With the massive success of Double Fine's Kickstarter campaign (which has passed quadruple what it asked), a lot of people are commenting about just what it means to be successful in today's digital climate. Among those talking are indie game developers who are taking the time to reflect on this phenomena and how they might be able to duplicate it for themselves. One of these indie developers is Robert Boyd, the creative mind behind retro JRPGs Breath of Death VII and Cthulhu Saves The World. After a series of tweets on the topic of Double Fine's success, Robert closed with this profound statement:
If people like you and like your work, they'll buy your games. If they like your work but don't like you, they'll pirate them.
The first half of this statement is at the heart of the idea of connecting with your fans. Part of this ability to connect with your fans is to be more open and human with them. We have seen repeatedly how artists sell more of their work and scarcities associated with their work as they become more human to their fan base. As fans come to trust you and feel that they can approach you directly, even if that is through email, Twitter or Facebook, they will be far more likely to trust you enough to part with their money. This trust is one of the keys to Double Fine's success and a key to the success of any game developer. Similarly, it was seen in the way Louis CK treated his fans.
The second half of this statement is a lesson that many larger publishers, developers and others in the entertainment industry have forgotten. Because of that, they are suffering the fallout. DRM and other methods that show how little the developer or publisher trusts its fans breeds contempt within the fan community. While those consumers may still like the product, they don't like the way they are treated. This is one of the driving factors behind piracy. To top off the problem, these creators and gatekeepers set up walls between themselves and their fans. They do everything to avoid contact with fans outside carefully orchestrated scenarios. This turns fans off and decreases the amount of trust they have for these individuals and companies.
It's often said that people will just get stuff for free if they can. But, clearly, that's not true. We've seen so many cases of content creators being supported by their fans at tremendous levels (such as the two cases mentioned above) that there's clearly more to it. And it seems that a key element is whether or not fans actually like you. Some people suggest that the disconnect with piracy is that people value the work, but won't pay for it. But a more accurate realization may be that people value the work... but don't value the creator if the creator doesn't value them. When the two sides value each other, it seems people are more than willing to pay.
When it comes to DRM, nothing is more annoying and hated than DRM that requires a constant internet connection. This DRM regularly pings a server controlled by the creator of the game in order to prove that you, the paying customer who paid money to buy the game, are not a dirty pirate. One of the loudest critiques of this type of DRM is what happens when the DRM cannot make the connection to the server. We have already seen what happens to Ubisoft games when there is an unexpected server crash. Gamers weren't too thrilled about that. Now we learn that Ubisoft is looking to give its paying customers another look into why such DRM systems are a real bad idea. Ubisoft will be taking its authentication servers down on Tuesday, February 7th for an unspecified amount of time.
While Ubisoft takes its servers down to migrate them, gamers who paid good money in order to play DRM'ed games will be unable to do so. What makes this worse is that all those pirates that this DRM was supposedly going to stop will be able to play those games all they want during the migration. This is the thanks that paying customers get. This is the thanks that fans that want to support Ubisoft in its PC gaming endeavors get for their loyalty. When it comes time for Ubisoft to go to bat for them, the fans get slapped in the face.
To top things off, Ubisoft seems to not be all that concerned with how this affects paying customers. In the announcement of the downtime, it states:
We apologize to our customers for the inconvenience. This move ultimately will help us improve the maintenance of our infrastructure and deliver better uptime and greatly improved services for our customers.
Hey, thanks for the sympathy. Unfortunately, Ubisoft has not apologized for the inconvenience of having to prove you are not a criminal every few seconds while playing legally purchased games. Too bad Ubisoft is not improving its services by not forcing paying customers to prove they are not dirty pirates. Ubisoft could really go above and beyond in thanking its customers but is instead continuing on the same path of DRM.
This server migration is merely an example of what happens when content creators rely on these types of DRM in their fight against piracy. This is a taste of what will happen when Ubisoft decides it is just not worth it to support these authentication servers any more. When these servers go dark permanently, all those paying customers will never legally be able to play their games again. Yet, the pirates will be able to continue playing as this DRM never stopped them to begin with.
We all know Ubisoft. That company that seems to think that piracy is such a huge problem on the PC and that DRM is the only way to stop it -- even when fans complain about how horrible the DRM is. So it is really no surprise to find out that Ubisoft is still at it. It still thinks that annoying legitimate customers is going to prevent piracy of its games. This latest story of Ubisoft DRM woe comes from Guru3d.
Gurur3d had wanted to do a benchmark test of one of Ubisoft's latest titles, Anno 2070, by installing the game on multiple PCs and switching out graphics cards. Unfortunately, Anno 2070 came with an activation limit of only 3 installs. Guru3d had not thought that would be a problem as they just wanted to see the difference between graphics cards. So they started switching cards. No sooner than they had begun, they hit the activation limit.
So yesterday I started working on a performance review. We know (well at least we figured we knew), that the game key can be used on three systems. That's fair, the first activation is used on my personal game rig. The second we installed on the AMD Radeon graphics test PC and the 3rd on our NVIDIA graphics test PC.
On the AMD Radeon PC we initially test the Radeon HD 7970, then to match the timedemo sequence we install the NVIDIA system, which has a GeForce GTX 580. So far it's all good, we have created a timedemo sequence, defined our image quality settings, took screenshots and the numbers for the first two cards.
For the NVIDIA setup I take out the GTX 580, and insert a GTX 590. When I now startup the game 'BAM', again an activation is required. Once again I fill out the key and now Ubisoft is thanking me with the message that I ran out of activations.
Not only does the Ubisoft DRM monitor the number of installations the game has been used for, but it also monitors changes to your hardware. So if you decide to upgrade your graphics card and nothing else, you just wasted an activation. Needless to say, this didn't make Guru3D very happy. So they called up the Ubisoft marketing department in the Netherlands and were met with indifference.
When contacting Ubisoft marketing here in the Netherlands, their reply goes like this: 'Sorry to disappoint you - the game is indeed restricted to 3 hardware changes and there simply is no way to bypass that. We also do not have 7 copies of the game for you'.
