:10px;">Pictured: Constitutional DRM<br />
Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/83015819@N00/4683413551/">source</a>: CC BY 2.0</span>
</p></center>
<p>
Well, Sega has apparently decided to buck their trend of being mildly annoying to their fans... by upping the ante and going full-blown fan-screw-crazy. They have apparently been going on a YouTube video take down blitz for <a href="http://www.destructoid.com/sega-forcing-removal-of-shining-force-videos-on-youtube-239581.phtml">anything related to their Shining Force franchise</a> to somehow protect an upcoming PSP release in the series from being... well... maybe they think that... no, that doesn't work... you know what? I don't know what the hell they're afraid of, but they're pooping all over a bunch of fan videos. 
<blockquote>
<i>Many YouTube channels have already been hit, including that of popular game critic TotalBiscuit, who has since removed all Sega content from his page out of disgust. No type of content was spared -- Let's Plays, walkthroughs, and random gameplay clips all got flagged. Hell, even videos of fans just talking about the Shining series with no accompanying game footage whatsoever are apparently copyright violations!</i>
</blockquote>
If you've spent ten seconds searching for any game on YouTube, you know that the plethora of fan videos, playthroughs, and Let's Plays are more abundant than gold rings in a Sonic game. And if the rest of the gaming world is anything like me, and there's a frighteningly good chance that it is, they use those kinds of things to either influence whether they purchase a game or not or to enhance their gaming experience via the walkthroughs. Either way, Sega, yanking those videos offline in some misguided attempt to avoid confusion with a new upcoming game (because everyone knows how easily fooled the rabid fanbase of an RPG franchise is), can only cause anger in established fans/customers and ward off purchases by potential customers who can no longer get a glimpse of what they would be buying. 
<br /><br />
At this point, I would usually make some kind of grand statement mixed with a little vulgarity to wrap all this up into a fine point, but the afore linked Destructoid does it as well or better than I could, so I'll give them the final word:
<blockquote>
<i>Remember earlier this year when the Internet took a stand against SOPA / PIPA? This was the kind of nonsense we were fighting against. This is unbelievably bad form. It makes no sense either, because why are just the Saturn Shining games catching most of the heat? Why isn't Sega going after the whole pie? If you are going to be a dick, don't stop in mid-f*ck.</i>
</blockquote>
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/17321021296/sega-goes-nuclear-youtube-videos-old-shining-force-game.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/17321021296/sega-goes-nuclear-youtube-videos-old-shining-force-game.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/17321021296/sega-goes-nuclear-youtube-videos-old-shining-force-game.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-here-comes-the-fallout</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121206/17321021296</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 05:45:52 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Littlest Thug: Prince Sends Cease And Desist To Fan Who Created 'Le Petit Prince' Miniature Doll</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121119/18143921097/littlest-thug-prince-sends-cease-desist-to-fan-who-created-le-petit-prince-miniature-doll.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121119/18143921097/littlest-thug-prince-sends-cease-desist-to-fan-who-created-le-petit-prince-miniature-doll.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For an artist who has worked tirelessly to maintain his artistic integrity (even going so far as to change his name/wear a mask), Prince has done more than most to ensure that <i>his</i> vision remains intact all the way up to the fans' ears. Unfortunately, he seems to view this "connection" with his fans as one-way.<br />
<br />
Between starting one of the first <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011/future-music-business-models-those-who-are-already-there.shtml">CwF</a> websites and swiftly abandoning it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1230318851.shtml" target="_blank">after collecting $79/head</a>, suing YouTube, eBay and the Pirate Bay for "<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070913/162815.shtml" target="_blank">making his work available</a>," declaring the internet <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100706/01361810078.shtml" target="_blank">to be "over"</a> (and thus, unworthy of hosting his music) and claiming that cover versions physically <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/13280113977/prince-claims-when-someone-covers-your-song-original-no-longer-exists.shtml" target="_blank">destroy the original tunes</a> (???), Prince has done everything he can to <i>prevent</i> fans from connecting with <i>him</i>.<br />
<br />
To that end, Prince has yet again flexed his tiny, presumably purple, muscles to order a fan to cease and desist doing fan-type stuff. Troy Gua, a "serious Prince obsessive" and conceptual artist, <a href="http://blogs.citypages.com/gimmenoise/2012/11/prince_artist_troy_gua_cease_desist_le_petit_prince.php" target="_blank">just received a cease and desist letter from "Prince's people", ordering him to knock off his puppet-based adoration of the Artist</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Somewhere deep down, we're sure Troy Gua expected he'd someday have to face saying goodbye to the much-lauded miniature doll that was at the center of his art series, Le Petit Prince. This was no small project -- Gua literally recreated many famous Prince moments with the little guy and even included detailed props like the Purple Rain motorcycle. Ironically, we were recently emailing with Gua to do a piece about the new calendar he was putting out featuring some of these photographs, but this week Gua sadly informed us the dream is over. He received a cease and desist letter from the real Prince's people on Monday.</i></blockquote>
Not only did Troy Gua receive an angry email, but also a very official hard copy via FedEx. The order states that Gua is not allowed to "exhibit the photo work or the sculptural doll," which covers pretty much the entire Le Petite Prince project. Gua has decided not to fight back and has <a href="http://troygua.com/work/lite-in-precept/" target="_blank">left instructions on his website</a> asking fans to only leave positive comments.<br />
<br />
Gua's taking the high road, but Prince seems unwilling to allow any sort of expression based on him or his works to see the light of day <i>anywhere</i>. CityPages points out that <a href="http://soundcloud.com/lenkaparis" target="_blank">another artist was hit with a C&#038;D</a> for posting Prince remixes <i>for streaming only</i> at her SoundCloud page. Presumably, the upcoming calendar would be considered commercial use of Prince's image (I suppose) and that may have urged on the Purple Hammer, but DJ Lenka Paris' mixes weren't being sold or made available for download, so it's not entirely a crackdown on commercial use.<br />
<br />
It may be that Prince wants all things "Prince" to originate from Prince <i>only</i>. If so, Prince should learn to let go. <i>No one</i> has that much control and attempting to maintain "artistic integrity" by stomping out anything not officially blessed by the man himself is an awful way to treat fans. Here's <i>exactly</i> how to do CwF WRONG:
<blockquote>
<i>If it wasn't clear before, his Purpleness has some very stringent ideas around what his fans can and cannot do in their appreciation of him. In a nutshell: Yes, please do pay $250 for that concert ticket, but 'Hova help you if you seek to publicly admire him through music or art.</i></blockquote>
Prince has a large fan base and it appears that his fans won't fight a legal battle with a.) someone with much more money or b.) someone they respect greatly, even if that respect is <i>completely</i> one way. One of those is logical and the other is understandable, but either way, it's tough for non-Prince-acolytes to respect an artist whose response to fan efforts that stray into "his" territory is unvarying legal thuggery.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121119/18143921097/littlest-thug-prince-sends-cease-desist-to-fan-who-created-le-petit-prince-miniature-doll.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121119/18143921097/littlest-thug-prince-sends-cease-desist-to-fan-who-created-le-petit-prince-miniature-doll.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121119/18143921097/littlest-thug-prince-sends-cease-desist-to-fan-who-created-le-petit-prince-miniature-doll.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>dawwwww...-he's-so-CUTE-when-he's-angry!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121119/18143921097</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Nov 2012 14:37:04 PST</pubDate>
<title>Will Disney Block Star Wars Fan-Made Content?</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121101/13355120910/will-disney-block-star-wars-fan-made-content.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121101/13355120910/will-disney-block-star-wars-fan-made-content.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We discussed recently how George Lucas <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121030/13202220887/george-lucas-finally-relinquishes-his-tight-control-star-wars-to-mickey-mouse.shtml">relinquished control</a> of the Star Wars franchise, selling it to Disney. As Leigh noted in that piece, critics have long chastised Lucas for the control he exerted over his films, as well as the meddling he did on the classics so many hold dear. While that criticism is certainly valid, one area where Lucas seemed to be open -- in many ways bucking the Hollywood trend -- was with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100524/0041319542.shtml">fan-made content</a>, such as fan films and fan fiction. In fact, Lucasfilm to a great extent&nbsp;<i>embraced</i> fan fiction, even going <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Official_Star_Wars_Fan_Film_Awards">so far as to hold contests</a> for such content. The fact that Lucasfilm gained rights ownership of those fan-made films led to some criticism, but at least the company wasn&#39;t suing the jedi tunics off of its own fans.
<center>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tigergirl/14583265/" title="Star Wars Geeks by Tiger Girl, on Flickr"><img alt="Star Wars Geeks" height="375" src="http://farm1.staticflickr.com/11/14583265_a260f22a5e.jpg" width="500" /></a>
<br />
<span style="font-size:10px;">These aren't the defendants you're looking for.
<br />
Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tigergirl/14583265/in/photostream/">source</a>: CC BY 2.0</span>
</center>
<br />
But now some folks are wondering about the fate of all this fan-made content, and how future fan content will be received, now that <strike>the Empire</strike> Disney controls the franchise. <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/user/snate">Dennis S.</a> writes in about a piece on this topic at Ars Technica, which <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/disney-owns-lucasfilm-will-it-have-room-for-star-wars-fan-movies/">reads less like a question about fan-made content</a> and more like a propsective eulogy for it.
<blockquote>
<i>In 2007, Lucasfilm even released tools that would more easily enable remixing of Star Wars content. A top Lucasfilm lawyer, Jeffrey Ulin, began speaking at conferences and to the media about the value of fan mash-ups and remixes. Those works were "part of keeping the love of Star Wars and the franchise alive... We&#39;re really trying to position ourselves for the next 30 years," Ulin told the Wall Street Journal in 2007.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>Certainly, Disney fans who make their own movie featuring Mickey Mouse are more likely to get a cease-and-desist letter from a Disney lawyer than an award. After all, it was Disney who famously lobbied Congress to extend copyright terms in 1998, so much so that some dubbed the new law the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Perhaps no single company more than Disney bears more responsibility for the sorry state of the US public domain, which hasn&#39;t seen any significant works added to it in decades. For the most part, culture after 1923 has been frozen in a state of private ownership&mdash;mostly owned by the large media corporations that began rising at about that time.</i>
</blockquote>
It&#39;s very difficult to argue with the precedent that the article lays out. Star Wars enjoys what may well be the biggest franchise fanbase&nbsp;<i>ever</i>. Part of that fanbase is so fanatical that they want to take part in the fun, sharing with one another their own creations and extensions of the Star Wars story. Many believe it&#39;s this same enthusiasm that has built up the Star Wars brand to such an amazing degree, but Disney&#39;s history suggests these contributions may no longer be welcome.