This is not the type of response that gamers would want to get from the people who sold them the game. This response basically reads "Sorry we screwed you over on your game and you can't play it. Feel free to buy another copy in order to keep using it." You know how most people will react to this? They will refuse to do business with that company, and/or they will decide to just download the DRM crack for the game and continue to play it. Neither option helps Ubisoft.
Lucky for Guru3d, they had connections and were able to get in touch with the actual developers of the game and were provided with an unlocked key so they could do their testing. However, this is hardly a solution for the average gamer. Very few will have connections with the developer of the game and very few will be able to get the attention of the larger gaming press. Lucky for us, someone at Ubisoft was paying attention and made a change to the Anno 2070 DRM:
Hi Hilbert,
Just wanted to let you know, that we now remove the graphics hardware from the hash used to identify the PC. That means everyone should now be able to switch the GFX as many times as he/she wants.
Cheers,
So this is what it takes to get thrown a bone by Ubisoft these days -- have the press complain and raise a big stink for all gamers to see. Of course this isn't really a new thing for Ubisoft. It has always been blind to the will of its fans. There is no sense in thinking that Ubisoft has learned anything from this fiasco other than, "Do what we normally do and if anyone complains, ignore them. If that doesn't work, ease up just a hair." This will not fly for much longer. Gamers will learn to avoid Ubisoft products. Many already have. The question is will Ubisoft ever learn its lesson and provide its fans with the products they want?
A long, long time ago, Atari was king of the gaming world. It was the manufacturer of the first mainstream home video game console and was making a ton of money. That was until the video game crash of the 80s. Even though Atari was king of the world, it was not able to manage the prospect of home gaming very well and the market became saturated with terrible games that were extremely overpriced. The inability for Atari to rectify the problem ended up with gaming lying on its death bed. While the rest of the gaming world moved on after the video game renaissance, Atari was not able to keep pace with the new generation of consoles and games. After several failed consoles, it fell into obscurity.
Since then, Atari has never been itself. It has been sold and resold many times over the last 3 decades. Eventually, it became nothing more than a name and a legacy portfolio. It has never been able to regain that household name status of its wonder years and like all obsolete companies it has fallen to the only thing left to do, trolling. Not just any trolling, but copyright trolling. Atari's latest owners recognize the value of its legacy portfolio. It knows that a number of developers today grew up playing the Atari 2600 and have fond memories of those games. Like many people who love the culture of their childhood, they want to pay homage to that memory.
Enter Black Powder Media, the makers of the iOS game Vector Tanks. These guys wanted to pay homage to the classic arcade game Battlezone and made Vector Tanks in its image. Black Powder tried to make it unique and were fairly successful at it. However, even Black Powder's best efforts to avoid copyright infringement were not enough for Atari.
Anything that has even a passing resemblance to an Atari classic has been issued a copyright infringement claim. So – thanks to their special relationship with Apple – Atari has successfully scrubbed the app store of their perceived competition. It looks as though Apple complied without so much as a rebuttal or independent evaluation.
Atari decided that because it was no longer able to compete in a fair market, it would clear the market of any perceived competition. The fact that Apple was complacent and cooperative in all of this is also troubling. This is the type of world we live in today, where the claims of a copyright holder are taken at face value and no chance for a rebuttal is given to the victims. This is the current world of the DMCA, where in order for a platform to avoid liability, it resorts to a shoot first, ask questions later philosophy.
While we have great respect for the indie developer community and greatly appreciate the enthusiasm that they have for our renowned properties, we need to vigorously protect our intellectual property and ensure that it is represented in highly innovative games.
Is that how you show respect? You think that indie developers enjoy having their work killed off with no questions asked and no chance to respond? In what can be seen as an even bigger slap in the face to indie developers, Atari still wants to work with them.
We look forward to further developing strong relationships with the indie app development community through additional games that we will be releasing in the future.
How can you build a strong relationship with indie developers when you are killing off their games? Why would any game developer want to work with you if this is the attitude you will take? If Atari was really interested in working with indie developers, it would probably be better to actually respond to their inquiries for licensing deals. As Black Powder told Venture Beat:
The cruel irony here is that I tried for years to get ahold of Atari to license their IP but they seemed to have fallen off the planet. Now this. It's very depressing.
So instead of working with the game developer to license your IP, you wait for that developer to waste its time and money making the game it wants anyway and then killing it once it hits the app store. While the games themselves may have a strong resemblance to the games in Atari's portfolio, Atari cannot hold a copyright on ideas. These games would have to have more than a passing resemblance to Atari's games for this to fly in any court. Which is probably why these takedowns were done privately through Apple. Of course, this behavior of lashing out and then coming in saying they want to work with the companies attacked is nothing new for Atari.
So are these the final death throes of a dying game company or is Atari poised for a retro game come back? Considering that Atari has been trying for many, many years to revive its legacy portfolio, I don't think this is any indication of new life within this shell of a company.
The SOPA protests certainly seem to be having their desired effect. We have already seen both SOPA and PIPA shelved, while support within the House and Senate is eroding fast. And now that support is eroding outside Congress, as well. The ESA is the first industry trade group to see the writing on the wall and has now pulled its support of SOPA and PIPA. Sadly, it seems that this statement rings hollow.
From the beginning, ESA has been committed to the passage of balanced legislation to address the illegal theft of intellectual property found on foreign rogue sites.
If the ESA was interested in a balanced approach to the issue of copyright infringement, it would have been looking somewhere other than SOPA and PIPA. We have documented repeatedly that this legislation was far from balanced. From the writing of the legislation, to debating the legislation, to amending the legislation. No one other than supporters of the legislation were given the time of day. None of the opposition's concerns were addressed. Balanced legislation would have been where more than one side had a voice.
Although the need to address this pervasive threat to our industry's creative investment remains, concerns have been expressed about unintended consequences stemming from the current legislative proposals.