<br /><br />
Frankly, that may pose a bigger problem than one would imagine. Obviously the Star Wars brand is big enough at this point that whatever content Disney releases is likely to be a hit...but will it grow as fast as it could if Mickey Mouse goes all emperor over the people? There&#39;s a serious risk in alienating folks over this kind of thing. Star Wars fans aren&#39;t stupid. There&#39;s a reason there&#39;s been a fair amount of hand-wringing over the sale of the franchise to Disney, seemingly much moreso than other sales like Marvel. This is a community that likes to contribute their own work to the story. I would say that such contributions are&nbsp;<i>integral</i>&nbsp;to the fanbase. If Disney acts to block that kind of thing, as they have in the past, the fans may well rebel against <strike>the Empire</strike> Disney and its <strike>Senate</strike> boardroom.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121101/13355120910/will-disney-block-star-wars-fan-made-content.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121101/13355120910/will-disney-block-star-wars-fan-made-content.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121101/13355120910/will-disney-block-star-wars-fan-made-content.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>there's-a-mouse-in-the-house</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121101/13355120910</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:59:21 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How To Use One Superfan To Spread The Word To Millions</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121028/04562120864/how-to-use-one-superfan-to-spread-word-to-millions.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121028/04562120864/how-to-use-one-superfan-to-spread-word-to-millions.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Techdirt has been a great believer in connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy for <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/2246525598.shtml">many years</a>, but it's always interesting to see people come up with new variations on this theme.  Here's the idea in an extreme form, from a couple months ago: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2012/sep/11/the-xx-shared-coexist-release">sharing a new album stream with just one "superfan" who then spread the word with dramatic results</a>:

<i><blockquote>To recreate the word-of-mouth phenomenon that made them famous, the xx shared their album stream Coexist with a single fan just outside London last week -- days before its official US release.
<br /><br />
It was a risky marketing move that set out to test whether the band could replicate their initial viral success with a map that tracked shares with a visualization on the Coexist stream's host site.
<br /><br />
Twenty-four hours after the stream was shared with a fan on Facebook, the site crashed from the millions of streams, with the average user spending 2.1 hours on the site.</blockquote></i>

The "superfan" was chosen on the basis of frequent postings about the band "the xx" in the past. This meant he or she was certain to be fired up by the prospect of exclusive access to the new album ahead of everyone else.  That in its turn increased the likelihood the initial post revealing the location of the stream to the rest of world would be positive.  It would also come with the implicit authority of someone who was presumably well-known in the music community for writing about the band, adding to its impact.  
</p>
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/0XsKi"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/0XsKi.png" width=560 /></a>
</center>
<p>
Alongside the massive interest this approach generated, the other big benefit for the band is that it avoids the uncertainties of releasing the album first to music journalists, who are much more unpredictable in their reactions.  Indeed, it was only the next day that the music press got hold of the story, by which time the huge viral success of this campaign meant that there was no question of ignoring the new album or its enthusiastic uptake.  In other words, the traditional news outlets found themselves forced to acquiesce in the narrative generated by the fans, rather than being in control and telling those fans what to think.
</p><p>
Clearly, this isn't a strategy that can be used too often, and there's also the issue of how good this kind of connection is at generating sales.  But it does underlie the importance of fully understanding the social structure of the community of fans -- in this case, in order to find a superfan who could be used to seed the rest of the fan base via an enthusiastic recommendation.  There are many other possible ways of involving people who are key "nodes" in the social graph -- the ones whose influence really counts -- and we'll doubtless be hearing about them in due course.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121028/04562120864/how-to-use-one-superfan-to-spread-word-to-millions.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121028/04562120864/how-to-use-one-superfan-to-spread-word-to-millions.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121028/04562120864/how-to-use-one-superfan-to-spread-word-to-millions.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>media,-who-needs-it?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121028/04562120864</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:52:17 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yet Again, File Sharing Correlated To Biggest Buyers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/15321720721/yet-again-file-sharing-correlated-to-biggest-buyers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/15321720721/yet-again-file-sharing-correlated-to-biggest-buyers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ At this point, it's not a surprise since we've covered this in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110721/04092915191/industry-suppressed-report-showing-users-shuttered-pirate-site-probably-helped-movie-industry.shtml">study</a>, after <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-898813.html">study</a>, after <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4718249.stm">study</a>, after <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/" target="_blank">study</a>, after <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2009/04/21/study-finds-file-sharers-buy-ten-times-more-music/" target="_blank">study</a>, after <a href="http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-research-p2p-filesharing-no-barrier-to-music-sales/" target="_blank">study</a> before, but Joe Karaganis' recent "tease" of his latest "copy culture" study shows that <a href="http://piracy.americanassembly.org/where-do-music-collections-come-from/" target="_blank">the biggest "pirates" also tend to be the biggest buyers</a>.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/IKwnU"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/IKwnU.png" width=560 /></a>
</center>
Now, as we've said before (and will now say again), no one is suggesting in any way that this means there's a causal relationship between infringement and sales.  Not at all.  But it does mean that those who focus on "attacking" those who infringe, and labeling them "pirates" and pissing them off with various anti-fan strategies are making a huge mistake.  These are people who can and do buy.  The focus, instead, should be on providing them with improved legal and authorized ways to get what they want in a format they want.  Time and time again, we've seen that this is the <i>only</i> real strategy that works long term.
<br /><br />
The study also highlights (<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121004/12122520595/why-mpaa-cant-win-hearts-minds-public-file-sharing-is-mainstream.shtml">yet again</a>) just how much people share with friends and family -- something that no amount of copyright "enforcement" is going to stop.  That's something that most people think is completely normal and "reasonable" for the most part.  So it's little surprise that large parts of people's music collections seem to come from friends and family, especially the younger generation (where it's even greater than downloading from the internet).
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/0N78c"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/0N78c.png" width=560 /></a>
</center>
This, once again, suggests that the absolute wrong strategy is to focus on greater enforcement.  It's not going to stop that kind of sharing at all.  It seems entirely counterproductive, and only serves to piss off those who are most interested in the music (and often the most interested in paying <i>if given a good reason to do so</i>).
<br /><br />
The end result is the same as always.  The problem is not "piracy." It's just a symptom of failing to properly respond to the market.  The market doesn't "just want stuff for free."  I keep seeing people claim that piracy definitively decreases sales, but we know that's not true.  We've seen some cases where it has helped sales -- so what explains the difference?  I'd posit it's pretty simple: <i>piracy decreases sales if you don't embrace what your fans want</i>.  However, if you do treat your fans like fans, give them ways to support you, don't act like they're criminals, and actually adapt to the changing market, you can turn what would otherwise be a negative into a positive.  But it involves quite a bit of work, and that's the big challenge.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/15321720721/yet-again-file-sharing-correlated-to-biggest-buyers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/15321720721/yet-again-file-sharing-correlated-to-biggest-buyers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/15321720721/yet-again-file-sharing-correlated-to-biggest-buyers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-many-times-do-we-need-to-cover-this?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121016/15321720721</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/22370320414/amanda-palmer-destroyssaves-musicians-chances-hitting-it-big-as-artist-remain-unchanged.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/22370320414/amanda-palmer-destroyssaves-musicians-chances-hitting-it-big-as-artist-remain-unchanged.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In terms of incendiary writing, the <a href="http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120821/" target="_blank">following sentence ranks so low</a> on the scale as to be imperceptible:
<blockquote>
<i>we will feed you beer, hug/high-five you up and down (pick your poison), give you merch, and thank you mightily for adding to the big noise we are planning to make.</i></blockquote>
That was Amanda Palmer&#39;s offer to instrumentalists willing to join her on stage during tour appearances. And then the internet exploded for most of five days before <a href="http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120919/" target="_blank">Palmer reappeared to say this</a>:
<blockquote>
<i>me and my band have discussed it at length. and we have decided we should pay all of our guest musicians. we have the power to do it, and we&rsquo;re going to do it. (in fact, we started doing it three shows ago.)</i></blockquote>
So. Here&#39;s the deal. I had 1,600 words assembled in an orderly fashion and was gently (but firmly) herding them through the Amanda Palmer "free as in volunteer musicians" minefield. It was quite possible many of these words, some multisyllable, some a bit sweary, wouldn&#39;t make it all the way across. But, it was <i>this</i> close to being a "thing," a monumental defense of Amanda Palmer&#39;s absolute right to ask for fans to pitch in on tour despite her having $1.2 million worth of Kickstarting (mostly spent) in her hip pocket.<br />
<br />
Because she had every right, no matter how seemingly large the amount at her disposal, to ask people to volunteer to be her sidemen/women. The problem was her critics (and lord, there were quite a few of those) were blinded by all the money she had, especially when comparing it to the money they had. <a href="http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2012/09/13/the-amanda-palmer-kerfuffle/" target="_blank">Here&#39;s Bob Lefsetz, breaking it down</a>:
<blockquote>
<i>They believe she should pay.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Because she raised a million dollars on Kickstarter and they didn&rsquo;t!</i><br />
<br />
<i>Amanda ankled her major label deal, she makes money on Twitter, she uses the new technologies to both reach people and profit and they don&rsquo;t like it. They could join in, but then they might fail, and they wouldn&rsquo;t be able to sit at home at bitch.</i></blockquote>
But before the (probably) bloated opus could hit the front page, Palmer decided to shell out cash to her volunteers, freeing up the money by shuttling money back and forth between line items, robbing Video to pay Sax Players, as it were.
<blockquote>
<i>my management team tweaked and reconfigured financials, pulling money from this and that other budget (mostly video) and moving it to the tour budget. &#8232;all of the money we took out of those budgets is going to the crowd-sourced musicians fund. we are going to pay the volunteer musicians every night. even though they volunteered their time for beer, hugs, merch, free tickets, and love: we&rsquo;ll now also hand them cash.</i></blockquote>
Was it the <i>right</i> thing to do? No. It wasn&#39;t the wrong thing to do, either. It was simply a thing to do. When you&#39;re trying to tour and all anyone wants to talk about is whether or not the VOLUNTEER sax player is going to get paid scale or at least, more than hugs, it&#39;s often simpler to do the thing that drops the ongoing dialog down to a manageable dull roar, or at least a trifle more supportive roar.<br />
<br />
<i>Not</i> paying was <i>never</i>&nbsp;wrong. Take away the crowdfunding aspect (which seems to be what the critics get hung up on) and Palmer&#39;s offer is every diehard fan&#39;s dream. Get on stage with your favorite artist! Get beer/hugs! In any other situation, there&#39;s no controversy. Only people who get to live their dreams for a night and those who get to see others living their dreams. Try these hypothetical offers on for size:
<blockquote>
- Lady Gaga, major label artist, sends out an invite for interested fans to jump onstage and perform for a couple of tracks in exchange for discarded wigs, unused wardrobe and travel bottles of Ciroc. (Feel free to substitute a major label artist you can actually tolerate for Lady Gaga, if need be.)<br />
<br />
- Indie legend Weezer sends out an open invitation for interested fans to perform onstage with them at their tour stops in exchange for corrective lenses, sweaters and "Pinkerton" CDs rescued from the cutout bin.<br />
<br />
- Label-free artist <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110515/23234814274/another-exception-jonathan-coulton-making-half-million-year-with-no-record-label.shtml" target="_blank">Jonathan Coulton </a>sends out an open invitation for interested fans to perform interpretative dances during his live appearances in exchange for retweets and a 4-song EP dedicated to you and recorded backstage while you wait.</blockquote>
Viewed this way, the same invitation Palmer made sounds like pure gold for diehard fans. Each of these artists is offering a chance for local artists to become local heroes, if only for a night. In exchange for their time, effort and expertise, the contributing fans will walk away $0 richer in direct monetary terms. But who would turn that down? No fan is going to tell one of their favorite bands, "Thanks, but I&#39;d rather be paid." Or, "Not interested. I&#39;d rather watch from a safe distance away."<br />
<br />
Palmer&#39;s offer is different. It&#39;s not different because her offer is any different than the hypotheticals posed above. It&#39;s different because of one thing: $1.2 million in transparently spent, crowdsourced dollars.<br />
<br />
If Lady Gaga declines to pay supporting volunteers, it&#39;s the label&#39;s fault for not spotting her enough money to do the show the way she envisioned it. If Weezer does it, it&#39;s because working for indie labels means tight margins. If Coulton does it, it&#39;s because he has to finance his own touring via ticket, album and merch sales.<br />
<br />
But, because Amanda Palmer pre-financed her tour, a majority of her detractors saw "$1.2 million" and wondered if she&#39;s blown it all on ridiculous stuff like, well, who knows exactly, but presumably wasteful, more-money-than-brains accoutrements. The debacle turned musicians into accountants and Palmer&#39;s actual accountants into a "<a href="http://pitchfork.com/news/47852-steve-albini-amanda-palmer-the-fight-continues/" target="_blank">crazy moebius strip of waste</a>."<br />
<br />
But that's ridiculous. Beyond the fact that the source of the money does make her offer wrong, there&#39;s the poor underlying argument from some musicians that there's something "wrong," or at least "diminishing" about playing for free. There isn&#39;t. <a href="http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120913/" target="_blank">Everybody does it</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>if my years working as as street performer taught me anything, they taught me to accept help in every way, to never be too proud or afraid to ask for it. i never got pissed at a passerby for not throwing change in my hat. i stood there knowing that maybe 15 people later, maybe 20, maybe 100&hellip;someone would. it&rsquo;s literally an opposite strategy from someone deciding that they, on principle, won&rsquo;t gig for free.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>i&rsquo;ve built my life as a musician, like many many people in rock and roll, playing for free&hellip;.a LOT.<br />
or playing for beer.<br />
playing for exposure.<br />
playing for fun.<br />
playing just to be able to sell merch.<br />
playing to do somebody a favor.<br />
playing a benefit to help a cause.</i></blockquote>
It's also important to note that Palmer was only asking for a little bit of the artists&#39; time. She wasn&#39;t asking them to tour with her gratis or even perform the entire show.&nbsp;
<blockquote>
<i>we&rsquo;re looking for professional-ish horns and strings for EVERY CITY to hop up on stage with us&nbsp;<b>for a couple of tunes</b>.</i></blockquote>
Palmer&#39;s transparency worked against her. <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/amandapalmer/amanda-palmer-the-new-record-art-book-and-tour/posts/232020" target="_blank">A full breakdown of where that $1.2 million is going</a> has only prompted questions on the validity of some of the line items. Her response that it would cost $35,000 to secure the additional musicians for the entire tour is greeted with "but, but... $1.2 million." It almost seems as though fans were happier when all the money was raised and spent in complete opacity. When the sausage making apparatus was still hidden, and the money routed through middlemen, being invited to jam with your idols was a dream come true. Now, somehow, it's a slap in the face to struggling musicians everywhere?<br />
<br />
Artists performing for free do <i>not</i> diminish the art form or drag all other similar artists into a race for the bottom, pricewise. Neither does one artist asking other artists to perform for free. There's nothing disingenuous about this offer. Anyone who thought they were being taken advantage of needed to do nothing more than <i>not respond</i> the offer.<br />
<br />
Were these volunteers being screwed? If they were, it was being done so skillfully and pleasurably that they never noticed.
<blockquote>
<i>when we handed the musicians their surprise cash backstage in new orleans the other last night, they laughed like mad and said &ldquo;after ALL THAT, you're going TO PAY US??!!</i><br />
<br />
<i>moreover: i feel like we accidentally put ALL of our volunteer musicians into a weird situation that they didn&rsquo;t bargain for&hellip;.they unwittingly signed into a kerfuffle they never asked to join. all they wanted to was to hop on stage, rock out, and drink beer with us, etc.</i><br />
<br />
<i>so you all know: when this all started going down last week, jherek sent an email out to his current list of volunteers telling them that we totally understood if all this controversy was weirding them out. and we gave them an opportunity to pull out, no hard feelings.</i><br />
<br />
<i><b>since this started, not a single musician has pulled out</b>.</i></blockquote>
One of the saddest aspects about this whole debacle is that the artists who <i>did</i> decide to play for free were treated as traitors to The Cause simply because they didn&#39;t demand to be "treated with respect", respect in this case being dollars. That&#39;s some ugly artist-on-artist hate right there. Not that there weren&#39;t other sad aspects, what with the internet being involved and all:
<blockquote>
<i>I can&rsquo;t tell you how many &ldquo;you&rsquo;re such a stupid cunt&rdquo; and &ldquo;i&rsquo;d pay to travel just to fuck up your gig&hellip;if i played violin&rdquo; tweets i&rsquo;ve seen in the past few days...</i></blockquote>
<a href="http://amyvs.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/letter-to-amanda-palmer.html" target="_blank">Lots of criticism along the lines</a> of "I&#39;m a classically trained musician and it&#39;s hard enough to find paying gigs without rich musicians refusing to pay us for our contributions." Well, it&#39;s probably true that it&#39;s hard for a violinist or cellist or sax player to find paying gigs, but in no way did Palmer&#39;s "unpaid gig" offer hurt you unless you yourself accepted... but then, if you hate the idea so much, why the fuck would you? Just to make a point? Weird thought process. It&#39;s as if they believe every artist looking for a cellist or whatever will just point at Amanda Kickstarting Palmer and say, "She doesn&#39;t pay, therefore neither do we."<br />
<br />
The problem with this "NO UNPAID GIGS" stance is that it only ends up hurting the idealist who take it. You might believe that if enough people turn down unpaid gigs (and make a lot of angry noises about it), then at some point, those needed instrumentalists will run out of artists willing to work for free. If you can manage to hold together a career long enough for every invitation to come accompanied with payment, good on you. You&#39;ve beaten some very long odds.<br />
<br />
Most of this discussion is now academic, as Palmer will be paying all contributing tour musicians from this point forward. That&#39;s what living in public does. Transparency is double-edged and every Palmer detractor was seemingly a music school grad with an accounting degree. To her critics, this offer "proves" that her breakdown of the $1.2 million was filled with waste. Now they can pat themselves on the back for righting a wrong and turning "instrumentalist" back into a paying job.<br />
<br />
But Palmer paying cash doesn&#39;t make the world better for struggling artists, just as paying in beer didn&#39;t make it worse. If someone wants to reach the million-dollar-Kickstarter level, they need a whole lot more than one artist paying other artists. And most of these artists who decried the previous situation just aren&#39;t up for the level of commitment involved. In fact, most <i>human beings</i> aren&#39;t up for it. Living like Amanda F. Palmer isn&#39;t easy, and the rewards only come after <a href="http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2012/07/21/amanda-palmer-kickstarter-event/" target="_blank">years and years of killing yourself day in and day out</a>:
<blockquote>
<i>You&rsquo;re just not willing to work that hard.</i><br />
<br />
<i>That the only thing holding you back is you. Amanda does not know the word &ldquo;no&rdquo;. And every effort is an investment in her career. Money is secondary. She wanted to raise a million bucks on Kickstarter, did, and now it&rsquo;s almost all accounted for, profit is next to nothing.</i><br />
<br />
<i>If she sleeps, it&rsquo;s not for long. I felt lazy just being in her presence. But that&rsquo;s what it takes to make it today. Hard work. Are you prepared?</i>&nbsp;<br />
<br />
<i>And hard work is not e-mailing journalists who don&rsquo;t care, it&rsquo;s not badgering people to watch your YouTube clip and like you on Facebook, it&rsquo;s doing something so good people are drawn to you.</i></blockquote>
Palmer has delivered the narrative, lived out in public, that if you&#39;re willing to run flat-out, day after day, for more than a decade, you can get to this point. And the response from so many musicians to her open invitation was basically: "You made it to the top. Now, lift the rest of us up." You won. Now you&nbsp;<i>owe</i> us.<br />
<br />
Everyone got the same offer from Palmer. There&#39;s <a href="http://nickmoreton.posterous.com/learn-to-say-no" target="_blank">no shame</a> in saying "no." But there&#39;s also nothing wrong with saying "yes." Artists, including Palmer herself, have done unpaid gigs for exposure, charity, or simply because they were dying to perform and doing it for free was the only way to get it done. Either way, it&#39;s up to the individual. Someone else accepting a perceived screwing from an artist that a thousand armchair accountants have already decided has the money to pay in no way diminishes your chances as an artist. These chances remain what they have been, and will be, for years in either direction: slim to none.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
In the end, I&#39;m neither relieved nor disappointed this turned out the way it did. I&#39;m glad that Palmer will be able to concentrate on what she&#39;d clearly rather be doing: touring and entertaining. The Kickstarter money was freely given to her during that campaign, but apparently had plenty of strings attached once she started talking about unpaid gigs. I get the feeling that many of her detractors didn&#39;t contribute to the fundraising effort (indeed, it&#39;s doubtful that many had even listened to her music -- Steve Albini, along with other commenters in that thread, <a href="http://www.electricalaudio.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&#038;t=60267&#038;p=1545452#p1545452" target="_blank">clearly stated that he hadn&#39;t</a>), but it certainly didn&#39;t stop them from having strong opinions on how an artist they&#39;d never listened to should spend money they didn&#39;t contribute.<br />
<br />
I guess it sort of works out for everybody -- musicians get paid and Palmer gets back to work. But no wrongs were righted and the long, hard road to success didn&#39;t get any new shortcuts.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/22370320414/amanda-palmer-destroyssaves-musicians-chances-hitting-it-big-as-artist-remain-unchanged.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/22370320414/amanda-palmer-destroyssaves-musicians-chances-hitting-it-big-as-artist-remain-unchanged.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/22370320414/amanda-palmer-destroyssaves-musicians-chances-hitting-it-big-as-artist-remain-unchanged.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>one-sentence-between-'darling'-and-'pariah'</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120917/22370320414</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Sweded Movies: The Fans Talk Back</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120720/08221119776/sweded-movies-fans-talk-back.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120720/08221119776/sweded-movies-fans-talk-back.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>One of the defining characteristics of the digital world -- and one of the problems for copyright law, which was conceived in an analog age --  is the importance of being able to build on the work of others not just indirectly, but directly, through mashups or the re-use of existing material.  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=rudeholm">Stig Rudeholm</a> points us to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jul/05/sweded-movies-end-of-hollywood">a fascinating feature in the Guardian about "sweded movies"</a>: home-made tributes to Hollywood titles that adopt precisely this approach of creative re-interpretation.  The name apparently comes from the film "Be Kind Rewind", where DIY imitations of studio favorites are passed off as Swedish editions.