You are just now hearing those concerns? We have been voicing them for a while now. Even members of your own VGVN were voicing their concerns. How could you possibly have missed them? From the very moment SOPA and PIPA were released, people have raised concerns. If you actually cared about those concerns, you would have been opposed to the legislation from the beginning.
Accordingly, we call upon Congress, the Obama Administration, and stakeholders to refocus their energies on producing a solution that effectively balances both creative and technology interests. As an industry of innovators and creators, we understand the importance of both technological innovation and content protection and are committed to working with all parties to encourage a balanced solution.
I would also love for all stakeholders, that means everyone, not just entertainment companies and a handful of tech companies, to be involved in this discussion. However, unlike the ESA, I think the first item of business should be actually figuring out what the problem is. The ESA may think the problem is not enough enforcement power over copyright infringement, but we know that is not the case. We already have a solution that balances both creative and technological interests: solving your business model problems. As long as you are looking for a solution that involves increased enforcement, you will not succeed in this modern age.
You may remember that back in December, CD Projekt (the developers of The Witcher 2) had been sending out legal shake down letters 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 CD Projekt has listened to its fans' concerns and has ended its shake down program. In a letter sent to the gaming press, CD Projekt states:
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.
So we've decided that we will immediately cease identifying and contacting pirates.
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.
While the concerns of copyright infringement are a very real thing, and CD Projekt has some idea of its scope, 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:
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 think that is a positive message to express. This is a human response to the problem of copyright infringement. We have seen such pleas 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.
With the news that the ESA supports SOPA, thus representing all its member companies on the matter, many gamers have taken to writing to ESA member companies asking for their input on the matter and especially asking them to oppose the legislation. As Kotaku reports, one such gamer has received word back from Sega after writing a very nicely worded letter outlining his concerns over SOPA.
Generally these issues are caused by bad installs or junk data that's stuck in the system memory. The first suggestion would be to perform a hard reset on the device. It's best to attempt this any time you experience performance problems with your device or have an app crash. If it doesn't work, its suggested that you uninstall the app, perform a hard reset, reinstall and then perform one more hard reset before launching the game.
If you're problems continue, please let us know.
While Sega does not come right out in opposition to SOPA, it does give some great advice for dealing with the problem. As we all know, there have certainly been some bad Congressmen and Senators installed into Congress. This has led to a lot of junk data build up in Washington. The best solution, according to Sega is to uninstall those Congressmen and Senators and start fresh. While a hard reset might not be the easiest way to deal with the problem, the threat of such a reset would certainly get the attention of those in Washington. We have already seen some of the fruits of Reddit's attempts at just such an uninstall and hard reset. So let's all follow Sega's advice and work on clearing out the bad installs and hard reset Congress.
In a follow up to this advice, Sega also put together a video:
Now, let's see if Sega comes out with an actual position on SOPA.
With the news that the ESA supports SOPA and more and more gaming companies and related organizations coming out with their stances on the topic, I have been reaching out to some organizations that have yet to make a public stance on SOPA. One of these organizations is the PC Gaming Alliance, a trade group dedicated to building up the PC gaming market. With all the piracy that many companies complain about and their efforts to stop it using DRM, online authentication and other forms of validating a legit game, SOPA must seem like a godsend. However, the PCGA states that it is "mostly neutral" on SOPA and PIPA. I was asked to quote its whole statement to avoid being taken out of context, so here it is in its entirety.
Our Stance: The PC Gaming Alliance's position on these two pieces of legislation is MOSTLY neutral, on both pieces of legislation in their current iterations for several reasons:
1) These are both highly contentious forms of legislation; and it's simply too early to tell what the true impacts & implications are really going to be.
2) Several PCGA members belong to other organizations that either are in support of, or opposed to both or either Acts.
3) These Acts are, for the most part, in their infancy. Several indicators point towards both, or either, of them being overturned, being heavily modified from their current instantiation, or even outright not manifesting at all. This makes it difficult at best to endorse either of the Acts in their current forms.
Our Position Statement: The PC Gaming Alliance is always in strong support of protecting Intellectual Property, reducing counterfeit goods, and taking steps towards reducing or eliminating all forms of Piracy. To that end; we're remaining cautiously optimistic that these 2 pieces of legislation will accomplish the goals they're trying to tackle in way that doesn't result in encroaching on other freedoms, or create additional grievances for the consumers and developers they're designed to protect. The PCGA will continue to closely monitor developments on these two pieces of legislation and we'll likely take a more proactive stance based on the outcomes and desires of the majority of our members that we represent in the near future.
Matt Ployhar (Pres. PC Gaming Alliance)
As Matt pointed out in points numbers one and three, with all the controversy over SOPA and PIPA and their questionable fate in both the House and Senate, this is probably the best stance (short of out right rejecting them both) that any interested party could take. I am glad to see them recognize that fact and that they are willing to stand by it. While Lamar Smith seems confident in SOPA's passage and the perceived lack of opposition, the reality is that SOPA is far from a done deal.
As for point two, this is a wholly different take from the ESA. The ESA has taken the liberty of supporting SOPA for all its members, regardless of the individual member's positions. If we look at the members of the PCGA, we can see that we already have a small variety of outlooks on the legislation. For one, we have Capcom that is happy following the ESA's lead. We have also learned that Epic rejects SOPA in its current form and 38 Studios does as well. So with this early conflict of opinions, it is probably best that the PCGA does not take a firm stance just yet.
However, I would take to task the idea that SOPA and PIPA are salvageable and are anything resembling laws that do what the PCGA hopes they will while not encroaching on anyone's freedoms. Even the OPEN act that has been introduced as an alternative has its own problems. I remain firm in my ideal that any problem with piracy is: First, a business model problem. Companies should do all they can do to mitigate piracy by providing the level of service their customers desire. Valve has shown this is possible and still make a profit. Second, a connection problem. Many customers feel disconnected from the developers of the games they make. If SOPA passes, that disconnect will only become worse as fans of games would be unsure of just how they can express their enjoyment of and excitement for games without being targeted under SOPA's enforcement provisions. Let's hope that more companies take such a "cautiously optimistic" point of view on SOPA while still remaining open to the idea that it may not be the solution they truly need.