</p><p>
As the article's author, Ben Walters, writes, beyond the surface humor, there's something interesting happening here:

<i><blockquote>sweded movies are a form of talking back to Hollywood. Along with recut trailers and "supercuts" of familiar tropes, they represent a fledgling digital moving-image culture that presents a radical challenge to the mainstream movie industry. They are created as fun for fans but the ideas of entitlement and agency underpinning these videos will shape how we all consume -- and produce -- moving images in the 21st century. They are a taste of what comes after Hollywood.</blockquote></i>

He gives some examples of that "talking back":

<i><blockquote>see, for instance, the video <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJlbPXZEpRE">The Star Wars That I Used to Know</a>, which combines anti-Lucas sentiment with Gotye's music. The same sense of media-savvy pushback is evident in trailers that reconfigure <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfout_rgPSA">The Shining as a family comedy</a> or <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U71P5FKFqfg">Mrs Doubtfire as a stalker horror</a>; and in supercuts that point out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4uv0eD5Ufg">how much Julianne Moore likes to cry</a> or <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jRhgNp-fNc">how often the word "fuck" is used in The Big Lebowski</a>.</blockquote></i>

What's striking about these, he suggests, is the lack of traditional deference to Hollywood and its highly-paid artists.  Films are no longer immaculate creations that can be looked at but not touched; instead, cinema has become a store of images, sounds and symbols to be constantly reshuffled, re-used and reshaped in new works of sweded art, offering yet another example of lowered barriers to creativity brought about by low-cost digital technology.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120720/08221119776/sweded-movies-fans-talk-back.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120720/08221119776/sweded-movies-fans-talk-back.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120720/08221119776/sweded-movies-fans-talk-back.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>losing-control</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120720/08221119776</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 14:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Band Protests As A Copyright Troll Sues Its Fans</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120522/03424319011/band-protests-as-copyright-troll-sues-its-fans.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120522/03424319011/band-protests-as-copyright-troll-sues-its-fans.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One thing that's always amazed me is how the record labels ever got away with making it a standard thing that musicians hand over their copyrights to the label entirely.  Sure, the labels put up some risk capital and handle part of the business side of things, but to totally give up all of your copyrights?  In the tech industry, we've got lots of experience with risk capital, but venture capital deals (even as many entrepreneurs bemoan the deal terms) <i>never</i> go as far as record label deals in basically claiming 100% equity ownership in exchange for a piddly royalty (and only <i>after</i> you pay back the initial loan).  But, of course, thanks to a broken system, musicians basically had little choice in the past but to sign a record label deal -- and with just a few large players in the space, giving away your entire output was considered "standard."
<br /><br />
But, that leads to some troubling results.  We've already seen how artists have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090624/1202295348.shtml">complained</a> about their own works being used in suing fans.  These artists feel helpless about this legal campaign that attacks their fans, potentially creating significant problems for any attempt by those musicians to connect with fans and earn a living going forward.
<br /><br />
Take, for example, the tragic story of the band All Shall Perish, as chronicled on TorrentFreak.  Apparently, the band's German label handed over the rights to sue to a Panama-based copyright troll <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/music-pirates-will-be-unmasked-despite-bands-protests-120520/" target="_blank">who is now suing people in the US, contrary to the band's own wishes</a>.  The band, of course, recognizes that suing dozens of its biggest fans is not a good idea, but seems powerless to stop things.
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;The band&#8217;s attorney made it clear to the licensing people [at Nuclear Blast Records] that the band wanted no part in lawsuits against fans. The industry is changing, illegal downloading is troublesome for bands and of course, for record labels, but whatever the solution will be &#8211; streaming, subscription, Kickstarter, new ways of looking at it entirely, whatever comes about &#8211; the band and I are in agreement (as is their lawyer) that SUING MUSIC FANS SURE ISN&#8217;T IT,&#8221; Downey told TorrentFreak.
</i></blockquote>
Apparently, after a lot of pressure from the band, the label claims it will tell the trolling operation, World Digital Rights, to dismiss the lawsuits.  The band is now trying to regain control of its copyrights, and is saying that it would much prefer to protect its fans rather than sue them:
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;The band, their attorney and myself have and will continue to take any steps to protect their fans, yes, even those who file trade,&#8221; Downey told us. &#8220;The band would prefer that their fans legally purchase, stream or otherwise enjoy their music. But they definitely have not, will not and do not wish to sue their fans.&#8221;
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120522/03424319011/band-protests-as-copyright-troll-sues-its-fans.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120522/03424319011/band-protests-as-copyright-troll-sues-its-fans.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120522/03424319011/band-protests-as-copyright-troll-sues-its-fans.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>control-your-copyrights</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120522/03424319011</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:53:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Captain's Prerogative: CBS Suddenly Decides To Block Fan-Created Star Trek Show Despite Past Support</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120329/10120218288/captains-prerogative-cbs-suddenly-decides-to-block-fan-created-star-trek-show-despite-past-support.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120329/10120218288/captains-prerogative-cbs-suddenly-decides-to-block-fan-created-star-trek-show-despite-past-support.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>When you hold the copyright to something <em>really</em> popular&mdash;a true cultural phenomenon&mdash;the rules tend to change a little bit. The sheer size of the fanbase means stomping out every instance of infringement is completely unrealistic, so creators like George Lucas often tolerate or even <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100524/0041319542.shtml">support</a> fan fiction. Since creators and companies in this situation tend to just pick and choose where to enforce their rights, their actions are usually inconsistent (Lucasfilm also <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/13501215021/dark-side-wins-lucasfilm-shuts-down-star-wars-fan-movie-marathon.shtml">shut down</a> a fan-organized movie marathon).</p>

<p>CBS, which owns the rights to the <em>Star Trek</em> franchise, is one such company. Though they've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/04192915814/google-kills-tricorder-android-app-after-cbs-sends-dmca-takedown.shtml">meddled</a> in harmless fan creations before, they deserve credit for being generally quite supportive of such projects, most notably the 100% fan-created web-series <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Phase_II_(fan_series)" target="_blank">Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II</a>. But, as usual, inconsistency reins&mdash;<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=stever">Steve R.</a> points us to the news that CBS has blocked <em>Phase II</em> from <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/arts/television/cbs-blocks-use-of-unused-star-trek-script-by-spinrad.html?_r=1&#038;ref=technology" target="_blank">producing an episode based on a long-lost, unused <em>Star Trek</em> script</a>.</p>

<blockquote><em>Last fall an unused script for the cult 1960s television show turned up after being forgotten for years. Its author, the science-fiction writer Norman Spinrad, announced it would become an episode of a popular Web series, &#8220;Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II,&#8221; which features amateur actors in the classic roles of Capt. James T. Kirk, Mr. Spock and other crew members of the starship Enterprise.