With all the attention video game companies and the ESA are getting over their quiet SOPA support, it seems it is no longer feasible to stay quiet. Over the last few days, a number of outlets have been calling on the ESA to come out in the open in its support for SOPA. It had been listed as a supporter of the bill but had never made an official comment in that regard until now. In a statement to various press outlets, the ESA has said the following:
As an industry of innovators and creators, we understand the importance of both technological innovation and content protection, and do not believe the two are mutually exclusive. Rogue websites – those singularly devoted to profiting from their blatant illegal piracy – restrict demand for legitimate video game products and services, thereby costing jobs. Our industry needs effective remedies to address this specific problem, and we support the House and Senate proposals to achieve this objective. We are mindful of concerns raised about a negative impact on innovation. We look forward to working with the House and Senate, and all interested parties, to find the right balance and define useful remedies to combat willful wrongdoers that do not impede lawful product and business model innovation.
This statement does little but echo the talking points of other supporters of SOPA. So any complaints of job loss or lost revenue have been addressed. However, this new found vocal support has raised a new question within the gaming world: what about the grassroots organization the ESA set up for gamers? During the height of the video game violence debate, the ESA created the Videogame Voters Network (VGVN) as a way for those that buy and play games to add their voice in opposition to legislation regulating violent games. With that debate settled by the Supreme Court, what does the ESA's support for SOPA mean for members of the VGVN? This question was specifically raised by Jim Sterling of Destructoid.
Last year, when free speech in the videogame industry was threatened, you asked for help from gamers. The famous Brown vs. EMA/ESA case provided a landmark ruling that protected videogame content under the First Amendment. You appealed to gamers for their support and coverage, and many gamers rallied around the industry.
Now, when free speech at large is threatened, you not only refuse to fight the threat, you actually join forces with it. You operate a group that claims to protect free speech -- the Videogame Voters Network -- and pretend to champion the rights of gamers, but until you stop supporting the Stop Online Piracy Bill, that's all the VGVN is -- a pretense.
This confusion over the general fate of the VGVN and its implied support for SOPA is not limited to the media either. People visiting its Facebook page have been asking for clarification on the matter. Many have already made the connection that the interests of gamers are only important when those interests mirror those of the games industry. If ever the two should be opposed it would seem that the games industry wins as far as the ESA is concerned. As Jim put it:
It is hypocrisy on a most despicable level to continue supporting SOPA after asking gamers to fight for the rights of the game industry. You are sending the message that you want exclusive freedom for your stable of publishers, while the freedom of others means nothing. You are sending the message that the ESA is an organization that begs for help from a community, only to abandon and betray that community at the earliest convenience. You are the Starscream of trade associations.
While it is pretty easy to draw the conclusion that ESA member companies support SOPA via their membership in the ESA, it is quite another story for the VGVN. People who signed up for the VGVN did so under the idea that their support would go toward protecting the rights of gamers. However, this move by the ESA has shown that idea to be little more than a pretense, as Jim puts it. Why would anyone trust the VGVN in the future, if it actually has one at this point, if it will simply ignore the concerns of its members?
Over all the brouhaha regarding SOPA, a number of industries have come out either for or against SOPA. We have seen comments from the tech, film, music, publishing industries and many consumer organizations. However, one industry that would benefit from SOPA has remained relatively quiet on this front, the video games industry. There have been no actual public comments from any video game company or organization representing video game companies expressing anything in regard to SOPA. Yet, it shouldn't come as a surprise to note that the ESA, the chief lobbying organization of video game publishers, has quietly supported SOPA. This quiet support from the ESA doesn't sit well with at least one game developer, Mommy's Best Games, the developers of Serious Sam Double D.
In a combined call to action for both game developers and gamers, Mommy's Best wants these individuals to contact member companies in an effort to get two reactions: 1) a public statement from the company on its position regarding SOPA. 2) pressure the ESA to pull its support of SOPA.
Fellow gamers developers, If you work for any of the companies that are ESA members, please talk to your higher ups about contacting the ESA to have them withdraw SOPA support. In effect, your company is supporting the SOPA bill. There are over 30 really great companies that have made amazing games that are effectively supporting the SOPA bill.
Fellow gamers, If you love those companies, get on your favorite company's forums and complain that they are letting the ESA support SOPA by proxy! And consider writing the actual ESA as well.
While the internet world made a big stink about several companies no longer supporting SOPA, which we pointed out never actually happened, this is a move toward making that dream a reality. If the companies represented by the ESA were to come out against SOPA, the ESA would have only one option, to drop support of SOPA. We have already seen this happen when the BSA dropped support for SOPA after fans of its member companies expressed anger over the implied support for SOPA by those companies. Mommy's Best is hoping for a similar response from the ESA.
Additionally, Mommy's Best points out that over the past few years, the ESA has done some tremendous good for the games industry specifically in its victory over the California law that sought to restrict the sale of violent games and that supporting SOPA is a direct contrast to that legacy.
The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has done a lot of good for the video games industry, including facilitating the landmark Supreme Court ruling that games should be protected by the First Amendment like books and movies, and promoting STEM to further games and learning.
Unfortunately the ESA is still shown on the SOPA support list. The "Stop Online Piracy Act" bill will be voted on some time this year (probably soon). The proposed bill will likely stifle innovation and self-expression on the internet, and grant corporations plenty of power to abuse, given the broad manner in which the bill is written. If you're wondering what the fuss is all about, here's a detailed explanation as to why constitutional scholars believe the bill infringes on the First Amendment, and a general overview of what the bill is about.
This does call into question the intentions of the ESA. The company claims to support the free speech rights of game developers but supports legislation that would threaten the free speech rights of gamers. Why would this organization not see the disconnect here? Is it that it is still riding on the collective good will of its victory in the Supreme Court and is trying to remain quiet over SOPA in order to maintain that good will? If that is the case, why allow itself to continue to be associated as a supporter of the bill? One would think that supporting SOPA would be a sure fire way to kill any good will an organization has with its customers.