<br /><br />
But then another player stepped in: CBS, which said it owned the script and blocked a planned Web production of it.</em></blockquote>

<p>There are a lot of details that are important to understanding what happened. For one thing, <em>Phase II</em> is not some slapdash production&mdash;the show has involved several Star Trek alumni (including Walter Koenig and creator Gene Roddenberry's son Eugene) both on and off camera, and the creators have enjoyed an open and supportive relationship with CBS. They found the contested script through Spinrad, the original writer (but not the copyright holder), who had been selling it online since he discovered a copy of it last year. CBS also had a brief dispute with Spinrad, which was <a href="http://normanspinradatlarge.blogspot.ca/2012/02/star-trek-he-walked-among-us-norman.html">settled</a> with the removal of the script (and an agreement to make no further comment).</p>

<p>Spinrad and <em>Phase II</em> creator James Cawley don't seem bothered&mdash;though, if they were, they wouldn't/couldn't say so, Spinrad because of his agreement and Cawley because of his desire to stay on good terms with CBS. Meanwhile, the fans (who were excited by the prospect of a long-lost script) get nothing. So what exactly did CBS accomplish here? Spinrad's final comment about the dispute makes vague references to their plans to license the script, but it's still not clear why they couldn't let <em>Phase II</em> produce it anyway, especially considering they have supported them in the past. As people have pointed out, this isn't even the first time <em>Phase II</em> used an abandoned <em>Star Trek</em> script: the 2007 episode "Blood and Fire" was originally pitched to <em>The Next Generation</em> in the '80s. There may be a technical difference that some commentators are missing there, in that it seems like "Blood and Fire" was a rejected pitch while this new script was shelved during production, but exact details are hard to pin down. Either way, nobody can tell why CBS is suddenly exercising their rights over this one script when they have been so tolerant of <em>Phase II</em> in the past. Their statement doesn't offer much:</p>

<blockquote><em>&#8220;We fully appreciate and respect the passion and creativity of the &#8216;Star Trek&#8217; fan and creative communities,&#8221; CBS said in a statement. &#8220;This is simply a case of protecting our copyrighted material and the situation has been amicably resolved.&#8221;</em></blockquote>

<p>Amicably? Maybe. Beneficially? Not as far as I can tell.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120329/10120218288/captains-prerogative-cbs-suddenly-decides-to-block-fan-created-star-trek-show-despite-past-support.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120329/10120218288/captains-prerogative-cbs-suddenly-decides-to-block-fan-created-star-trek-show-despite-past-support.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120329/10120218288/captains-prerogative-cbs-suddenly-decides-to-block-fan-created-star-trek-show-despite-past-support.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>doesn't-that-violate-the-prime-directive?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120329/10120218288</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:09:08 PDT</pubDate>
<title>UFC Makes The Awful Decision To Sue Some Of Its Biggest Fans</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120320/10225718173/ufc-makes-awful-decision-to-sue-some-its-biggest-fans.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120320/10225718173/ufc-makes-awful-decision-to-sue-some-its-biggest-fans.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Having recently <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/00423518125/justintv-not-guilty-stealing-cable-when-users-stream-ufc-matches.shtml">lost</a> its attempt to blame Justin.tv for the fact that some of its users stream Ultimate Fighting Championship matches, UFC's parent company Zuffa is moving ahead with its strategy of going after its fans directly.  This isn't entirely new.  A few years ago, the company announced plans to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/1831597626.shtml">sue fans</a>, even though it admitted at the time that the costs of such lawsuits would outweigh any benefits.  Of course, that alone should make you wonder what Zuffa management is thinking, but it seems that their entire thought process is "piracy bad, must stop," and that's about it.
<br /><br />
The latest move is that Zuffa was able to get user information from Greenfeedz.com, one of the websites that let people watch unauthorized feeds of UFC's pay-per-view (PPV) events.  This plan is very reminiscent of when DirecTV ran one of the first of these extortion-like shakedown campaigns by getting the list of customers from a seller of smart cards (which had other legitimate purposes) and then <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030717/1249255.shtml">demanding $3,500</a> from each of them.  That action did not go well for DirecTV, leading to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040312/1522218.shtml">multiple lawsuits</a>, including from <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040416/1850223.shtml">former employees</a>, and the company eventually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040615/0117258.shtml">dropped</a> the program altogether.  Stunningly, Zuffa's lawyer compares his situation to the DirecTV situation... but seems to ignore the massive backlash it created, the legal pushback and the eventual dropping of the program.
<br /><br />
 Of course, as we also noted in that post a couple years ago about Zuffa's plan to sue fans, huge numbers of people are perfectly willing to pay large sums for the PPV fights, and the numbers seem to keep growing.  It seems to depend more on who's fighting rather than whether or not unauthorized streams are available.  That said, in explaining why they're going to sue their fans, Zuffa's legal boss, Lawrence Epstein, said that he believes the <a href="http://mmajunkie.com/news/27852/ufcs-chief-counsel-people-that-steal-our-stuff-theyre-not-our-fans.mma" target="_blank">company has an <b>obligation</b></a> to sue the fans.
<br /><br />
But, even more ridiculous is the response when someone asks about suing fans.  Epstein claims that UFC loves its fans, but anyone who infringes is simply not a fan at all.  However, that's <i>ridiculous</i>.  An article by Ben Fowlkes at MMAFighting.com <a href="http://mobile.mmafighting.com/2012/3/19/2885466/suing-ufc-fans-isnt-the-way-to-combat-internet-piracy-or-to-turn" target="_blank">provides a wonderful explanation for why this is a ridiculous claim</a>:
<blockquote><i>
For starters, the UFC seems to believe that there are two types of MMA fans: the type who buys the pay-per-views, and the type who watches them illegally. In reality, the line between those two groups is probably a lot blurrier than Zuffa realizes. Chances are very good that some of the people who have streamed events in the past have also bought them, and probably will buy them again at some point in the future. Maybe they only pony up the $55 for the pay-per-view when the card is good enough, or when they can get friends to split the cost with them. Maybe they stream it when they only care about one or two fights, or when they&#8217;re simply too strapped for cash to afford it.
<br /><br />
My point is, not all piracy is created equal, at least on the receiving end, and attacking viewers as if they are distributors could do much more harm than good.
<br /><br />
For instance, picture a 19-year-old college student just about anywhere in America. He wants to see a UFC event, but maybe he can&#8217;t even afford basic cable, let alone a pay-per-view. He can&#8217;t go to a bar to watch the fights (unless he has a convincing fake ID), so he stays home and finds an illegal stream on his laptop, because he can't stand to miss the big fight. Then, months later, he gets sued by the UFC.
<br /><br />
What&#8217;s going to happen when that kid graduates, goes to work, and finds a job that will allow him to enjoy luxury expenses like pay-per-views? You think he&#8217;s going to become a loyal customer of the company that sued him back when he was struggling to buy books? You think he&#8217;s going to buy a ticket to see a UFC event when it comes to his city? You think he&#8217;s going to buy merchandise or watch free events or patronize the UFC in any way after that experience? Maybe. Or maybe he&#8217;ll hold a little bit of a grudge. You know, for the rest of his natural life.
</i></blockquote>
That's the amazing thing about so many anti-piracy attempts.  They simply don't take into account the <i>actual</i> situation, and what the real costs and benefits of their actions are.  They just think "piracy bad, must stop."  They refuse to accept that those who are infringing may have reasons for doing so beyond "I'll never give any money to these people ever."  Not actually understanding that seems like a huge strategic blunder.  For all the talk of having an "obligation" to sue fans, I would think that the company's officers actually have an obligation to the company's shareholders, which means not making braindead moves that actually hurt the bottom line.  And yet that seems to be the ultimate plan here.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120320/10225718173/ufc-makes-awful-decision-to-sue-some-its-biggest-fans.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120320/10225718173/ufc-makes-awful-decision-to-sue-some-its-biggest-fans.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120320/10225718173/ufc-makes-awful-decision-to-sue-some-its-biggest-fans.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>short-sighted</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120320/10225718173</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:20:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>CD Projekt Listens To Fans, Abandons Piracy Witch Hunt</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/17414917393/cd-projekt-listens-to-fans-abandons-piracy-witch-hunt.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/17414917393/cd-projekt-listens-to-fans-abandons-piracy-witch-hunt.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may remember that back in December, CD Projekt (the developers of The Witcher 2) had been sending out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/18342017072/cd-projekt-shakes-down-suspected-file-sharers.shtml">legal shake down letters</a> to suspected copyright infringers. This move was not received very well by the gaming press and more importantly CD Projekt's very fans. The major concern over this was that it is nearly impossible to prove that a person illegally downloaded the game based off just an IP address. We now learn that <a href="http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/01/12/witcher-ii-dev-backs-off-pirate-hunt.aspx" target="_blank">CD Projekt has listened to its fans' concerns and has ended its shake down program</a>. In a letter sent to the gaming press, CD Projekt states:
<blockquote>
<i>Being part of a community is a give-and-take process. We only succeed because you have faith in us, and we have worked hard over the years to build up that trust. We were sorry to see that many gamers felt that our actions didn't respect the faith that they have put into CD Projekt RED. Our fans always have been and remain our greatest concern, and we pride ourselves on the fact that you all know that we listen to you and take your opinions to heart. While we are confident that no one who legally owns one of our games has been required to compensate us for copyright infringement, we value our fans, our supporters, and our community too highly to take the chance that we might ever falsely accuse even one individual. <br /><br /> So we've decided that we will immediately cease identifying and contacting pirates. </i>
</blockquote>
Too many entertainment, and in this case gaming, companies, get so caught up in fighting piracy that they ignore the concerns of their fans. As of December, it had looked as if CD Projekt, the poster boys of DRM-free gaming, were headed down that path as well. Based on this letter, they have seen the folly of that path and have decided to put their fans first. I am so glad to hear this news. You will never win fans for life by brushing aside their concerns. I am also glad to see that CD Projekt has recognized the damage that false positives can have on a community. <br /><br /> While the concerns of copyright infringement are a very real thing, and CD Projekt has some idea of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/05251816942/despite-being-pirated-45-millions-times-witcher-2-developer-refuses-to-annoy-paying-customers-with-drm.shtml">its scope</a>, it has never resorted to DRM in order to handle the problem. It stands by that business decision. This promise to stop pursuing suspected copyright infringers is the next step toward building on the good will of its fans. While it may take time for some former fans to forgive, they will be happy with this change. However, CD Projekt wants to make sure it is clear. This move does not mean that it condones copyright infringement:
<blockquote>
<i>Let's make this clear: we don't support piracy. It hurts us, the developers. It hurts the industry as a whole. Though we are staunch opponents of DRM because we don't believe it has any effect on reducing piracy, we still do not condone copying games illegally. We're doing our part to keep our relationship with you, our gaming audience, a positive one. We've heard your concerns, listened to your voices, and we're responding to them. But you need to help us and do your part: don't be indifferent to piracy. If you see a friend playing an illegal copy of a game--any game--tell your friend that they're undermining the possible success of the developer who created the very game that they are enjoying. Unless you support the developers who make the games you play, unless you pay for those games, we won't be able to produce new excellent titles for you. </i>
</blockquote>
I think that is a positive message to express. This is a human response to the problem of copyright infringement. We have seen <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111213/04081117065/louis-ck-connecting-with-fans-giving-them-reason-to-buy-being-polite-awesome-human.shtml">such pleas</a> succeed in turning a pirate into a paying customer, and there is no doubt that this honest plea for support will garner CD Projekt more sales and more fans. This honest apology and plea for support has certainly made a fan for life out of me.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/17414917393/cd-projekt-listens-to-fans-abandons-piracy-witch-hunt.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/17414917393/cd-projekt-listens-to-fans-abandons-piracy-witch-hunt.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/17414917393/cd-projekt-listens-to-fans-abandons-piracy-witch-hunt.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>winning-fans-for-life</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120112/17414917393</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:10:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Drake, Once Again, Shows That It Makes Sense To Embrace Your Fans Who Infringe, Too</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/03224316693/drake-once-again-shows-that-it-makes-sense-to-embrace-your-fans-who-infringe-too.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/03224316693/drake-once-again-shows-that-it-makes-sense-to-embrace-your-fans-who-infringe-too.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few months back, we wrote about how famed singer Drake was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/10313514841/drake-tells-universal-music-to-stop-taking-down-music-hes-leaking.shtml">angry at Universal</a> for sending takedown notices and getting his leaked tracks taken down.  Given Drake's history of building up a lot of popularity through releasing mixtapes, it's not a surprise that he realizes that getting content spread far and wide creates more benefits than it does "downsides." Now he's confirmed that point of view even further, tweeting <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/drake-is-okay-with-pirating-fans-111108/" target="_blank">his somewhat enlightened views on file sharing</a>:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/DqD1G"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/DqD1G.jpg" alt="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" /></a>
</center>
If you can't see it, it says, "Listen, enjoy it, buy it if you like... and take care until next time."  In other words, don't attack fans for wanting to hear and share your music, learn to recognize that these are fans, and they have their reasons for doing what they do.  But connecting with the artist directly also builds up significantly more goodwill.  It's nice to see someone of Drake's stature willing to speak up about these things.  The thing that he seems to realize is that even if people are "pirating" leaked material, that's no reason why they might not give him money in the future -- and one way to make that more likely is to really connect with fans.  Threatening them with lawsuits is kind of the opposite of connecting, and it's backfired on more than a few artists.