In the end, Mommy's
Best provides a number of useful tips for contacting the ESA and its member companies. It also provides a nice template letter on which to base your own letters. I agree with Mommy's Best. It is no longer viable to remain quiet on this issue. It is time for the ESA to come clean with its support.
One of the tactics deployed by supporters of SOPA is that there is no real concern from the public regarding the legislation. They like to claim that only those who profit from piracy really want to block this bill. Yet, we see time and time again this is not true. With letter writing campaigns from groups such as the EFF, Public Knowledge and Demand Progress having generated hundreds of thousands of letters, emails and phone calls from concerned citizens, the pro-SOPA groups have had to resort to drastic inflation to defend their side. We now have further evidence that such widespread opposition to SOPA is not only growing but accelerating as well. This evidence comes in the form of two We The People petitions on the White House website.
The first of these petitions, titled "Stop the E-PARASITE Act", was created back on October 31 when SOPA was known as E-PARASITES. This petition slowly gained signatures for about two weeks and then had a surge of support when the House Judiciary Committee held its stacked hearing on the legislation. On November 16, the petition hit its 25,000 signature goal, a full 14 days before its deadline.
If there is no real public concern over SOPA, as supporters of the bill claim, who are these people? Why are they so mobilized to sign and complete far ahead of the deadline not one but two White House petitions in opposition to the legislation? Regardless of who these people are or what their motivations for opposition to SOPA are, one thing is clear, these people want action and answers. While there is no time frame for when the Obama Administration will respond, one thing is clear, SOPA is a hot button issue and those trying to force its way through Congress will not be able to ignore the public for much longer.
With the proliferation of smartphones and other portable electronic devices such as tablet computers and e-readers, we are often left wondering, "Do we really own the books, games and other apps we pay money for?" Now that question has spread to your computer as well. PC World has revealed that Microsoft's terms of service for its Windows 8 app store gives it the right to not only disable but also remove apps Windows 8 device owners paid money to own. In Microsoft's own words:
In cases where your security is at risk, or where we're required to do so for legal reasons, you may not be able to run apps or access content that you previously acquired or purchased a license for.
This is probably nothing new to users of the Amazon Kindle who had their copies of the book 1984 remotely deleted or to people who bought music from Rhapsody who had their DRM'ed tracks reduced to nothing over night. Nor is this unique to these businesses. As PC World also notes, both Apple and Google retain the right to remove software users of their devices "bought". Businesses have been calling to question the ownership of digital products for quite some time. If we cannot prevent the loss of legally purchased products from those which sold these products to us, how can we really claim ownership?
If it is any consolation to you, Microsoft has told PC Mag that it will refund buyers of apps it deletes. However, any data you may have saved using the app will be completely lost. So not even the work that you put into this software is yours to claim ownership.
While Microsoft claims that it will primarily remove software in the case of security violations, it also retains this power for cases of "legal or contractual requirements." This is quite the broad opening left here. With the looming threat of increased enforcement of Copyright through SOPA and PIPA, the idea that an app can be removed via a "legal requirement" creates yet another question over ownership. If an app we purchase ends up infringing some company's copyright, patent or trademark, they could theoretically use that as a tool to remove that app from our devices.
We are moving further and further into a digital landscape for everything from movies, music, books, games and software. With this transition, companies that produce these products are working overtime to remind consumers that they are not owners of these products but merely licensees. We will not have the luxury of physical media on which we can claim ownership rights for much longer. Consumers for the last few years have been clamoring for more digital content. They have been the primary drivers of this transition. The only real question left is, do they realize the consequences that come with this change, and will they demand the right to claim ownership?
Last year, Sony removed the ability for all PS3 owners to install other operating systems onto its PS3 console. This came as a result of console modders attempting to use it as an avenue to jailbreak the console. As a result of the move, Sony received a lot of outrage from upset gamers. Part of this outrage was a class action suit brought on behalf of PS3 owners who felt they were cheated when they were forced to lose the OtherOS feature or lose the ability to access Sony's Playstation Network and the ability to play future games that require a connection and the latest firmware. Many gamers reacted as if this was little more than the gamer's version of 'Sophie's Choice'.
While it cannot be concluded as a matter of law at this juncture that Sony could, without legal consequence, force its customers to choose either to forego installing the software update or to lose access to the other OS feature, the present allegations of the complaint largely fail to state a claim. Accordingly, with the exception of one count, the motion to dismiss will be granted, with leave to amend.
The judge wasn't convinced by the latest amended complaint and has completely dismissed the case stating that the PS3 owners failed to convince him that they were entitled to the OtherOS feature or access to PSN outside the PS3's warranty period. That is an interesting point. Had the PS3's been within the warranty period, would this case have gone the other way? That is certainly something to consider. After all, the OtherOS feature was part of the whole PS3. However, even outside the warranty period, are we really to just accept it when a manufacturer deliberately disables a function?
Perhaps responding to just such concerns, Seeborg stated:
The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable. As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable.
A questionable move indeed. Sony may have dodged a legal bullet here, but the bullet of continued frustration that Sony customers have with this addition to many many questionable business decisions has hit it between the eyes. How much longer will Sony customers put up with this kind of abuse? What features will it cut next? While we don't know the answer to that, we do know one thing. Sony removed this functionality in order to prevent PS3 owners from jailbreaking it. However, if the EFF has its way this year, this dismissal will be moot.
Earlier in the month, we shared a bit about CD Projekt and how, despite its game, The Witcher 2, being pirated more than 4.5 million times (its back of the envelope calculation), it still stands by its decision to never put DRM on its games. CD Projekt is one of those few rare major developers that understand PC gamers and what they want in gaming. With this philosophy in mind, it really boggled my mind when I learned of what it has done next. CD Projekt is following in the footsteps of Righthaven and other copyright trolls and is suing individual file sharers.