<br /><br />
Hopefully more artists will make their position on such things much more clear than it is today.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/03224316693/drake-once-again-shows-that-it-makes-sense-to-embrace-your-fans-who-infringe-too.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/03224316693/drake-once-again-shows-that-it-makes-sense-to-embrace-your-fans-who-infringe-too.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/03224316693/drake-once-again-shows-that-it-makes-sense-to-embrace-your-fans-who-infringe-too.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>connecting-with-fans</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111109/03224316693</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Nov 2011 08:47:10 PST</pubDate>
<title>Is Anthrax Trying To Become The New Metallica? Guitarist Wants To Kick 'Pirates' Off The Internet</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111107/00341816652/is-anthrax-trying-to-become-new-metallica-guitarist-wants-to-kick-pirates-off-internet.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111107/00341816652/is-anthrax-trying-to-become-new-metallica-guitarist-wants-to-kick-pirates-off-internet.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You would think, given the reaction to Lars Ulrich and Metallica from when he went all crazy on people who shared files, that other famous acts would be a bit more clued in.  Not so with Scott Ian, the guitarist for Anthrax.  In a recent interview, <a href="http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&#038;newsitemID=165547" target="_blank">he spends a big chunk complaining about "theft"</a> and how many more records the band used to sell in the past.  And he keeps building up steam until it's a full on rant, complete with falsely claiming it's "theft" (over and over and over again) and comparing it to drunk driving... including claiming that if you're caught downloading unauthorized music, you should lose your internet access completely:
<blockquote><i>
You lose your Internet. That's it, no more Internet for you. Seriously! Like you drive drunk, you lose the privilege of driving. You download illegally, you lose the privilege of having the Internet. The punishment fits the crime. Why these service providers don't stop the torrent sites and put a consequence on this, I have no idea. Everybody complains about the trillions of dollars being lost, but nobody does anything about it. Believe me, if I could do something about it, I would. 
</i></blockquote>
First off, downloading a single song and losing your internet access permanently is "the punishment fits the crime"?  Really?  As for why service providers don't stop torrent sites, it's because (a) the law is a bit more complex than Ian seems to understand, (b) censoring the internet because some search engines might possibly be used for bad things (while they can also be used for legal things) is a dumb idea and (c) because stopping torrent sites won't do anything, since they'll just pop up elsewhere.
<br /><br />
Ian doesn't seem to have any interest in thinking through the logical fallacies of his argument.  As far as he's concerned, there is nothing to discuss:
<blockquote><i>
There is no argument. I'm not even going to get into that conversation. You're stealing! It's stealing, that's what it is. It's not free for us to make these records. These records are on sale in many, many places where you can pay your money to buy the product that we are selling. Anything outside of that is stealing. There is no conversation to be had. There's no, "Well, I just wanted to check it out, and then I liked it so I bought the record." I don't give a fuck. It's stealing. Everyone can say that, "I just wanted to check it out," or "There's no way for me to get music where I live." That's bullshit. It's fucking bullshit! I've been doing this for way too long. I sold records in the '80s and '90s before there was an Internet, and no one seemed to have a problem going out and buying a shit ton of records back then. The whole record industry has collapsed because people are stealing. That's the end of the story.
</i></blockquote>
Except, that's wrong.  Pretty much all of it.  It's not stealing.  It may be infringement, but that's different than theft.  And anyone who's being intellectually honest in this debate can at least admit there's a pretty big difference.  And, no, no one said it was free to make the records, but that's really beside the point.  It's not free for me to make Techdirt either.  But does that mean that I'm being "ripped off" if no one pays me directly for it?  Of course not.  Because I'm using a smarter business model.  Ian might want to try that, rather than blaming all of his fans.  The fact that he sold records in the "pre-internet" days is kinda meaningless.  I sold magazines in the pre-internet days, but times change.  Business models change.  Get with the program.
<br /><br />
Anyway, since Ian seems so unwilling to adapt, I thought why should we let that stop folks here from coming up with some suggestions on what he <i>should</i> be doing.  Over at Step2, I've kicked off a discussion on <a href="https://www.insightcommunity.com/step2/231/how-could-anthrax-better-deal-with-downloaders">how Anthrax might better deal with downloaders</a>, while still being able to make more money.  Head on over to join that discussion.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111107/00341816652/is-anthrax-trying-to-become-new-metallica-guitarist-wants-to-kick-pirates-off-internet.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111107/00341816652/is-anthrax-trying-to-become-new-metallica-guitarist-wants-to-kick-pirates-off-internet.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111107/00341816652/is-anthrax-trying-to-become-new-metallica-guitarist-wants-to-kick-pirates-off-internet.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bye-bye-fans</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111107/00341816652</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:35:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Nintendo Fans Hijack Twitter Hash Tag Meant For Nintendo Of America CEO And Are Promptly Ignored</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/08231916467/nintendo-fans-hijack-twitter-hash-tag-meant-nintendo-america-ceo-are-promptly-ignored.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/08231916467/nintendo-fans-hijack-twitter-hash-tag-meant-nintendo-america-ceo-are-promptly-ignored.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ On Friday October 21, Nintendo America's President, Reggie Fils-Aime, <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/NintendoAmerica/status/127218160247115776" target="_blank"> took to Twitter in a bit of PR for some recent announcements from the company</a>. However a lot of Twitter users took this to mean that he would actually be communicating with fans. Sadly, he did nothing of real note on twitter. Fils-Aime posted a total of seven tweets in a span of about 8 hours. Of these tweets, 2 contained the same announcement, two were about news already reported by the press all over the web and the rest were &quot;open&quot; questions asked to the Twitter community. 
<br /><br /> 
I am not sure what Fils-Aime had in mind for this Twitter promotion, but the fans were expecting a conversation. You can really see this when you take a look at the history of the <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23Regginator" target="_blank">#Regginator hash tag</a> on Twitter. Many of the fans took the time to answer the questions asked and even to ask questions of their own. One prominent theme running over this event was that of a project called '<a href="http://oprainfall.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Operation Rainfall</a>'. This group is dedicated to convincing Nintendo of America to release a number of popular JRPG titles in America, most of which already have English translations as they are sold in England. 
<br /><br /> 
Nintendo, sadly, is deaf to these requests. They have made it pretty clear that those games will not be seen in the States. On top of this, the Wii is region locked and games imported from Europe are not playable on American Wiis. In response, a number of blogs and gaming sites around the web have taken the task of teaching people how to <a href="http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/19/how-to-play-xenoblade-chronicles-if-you-live-in-america/" target="_blank">mod their Wii consoles</a> to bypass region locks and play these games. In the process, this exposes a lot of Wii users to the ability to not only play imported games, but also homebrew and potentially pirated games. 
<br /><br /> 
Ignoring all of this is not how you connect with fans. It is also not how you meet the needs of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090118/1653083452.shtml">underserved customers</a>. By ignoring fans of the Wii, not only on Twitter but for many months prior, Nintendo is risking more customers modding consoles, which we all know <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111005/10565916210/nintendo-thrilled-to-have-game-copy-devices-found-illegal-france.shtml">they hate</a>. My advice for Nintendo is to actually connect with fans and listen to what they want. It might find some cool ideas that will increase sales -- especially when you claim that your top exec is going to be communicating on Twitter.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/08231916467/nintendo-fans-hijack-twitter-hash-tag-meant-nintendo-america-ceo-are-promptly-ignored.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/08231916467/nintendo-fans-hijack-twitter-hash-tag-meant-nintendo-america-ceo-are-promptly-ignored.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/08231916467/nintendo-fans-hijack-twitter-hash-tag-meant-nintendo-america-ceo-are-promptly-ignored.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-called-connecting-with-fans</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111022/08231916467</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:43:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Lady Gaga Tries To Seize Fan Domain... But Fails</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01392316106/lady-gaga-tries-to-seize-fan-domain-fails.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01392316106/lady-gaga-tries-to-seize-fan-domain-fails.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While we've noted that Lady Gaga seems to be really on top of things when it comes to copyright issues on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110602/12480014528/lady-gaga-says-099-albums-make-sense-especially-digital.shtml">her music</a>, in other areas of her operations, she's pretty aggressive in pushing intellectual property claims.  We've noted, for example, her attempts to aggressively use <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/03390313399/lady-gaga-claiming-ownership-gaga-threatens-baby-gaga-ice-cream.shtml">trademark claims</a> to stop "Baby Gaga" ice cream and copyright claims to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/14234413404/lady-gaga-copyright-not-about-music-her-image.shtml">control her image</a> by photographers.  As we noted, to Lady Gaga, intellectual property seems to have nothing to do with her music, but everything to do with her image.
<br /><br />
It's too bad she recognizes the benefits of being open in one aspect of her business, but not in other areas.  Of course, the constant overreaches aren't always successful.  Take, for example, her recent attempt to <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/lady-gaga-loses-legal-fight-239805?utm_source=dlvr.it&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">gain control over a fan site at LadyGaga.org</a>.   Rather than <i>embrace</i> the fan site and be happy for the support, Gaga and/or her management, went to the National Arbitration Forum and argued that this fan had registered the domain in bad faith:
<blockquote><i>
The owner of the site then responded that it was merely a non-commercial, unofficial fan site for Gaga that "does not have any sponsored links or links to third-party websites which market and sell merchandise bearing Complainant&rsquo;s trademark.&rdquo;
<br /><br />
The owner added that her fan site supported Gaga's fame and was giving the singer free publicity. In other words, the site owner (identified as "Miranda") loves Lady Gaga so much that she's willing to erect a digital shrine to her, and lawyers shouldn't interfere.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, it's quite a fan who's willing to still erect a digital shrine to an artist who goes legal to try to seize their domain.  However, the NAF wasted little time in <a href="http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1403808.htm" target="_blank">siding with the woman who owned the domain</a> and against Lady Gaga.  The ruling made clear that such a fan site is a perfectly legitimate purpose for the domain name.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01392316106/lady-gaga-tries-to-seize-fan-domain-fails.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01392316106/lady-gaga-tries-to-seize-fan-domain-fails.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01392316106/lady-gaga-tries-to-seize-fan-domain-fails.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-don't-get-everything</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110927/01392316106</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:28:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Theaters On Prescreenings: Bring Your Firearms, But No Mobile Phones</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For many years, we've heard various stories of how anyone who attends an early movie screening (i.e., before the movie has actually been widely released), should <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051104/1927247.shtml">expect to be treated like a total criminal</a>.  The usual stories involve being searched carefully and being required to hand over all mobile phones, which will be held until the end of the film.  Reader <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=minerat">minerat</a> writes in to tell us of his story, which involved going to a 7:30pm showing of <i>Moneyball</i> last week -- just a few hours before the movie was actually being released.  Even so... same process.  "Security made everyone give up their cell phones and checked all bags."  And, it appears that security had their priorities straight from the MPAA:
<blockquote><i>
The better part is after we gave up our phones, another security guard waves a metal detecting wand over us and we had to empty our pockets on any hits.  My friend has a license to carry a firearm and was carrying - we thought this would be a problem (it's a center city Philadelphia theater), but no, he didn't care about his loaded handgun.  Apparently a cameraphone is the bigger threat to a movie that will be publicly released 2 hours after we step out of the theater.  Of course the DVD screener has been available on usenet for 3+ months.  </i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>priorities,-people!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110923/12352816074</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dubstep Producer Bassnectar Talks Piracy, Leaks And Making It Easy For Your Fans To Support You</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110801/18465915351/dubstep-producer-bassnectar-talks-piracy-leaks-making-it-easy-your-fans-to-support-you.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110801/18465915351/dubstep-producer-bassnectar-talks-piracy-leaks-making-it-easy-your-fans-to-support-you.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ California dubstep/bass artist Bassnectar has built a solid following over the past decade, culminating in appearances at major music festivals, including Lollapalooza, Bonnaroo and the Ultra Music Festival. Despite his loaded <a href="http://www.bassnectar.net/tour/" target="_blank">touring schedule</a>, Bassnectar (a.k.a. Lorin Ashton) still keeps in touch with his fans (30K on Soundcloud, 550K on Facebook) via his regular Fan Bass Q&#038;A feature.<p>An anonymous fan recently asked a question that's on the minds of artists all over the creative spectrum:</p><blockquote><p><em>What do you think about the people that leak and download your music (or any music) without paying?</em></p></blockquote><p>Bassnectar's <a href="http://www.bassnectar.net/2011/08/fan-bass-leaked-music/" target="_blank">thoughtful (and amazing) response runs an entire page and is quotable all the way through</a>. He begins by addressing the &quot;leaked album&quot; situation:</p><blockquote><p><em>When we sent out promos of &quot;Divergent Spectrum&quot; we knew without a doubt it would get leaked. <strong>It is kind of an honor that enough people care</strong>, that they want to get it and share it as soon as possible. Instead of worrying about it, we just figured &quot;Let's let people decide what they want to do.&quot; <strong>If they want to support me, let's make it easy for them to do so</strong>. We created a presale option, and added a stack of exclusive Bonus Material (loops, bits, outtakes, sketches, ...kind of like the &quot;Special Features&quot; on a DVD) as a gift to everyone who did this, knowing it was an act of love and support for them to pre-order something they could just download for free.</em></p></blockquote><p>There are two key points to this statement, points that other artists (or more often, their default representatives -- label spokesmen, royalty collection agencies, etc. ) tend to ignore when discussing piracy. One: a leaked album is a sign of interest. Very few people will track down a leaked album from an artist they have no interest in. Two: make it easy for fans to support the artist, preferably directly. The more paranoid you are about leaked albums and &quot;lost sales,&quot; the less likely it is that your music is easily found and purchased.</p><p>Bassnectar goes on from there, letting his fans (both paying and non-paying) know how thrilled he is with being Bassnectar:</p><blockquote><p><em>For me, I am so incredibly grateful for everything in my life right now, i can't really ask for more. We have sold out nearly every single show in the past year, and the legion of bass heads is growing every day. I am honored that people want to explore my music. I am honored that they want to share it with their friends. I am not worried about being supported, because I feel so much support each day, in so many different forms.</em></p><p><em>On principle though, I do think it is important for ALL ARTISTS to make it easy for people to support what they love. And it is important for those who love the art to decide how they can support art and artists, and allow it to continue.</em></p></blockquote><p>There it is again: &quot;make it easy for people to support what they love.&quot; Hitching your music to major label's whims, proprietary systems, various rights agencies and digital rights management &quot;tools&quot; does nothing but make it harder for fans to support you, much less share the experience with others.</p><p>He also hammers home a point made <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/11451115264/copy-protection-does-not-mean-more-sales.shtml" target="_blank">over</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110622/23021514819/why-isps-becoming-hollywood-enforcers-wont-actually-solve-hollywoods-problem.shtml" target="_blank">over</a> again here at Techdirt: spending time and energy attempting to prevent piracy will only leave you tired and frustrated. The music world doesn't work the way it used to, relying on &quot;top down&quot; distribution. At the same time, he makes a genuine request: if you love an artist, find a way to support them.</p><blockquote><p><em>In 2011, art and culture exist as DIGITAL MEDIA, and <strong>it is naive to think it will not be leaked or downloaded or shared or &quot;stolen&quot;</strong> repeatedly. It is just a fact of life. People need to decide for themselves if they want to steal or not. And if they *DO* then they can decide if and how to follow up with support. If you download leaked music, and you enjoy it, why not go buy an official copy? It seems fair. You are not obligated to do this, it is just a choice. Do you enjoy the artist? <strong>IF YOU ENJOY, THEN SUPPORT</strong>. If not, then simply carry on. It takes a LOT of time and energy for artists to create their craft, and even more time and energy for them to prepare a release, and to distribute it. You can support what you love in many ways, and in a sense you vote with your dollar.</em></p></blockquote><p>It's that simple. An artist's best weapons against piracy aren't takedown notices and legislation. The best weapon is still an honest connection with your fans (paying or not). Simply talking to them directly about you and your work does more for your bottom line than a million anti-piracy screeds. Even better, give them a reason to buy and as many ways to buy as possible.</p><p>I'll leave you with this choice clip of Bassnectar in action, sporting the finest head of heavy metal hair to ever find itself in front of a tableful of electronic noisemakers:</p><iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WGzUHTUn-5Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><p>Oh, and his discussion has <a href="http://www.facebook.com/Bassnectar" target="_blank">spilled over onto his Facebook page</a> as well, which is worth checking out.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110801/18465915351/dubstep-producer-bassnectar-talks-piracy-leaks-making-it-easy-your-fans-to-support-you.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110801/18465915351/dubstep-producer-bassnectar-talks-piracy-leaks-making-it-easy-your-fans-to-support-you.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110801/18465915351/dubstep-producer-bassnectar-talks-piracy-leaks-making-it-easy-your-fans-to-support-you.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-CwF-and-RtB-all-over-again</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110801/18465915351</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Blink-182 Rewards Fans Who Uploaded Unauthorized Clips On YouTube</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110804/11152915389/blink-182-rewards-fans-who-uploaded-unauthorized-clips-youtube.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110804/11152915389/blink-182-rewards-fans-who-uploaded-unauthorized-clips-youtube.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Nearly two years ago, we wrote about an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091106/1619446842.shtml">interview with Tom Delonge</a> from the band Blink-182, in which his views on the music industry seemed very closely aligned to exactly what we've been saying for years:
<blockquote><i>
The one thing I've learned is that, like any other type of art, it evolves. So if you're a business that supports a type of art, you need to evolve with the art. Now, a lot of things have happened that have made creating art a lot easier with the computer. And it's also made the distribution of art a lot easier.... What I have chosen to believe is that if you look at your band with a modern filter, your band has so much potential to have all these different elements about it. You can create all this really cool merchandise and concert/live experiences. You can create a really cool portal on your website. <b>You can mix all these elements together and I always believe that if the tools are available, you can monetize all these other elements, and not really worry about selling the record. In fact, I believe that, you should take down every barrier and put as much music out there for free...
<br /><br />
In my mind, the way the music industry is changing is that music is easier to make and it's easier to give away for free. And that will enable the band and the music and the art and everything to be bigger than it's ever been. It's just how do you collect that and how do you build your business... </b>
</i></blockquote>
So it comes as little surprise to find out that the band has decided to do something cool with fans who "infringe."  As a whole bunch of you have been sending in, the band created <a href="http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/08/blink-182-rewards-fans-who-used-their-music-without-permission-on-youtube.html" target="_blank">"the film festival you didn't know you entered,"</a> in which they (with the help of AT&#038;T who appears to be sponsoring the band) collected a bunch of unauthorized YouTube clips and put them together in a montage to launch their first new single in eight years:
<center>
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eabtzkY_jNs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
The key is in the opening text:
<center><i>
AT&#038;T helped us search YouTube for every instance of fans using our music without our permission. 
<br /><br />
And then we rewarded them for it.
<br /><br />
Thanks for being a fan.