I really can't figure out what is running through the minds of those in charge. These are the guys who have built up tremendous goodwill with PC gamers through Good Old Games and games like The Witcher. It knows that if it provides quality games that work and don't harm legitimate customers, people will pay. So why would they go through the trouble of suing file sharers? We all know how that is working out for other copyright trolls. CD Projekt only seems to be targeting European file sharers, where these kinds of shakedown attempts have flopped even worse than in the US. Either way, you would think that CD Projekt would at least learn from the mistakes of others pulling the same stunt.
Not only is this move baffling for such a company, it still has the same flaws that other mass infringement lawsuits hold, that of sending shake down letters to innocent parties. The letters are being sent based on information gleaned from an IP address. This is an extremely flawed method of identifying an infringer as IP addresses can be spoofed, network connections can be "borrowed" and even innocent people's computers can be hijacked by bot networks. With all these flaws in the method and the danger of losing goodwill with and respect from gamers, what is there to be gained? I guess when there is money on the table, even the most gamer-friendly developers can succumb to temptation.
A new Humble Indie Bundle is upon us. Once again, the guys who popularized the "pay what you want" model have brought it back with a whole new treasure trove of DRM-free, cross-platform PC games. This time, they have brought a number of heavy weights including Super Meat Boy and Cave Story+. While the games themselves are awesome, what makes this bundle so amazing is that it is already well on its way to breaking the sales record of the third bundle. Announced via twitter, the Humble Guys proclaimed, "We just hit 100,000 sales and $500,000 in a tiny bit over four hours!" The previous sales record was the third Humble Indie Bundle which brought in a total of $2,167,519.10 and sold 372,346 bundles. If this bundle can sell 100,000 in 4 hours, breaking that record should be a snap.
Perhaps this success is attributable to this being the holiday season and the addition of the Red Cross instead of the EFF as one of the supported charities. Or maybe in some strange way this success is a result of my 1000th tweet being a promotion of the Humble Indie Bundle. Most likely, this success is a result of a group of dedicated game developers connecting with their fans and giving them a reason to buy. That is true success. While the "pay what you want" model won't work for everyone, all developers can learn from the attitude and effort these developers put into selling their games.
A few weeks ago, I was talking with one of my friends about copyright law and just what is legal for us and consumers to do with the movies, games, music and software we own. In that conversation, the topic of copying a movie from a DVD to her computer for use on her family's computers and tablets came up. I had the pleasure, or more accurately the displeasure, of trying to explain the nuances of copyright law and why making a copy of a DVD may not be legal. While it is generally accepted that copying a CD for home use is considered a fair use, the ability to do the same with a DVD has not been legally tested. For the most part, it remains illegal because the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause makes bypassing DRM, whether that DRM is effective or not, illegal. With the DMCA in place, it doesn't matter is you are copying that DVD for personal use, it is still illegal.
In response to public concerns over this portion of the DMCA, Congress added a process to the DMCA that allows citizens to petition the Copyright Office to seek an exemption. Every three years the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office team up to request, review and grant exemptions to the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. Every three years, the American citizens get the chance to beg the government to re-grant rights they should have if it had not been for that clause in the DMCA. Every three years the Copyright Office gets to tell American citizens just what rights they are allowed to exercise and which they can't. We have already expressed why we think this process is completely bogus. So this year isn't really any different. But it is important to take a look at just what exemptions are being requested this year.
One of the most active consumer groups in this process is the EFF. They have requested exemptions all but one year in the process. The year it didn't submit a request was spent in protest over the insanity of the process. However, it has since won some important exemptions, specifically the right to jailbreak a legally purchased iPhone. This year, the EFF has decided to take it up a notch and request an exemption to jailbreak not only the iPhone, but also other smartphones, tablet computers and game consoles. It also seeks to have exemptions made for the breaking of DVD's CSS encryption for the purpose of extracting clips to be used in non-commercial videos.
Now remember, just because these requests are being made, it does not mean we are guaranteed to get these exceptions. Companies interested in blocking these requests can still add their own submissions in response. We can certainly expect the MPAA to object to any kind of exemption for bypassing CSS encryption that doesn't involve a video camera recording the TV. We can also expect objections from Sony and Nintendo who both hate the idea of people jailbreaking their consoles even for fair uses.
Regardless of what happens in the next few months (or two years if the last process was anything to go by), US citizens will be thrown a bone and given the semblance of fair use rights again, at least for the following three years when this whole process starts over. That is the biggest problem with this whole process. If something is worth making a temporary exemption, is it not also worth making that exemption permanent?
Kotaku has published an article in which the International Committee of the Red Cross proposes that real life laws such as the Geneva and Hague Conventions should be enforced within video games. Before you get too riled up, they are not proposing that video game players be locked up and punished for war crimes for actions performed within the game, but are rather proposing that game designers program those conventions into the games.
In computer and video games, violence is often shown and the players become 'virtually violent'. However, such games are not zones free of rules and ethics. It would be highly appreciated if games reproducing armed conflicts were to include the rules which apply to real armed conflicts. These rules and values are given by international humanitarian law and human rights law. They limit excessive violence and protect the human dignity of members of particularly vulnerable groups.
The practically complete absence of rules or sanctions is nevertheless astonishing: civilians or protected objects such as churches or mosques can be attacked with impunity, in scenes portraying interrogations it is possible to torture, degrade or treat the prisoner inhumanely without being sanctioned for it and extrajudicial executions are simulated.
These types of arguments are very similar to the arguments made by those who have requested laws regulating violence in video games in the past. Those people argued that the lack of consequences in the game would influence player behavior in real life. We know that the US Supreme Court rejected those arguments as the science behind them was not sound. But we all know that pesky court rulings never get in the way of those who want to control human behavior.
The Red Cross is looking to have game developers to voluntarily include these laws within the game world noting that some developers already take the time to do it. If that fails, it has no qualms about getting the government involved.
One possible course of action could be to encourage game designers/producers to incorporate IHL in the development and design of video games, while another could be to encourage governments to adopt laws and regulations to regulate this ever-growing industry.