</i></center>
Always nice to see yet another band who recognizes the importance of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml">connecting with fans</a> rather than treating them like <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2152094127.shtml">criminals</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110804/11152915389/blink-182-rewards-fans-who-uploaded-unauthorized-clips-youtube.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110804/11152915389/blink-182-rewards-fans-who-uploaded-unauthorized-clips-youtube.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110804/11152915389/blink-182-rewards-fans-who-uploaded-unauthorized-clips-youtube.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nicely-done</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110804/11152915389</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Incubus Promotes New Album With Misguided Anti-Piracy 8-Bit Video Game?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/10052015091/incubus-promotes-new-album-with-misguided-anti-piracy-8-bit-video-game.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/10052015091/incubus-promotes-new-album-with-misguided-anti-piracy-8-bit-video-game.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The band Incubus has decided that a way to attract fans to its new album is to <a href="http://mashable.com/2011/07/14/incubattle/" target="_blank">release an 8-bit video game in which the point is to "fight music pirates,"</a> by literally punching them as they try to get and leak Incubus' new album.
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/2kEk2h.jpg" width=560>
</center>
However, as <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/117325987826570582942/posts/fyRuzuuT8LL" target="_blank">Rob Sheridan points out</a>, the new album has already actually leaked in real life, "so I guess the game can't be won."  I think Sheridan sums it up nicely:
<blockquote><i>
Seriously? How about fighting the record label dorks or manufacturing companies who let the album leak in the first place? Maybe the boss battle should be with the label exec who can't come up with a modern release plan that avoids leaks entirely?
</i></blockquote>
Oddly, Mashable claims that attacking fans who are interested in the band's music is part of the band's savvy "social-media flavored album release campaign."  Sorry, but calling your fans pirates, and showing how you want to beat them up doesn't seem particularly social.  The whole target of the campaign just seems weird and misguided.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/10052015091/incubus-promotes-new-album-with-misguided-anti-piracy-8-bit-video-game.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/10052015091/incubus-promotes-new-album-with-misguided-anti-piracy-8-bit-video-game.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/10052015091/incubus-promotes-new-album-with-misguided-anti-piracy-8-bit-video-game.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yeah,-that'll-win-fans</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110714/10052015091</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:38:25 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Dark Side Wins: Lucasfilm Shuts Down Star Wars Fan Movie Marathon</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/13501215021/dark-side-wins-lucasfilm-shuts-down-star-wars-fan-movie-marathon.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/13501215021/dark-side-wins-lucasfilm-shuts-down-star-wars-fan-movie-marathon.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=adamr">AdamR</a> was the first of a few of you to send in this story of how lawyers for Lucasfilm <a href="http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=657448&#038;gt1=28101" target="_blank">sent a cease-and-desist</a> letter to a group of <i>Star Wars</i> fans who had organized a (free, not for profit) <i>Star Wars</i> movie marathon (all 13-hours) at a bar in Brooklyn.  It's the sort of fun thing that <i>Star Wars</i> fans might enjoy and which would increase their connection to the franchise.  But Lucasfilm, of course, calls it copyright infringement, and says that there's a ban on public display of the film right now.  Legally, there's no doubt that Lucasfilm is in the right here.  But, practically speaking, <i>why would the company do this</i>?  What good does it do?  Would it have hurt Lucasfilm in any way to allow this to go on?  Instead, you have about 200 annoyed (former?) fans.  This is exactly how you don't connect with fans, but piss them off.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/13501215021/dark-side-wins-lucasfilm-shuts-down-star-wars-fan-movie-marathon.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/13501215021/dark-side-wins-lucasfilm-shuts-down-star-wars-fan-movie-marathon.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/13501215021/dark-side-wins-lucasfilm-shuts-down-star-wars-fan-movie-marathon.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-force-is-not-with-you</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110708/13501215021</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:03:23 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Atlas Shrugged Movie Leaves Hollywood Scratching Its Head, Because It's Succeeding Without Them</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110421/02341913985/atlas-shrugged-movie-leaves-hollywood-scratching-its-head-because-its-succeeding-without-them.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110421/02341913985/atlas-shrugged-movie-leaves-hollywood-scratching-its-head-because-its-succeeding-without-them.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've already talked about how Kevin Smith has been <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/03063113973/kevin-smiths-red-state-movie-nearing-profitability-even-prior-to-regular-theatrical-release.shtml">succeeding</a> with his new movie, <i>Red State</i>, by defying much of the "conventional wisdom," when it comes to how you have to market a Hollywood movie.  He's not the only one.  Apparently the "conventional wisdom" folks in Hollywood are all in shock that the movie <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> is <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-atlas-shrugged-shocked-hollywoods-179930" target="_blank">doing fantastically well at the box office</a>, despite its "awful marketing plan," of not buying TV ads.
<br /><br />
Smith has actually talked about this issue as well, discussing how the major studios "buy" an opening weekend gross number, knowing that if you just spend $x million on TV advertising, you can pretty much guarantee a certain level of turnout for a film.  However, in many cases, it's really a waste of money, because the money spent on the TV advertising can actually outweigh the value of the people they bring to the theaters (Smith has a funny story about studios advertising some of his movies on <i>Lifetime</i>, the "women-focused" TV station, whose demographics don't match at all with Smith's standard audience).
<br /><br />
In the case of <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> the filmmakers relied on Ayn Rand's fans to build the buzz and apparently it worked.  Word of mouth on Twitter and via various "like-minded" groups -- including some libertarians and Tea Party folks -- apparently drove interest in the movie.  It's making a lot of money per screen and there's demand that it open on a bunch more screens.  The filmmakers are apparently mainly limited by the fact that they didn't make enough prints (no reason to, without knowing the real demand) and they're trying to rectify that as quickly as possible.
<br /><br />
Of course, some will claim that this is a one-off situation.  And, certainly, some elements are unique.  The fan base for this kind of thing is... well... somewhat fanatical.  I read the book years ago and thought it was... well... pretty bad.  Thought provoking -- yes -- but the core ideas don't hold up to much scrutiny.  But, I certainly know plenty of folks who are obsessive about the book, and are willing to promote it quite a bit.  You can see it in the <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/" target="_blank">Rotten Tomatoes</a> reviews.  Only 7% of the critics liked the movie (I particularly liked <a href="http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110414/REVIEWS/110419990" target="_blank">Roger Ebert's review</a>).  Yet 85% of the user reviews liked it.
<br /><br />
But that's the thing: it's not a movie for the reviewers.  It's a movie for a specific audience, and it seems to have hit that audience head on.  Once again, that's a similarity with what Smith is doing.  He's made a movie for a specific audience, and he doesn't need to try to market to people outside of that audience, because it's just not worth it.  And when you do that right -- find an audience, have a connection with them, and make a movie <i>for them</i>, it can be quite profitable.
<br /><br />
Separately, it appears that the producers of <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> are employing some smart alternative business models too, rather than just relying on box office take:
<blockquote><i>
Merchandise, he said, is helping the cause. When Aglialoro obtained rights to the movie almost 19 years ago, he also got rights to sell such items as T-shirts, mugs, posters and even jewelry, though not dolls, video games and other "interesting exceptions."
<br /><br />
On Tuesday, the Website atlasshruggedpart1.com was sold out of its most expensive item: a $159 bracelet made of "Rearden Metal," a replica of the one heroine Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling) wears in the film.
<br /><br />
"The merchandise has taken off like we couldn't believe," he said. "We're shipping to every continent."
</i></blockquote>
So, while some will ignore both of these flicks and their success, claiming that they're "exceptions" to the rule, I think more observant folks may notice some key lessons that can be pulled from both:
<ul>
<li> create for a specific audience and target them where they are, rather than casting a wide (but super expensive) net.
</li><li> connect, connect, connect with that audience and let them help you spread the word
</li><li> offer alternative business models that let people support you at much higher price points ($159 bracelet for AS, $60+ tickets for a movie and Q+A for Smith)
</li></ul>
What other generalized lessons might people pull from these two examples?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110421/02341913985/atlas-shrugged-movie-leaves-hollywood-scratching-its-head-because-its-succeeding-without-them.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110421/02341913985/atlas-shrugged-movie-leaves-hollywood-scratching-its-head-because-its-succeeding-without-them.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110421/02341913985/atlas-shrugged-movie-leaves-hollywood-scratching-its-head-because-its-succeeding-without-them.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>shrugged</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110421/02341913985</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Washington DC Football Team Who Shall Remain Nameless Won't Let Blogs Use Name Without Permission</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/13020313513/washington-dc-football-team-who-shall-remain-nameless-wont-let-blogs-use-name-without-permission.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/13020313513/washington-dc-football-team-who-shall-remain-nameless-wont-let-blogs-use-name-without-permission.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's an NFL football team in Washington DC, which is nominally called the Washington Redskins.  You see what I did there?  I mentioned the name... because that's how you identify them.  Yet, the team -- which under the ownership of Dan Snyder has become about as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0042326099.shtml">anti-fan</a> and as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100925/12004911166/washington-redskins-trying-to-silence-beat-reporters-on-social-media.shtml">ridiculously over-aggressive</a> in trying to  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/0110566471.shtml">control the media</a> as a team can be -- has taken it to yet another level.  Reader <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=karm">karm</a> points us to the news that the Washington Post has had to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/why-redskins-insider-lost-its-name/2011/03/15/AB755AX_blog.html" target="_blank">change the name of its blog from <i>Redskins Insider</i> to <i>Football Insider</i></a>, due to threats from the Washington Football Team Who Shall Henceforth Remain Nameless.
<br><br>
What really surprises me is that the Washington Post caved.  Doesn't the Washington Post have access to trademark lawyers there who can respond to the team and point out that the team has <i>no case</i> whatsoever?  There's no moron in a hurry anywhere who's going to see the Washington Post's blog and think "gee, that's 'sponsored' or 'endorsed' by the team."  The team claims that it wants to be able to license out the name, such as to the official sports broadcast partner.  Of course, it can still do an exclusive deal for broadcast rights, but it has no right to block the use of the name when its being used in a descriptive and non-confusing manner here.
<br><br>
Once again, this is an incredibly anti-fan move.  Take pretty much any major sports team, and it's not hard to find blogs that make use of the team's name.  And those teams survive just fine.  They recognize that there's no confusion and that these blogs help draw in more fans for the team.  This seems like incredibly short-term thinking by Snyder's Washington Football Team Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken, but that seems like par for the course.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/13020313513/washington-dc-football-team-who-shall-remain-nameless-wont-let-blogs-use-name-without-permission.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/13020313513/washington-dc-football-team-who-shall-remain-nameless-wont-let-blogs-use-name-without-permission.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/13020313513/washington-dc-football-team-who-shall-remain-nameless-wont-let-blogs-use-name-without-permission.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-job-washington-football-team</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110315/13020313513</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>