I don't know why they think that a law regulating this would succeed, especially this soon after the US Supreme Court ruled that such laws are a violation of the US Constitution. Even with all that, such a law would be just as pointless as applying it to a movie such as Commando or Rambo. People look to entertainment as an escape from reality. Why would they want to play a video game that would end up with them being punished for war crimes? That doesn't sound like fun to me.
The price at which labels want to sell music and the price customers are willing to pay are often two totally different things. Yet, as we talk about this price disparity, we very rarely consider the price at which the artist wants to sell the music. This point of contention has come to a head with the release of Elvis Costello's latest music collection. In a post titled "Steal This Record", Costello states his album, "The Return Of The Spectacular Spinning Songbook", just plain costs too much.
Unfortunately, we at www.elviscostello.com find ourselves unable to recommend this lovely item to you as the price appears to be either a misprint or a satire.
Yeah, I would say that $202.66 is a joke. For that price you get 1 CD, 1 DVD and 1 Vinyl EP. That's it. You would think that for that price you would get a lot more, but no. along with other memorabilia including a coffe table book and autographed commemoration card. But still, if the artist thinks even with those extras the price is just way too high, then perhaps he is right. I can imagine how frustrating it must be for Costello to try and get the price changed with no luck. This is one of the downsides of working with a label.
After hitting a brick wall with his label, Costello has decided to take drastic measures to get his point heard. He is suggesting that his fans avoid buying the album and instead buy something he feels is far superior and cheaper to boot:
All our attempts to have this number revised have been fruitless but rather than detain you with tedious arguments about morality, panache and book-keeping - when there are really bigger fish to filet these days - we are taking the following unusual step.
If you should really want to buy something special for your loved one at this time of seasonal giving, we can whole-heartedly recommend, "Ambassador Of Jazz" - a cute little imitation suitcase, covered in travel stickers and embossed with the name "Satchmo" but more importantly containing TEN re-mastered albums by one of the most beautiful and loving revolutionaries who ever lived - Louis Armstrong.
The box should be available for under one hundred and fifty American dollars and includes a number of other tricks and treats. Frankly, the music is vastly superior.
That is quite a show of humility. Not only does he suggest Armstrong's album as a better buy for the money, he also gives Armstrong props for making better music. This is a pretty good endorsement and according to Amazon, "Ambassador of Jazz" is already sold out. So people are listening. Perhaps the end goal here is to get the label to admit that it screwed up the pricing and to soon change it. However, if even the artist cannot get the price changed, what hope is there for a consumer boycott?
We talk a lot about the need for artists to connect with fans as a way to give them a reason to buy. Here, we have an artist connecting with fans and asking them to avoid buying. You would think that this would be counter productive for the artist but this move shows that Costello has the best interests of his fans in mind and will do anything to protect them from unscrupulous business moves. That is certainly a reason to support an artist.
If you really want to support him, Costello gives his fans other options if they really want this album but don't want to pay the current asking price:
If on the other hand you should still want to hear and view the component parts of the above mentioned elaborate hoax, then those items will be available separately at a more affordable price in the New Year, assuming that you have not already obtained them by more unconventional means.
Thanksgiving week was not a good week for Ubisoft Shanghai creative director Stanislas Mettra. When asked if a PC version of the game I Am Alive would be coming, he responded that it wouldn't because of piracy.
It's hard because there's so much piracy and so few people are paying for PC games that we have to precisely weigh it up against the cost of making it. Perhaps it will only take 12 guys three months to port the game to PC, it's not a massive cost but it's still a cost. If only 50,000 people buy the game then it's not worth it.
This statement and one about PC gamers "bitching" got the gaming press and PC gamers all riled up. Very soon the news was everywhere that Ubisoft, the company pushing always on DRM and complaining about piracy on the PC at every turn, was at it again. This bad publicity led to Mettra backtracking on his comments.
What I meant is that the pc version did not happen yet [sic]. But we are still working to see the feasibility of it, which is not necessarily simple. I gave some examples to illustrate the problematic [sic], but obviously it is not in my hands and not my part to talk about this.
Although he attempts to avoid the topic of piracy specifically in his retraction, he still leaves the reader with the same message, PC gaming is a losing venture. Is this in the Ubisoft training material or something? Are they trained to believe that the PC is rife with piracy and that it should be treated with the utmost contempt and caution? It wasn't that long ago that other Ubisoft developers were complaining about the same thing.
I would be happy to leave this discussion at that if it weren't for the comments from a few other developers that same week on the very same topic. While Mettra believes the problem lies with piracy and the lack of paying customers on the PC, these other developers came to a very different conclusion. First we have Devolver CFO Fork Parker speaking about the PC version of Serious Sam 3:
Piracy is a problem and there is no denying that but the success of games like Skyrim and our own Serious Sam 3 on PC illustrates that there is clearly a market willing to pay for PC games, It's on the developers and publishers to put something out on the market that's worth paying for in the first place. Those that place the blame on the consumer need to rethink the quality of their products and the frequency in which they shovel out derivative titles each year.
The other side of the equation is the distribution model. In games, we have amazing PC digital download services like Steam, Get Games and Direct2Drive doing the same thing for games that iTunes did for music. Offer the consumer a variety of great digital content at a reasonable price and the majority will happily pay for the games that suit their tastes.
Here is a developer who recognizes that the market for PC games is ripe for the taking. Gamers are willing to buy quality product. If the game fails to turn a profit it is not the fault of the gamer or the pirates, it is the fault of the developer and publisher. If they take advantage of the services that PC gamers use to distribute their games, they will see a return on that investment.
We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. For example, if a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24/7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country three months after the U.S. release and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable.
Most DRM solutions diminish the value of the product by either directly restricting a customer's use or by creating uncertainty.
I know we quote Newell a lot when the topic of game piracy comes up, but his comments are always relevant. He is a man who gets it. He has learned that the battle with piracy cannot be won through the use of DRM, region restrictions or any other restriction that you can throw at the customer. This is something that Ubisoft has continually failed to learn. If you want to succeed in PC gaming, you need to bring the games to where the customers are, make them available and restrict them as little as possible. When you do that, honest customers will support you.
Really Ubisoft, this is getting old. I feel like a parent scolding his child for the 20th time about hitting his sister. You think the child gets it after the first time and that the second time is an honest mistake. But, when the child continues to hit his sister, you need to take drastic disciplinary action. What will it take to get the message through to those in charge at Ubisoft? Gamers want your games and will buy them, but you have to provide the service they want. That is the only way you will succeed.
In the latest round of content providers being unable to tell the difference between a link and infringing content, a Chinese game developers group, Content Provider Union (CPU), is suing the Chinese search engine Baidu for copyright infringement. CPU claims that Baidu has provided over 350 games for download and is liable for over $4.7 million in damages. In its defense, Baidu claims that it only provides links to 3rd party websites that actually provide the game downloads and is not liable for infringement that occurs at those sites.
This type of lawsuit is really nothing new for Baidu as it has been sued in the past and prevailed in court. Those court rulings stated that merely linking to infringing content was not enough to be held liable for infringement. Why these game developers think the outcome will be any different is anyone's guess. Perhaps these game developers should look to the music industry for some tips on what should be done. After losing repeatedly to Baidu in court, three major labels decided it would be better to enter a licensing deal with Baidu. I guess those labels realized that if people were using Baidu to find music, it would be better for those fans to be pointed to legal alternatives rather than infringing services. The same could work for game developers. If they were to partner with Baidu to offer a licensed game store or download service, those people who use Baidu to find games would be able to get them directly from the developers. That is a win for everyone. Let's hope that these game developers don't enter into the same vicious six year cycle the music industry went through.
If the problem is that "content creators" are spending too much time and money on the content and that prevents them from developing good working customer experiences, then that is a problem with the content creator. They are the ones that have their priorities backwards.
They are down for all intents and purposes. Most of the people and businesses using the site legitimately have linked to the .com. Now all those links are broken causing massive user issues that would not have occurred had the site not been seized.
This is a censorship issue. Just because you refuse to see it that way does not mean it is not true.
No, that is a bad example. Any one of the guests could be responsible. Are you truly that dumb?
I think it was a great example. Why? Because it forced you to contradict your original point.
Your original point was that because law enforcement couldn't identify the form creators, it was the site owner's who were guilty. Now you claim that any of the users could have been responsible. Which is it?
No, Public Knowledge did it right. If they only used back up copies as justification, that would be all that the Copyright Office would grant. You would still not be legally able to format shift the movie.
That is a legal grey area. As long as the site does not advocate piracy, they can usually skate by. I know Lifehacker has had a number of posts giving step by step instructions for ripping DVDs, Blurays and jailbreaking electronics.
A small subset of the populace will. Sure. However, the vast majority of people are more than willing to pay for a product they love from people they love.
Figures that you would completely miss the point of the article.
So not liking someone is all it takes to excuse infringement.
Nope. However, not being liked is a sure fire way to fail in business. If people don't like you they won't do business with you. Some people will pirate, that is unfortunate, but that is easy to stop if you would just stop treating your customers/fans as trash.
Mike is more than happy to celebrate the paywalls of people he likes (Louis CK, Kevin Smith) and denigrate the paywalls of people he doesn't.
So you are saying that the iPhone is not a "legitimate services [or] tool"? That is the only conclusion I can come up with based on your comment.
Now the question remains, if those people stopped infringing music copyright as a result of the notices, did that create an equal increase in legitimate sales? That is the true success of HADOPI and similar laws.
I took a look at the site and whatever tech they use to pull the IP address and other information cannot recognize Google Chrome and Mac OS. Can't wait to see how it handles my Linux machine at home.
As for the issue of the seizure, I would really like to see what evidence they had to not only seize the website but also arrest the owners of the site.
Otherwise, why license music from Trent Reznor when you could make him a character within the game?
Because being a character in video games is not what Trent Reznor is known for?
As for the rest of your crap, Id would hire Trent because he creates music that fits the theme of their game. They hire Trent because they trust him to not make "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist" type music. They hire Trent because getting the same music from a nobody composer is not as valuable.
Seriously, if Trent Reznor and Joe Schmo down the street came to you with the exact same song (both written in isolation) which would you value more? It is not the music that makes Trent valuable. It is Trent.
Re:
I am still ticked that a good 25% of the episodes are not available for streaming on Netflix. This includes the classic JFK assassination episodes.
Re: Re:
You know full well that real musicians don't have fans, they have serfs.
Re:
Your paranoia is not helping your position. You might want to reign that in a bit.
Re:
If the problem is that "content creators" are spending too much time and money on the content and that prevents them from developing good working customer experiences, then that is a problem with the content creator. They are the ones that have their priorities backwards.
Re:
The pet industry brings in more revenue than the movie, music and video game industries combined.
Re: Re: Re: what does jotform do?
They are down for all intents and purposes. Most of the people and businesses using the site legitimately have linked to the .com. Now all those links are broken causing massive user issues that would not have occurred had the site not been seized.
This is a censorship issue. Just because you refuse to see it that way does not mean it is not true.
Re: Re: Re:
So if someone uses you backyard for a drug deal without your knowledge, you would be complacent with the police seizing your home?
Re: Re: Re:
The entire site is down...What more proof do you need to know that the entire site is down?
Re: Re: Re:
No, that is a bad example. Any one of the guests could be responsible. Are you truly that dumb?
I think it was a great example. Why? Because it forced you to contradict your original point.
Your original point was that because law enforcement couldn't identify the form creators, it was the site owner's who were guilty. Now you claim that any of the users could have been responsible. Which is it?
Think about it. I know it is hard, but THINK.
Re:
No, Public Knowledge did it right. If they only used back up copies as justification, that would be all that the Copyright Office would grant. You would still not be legally able to format shift the movie.
Re:
That is a legal grey area. As long as the site does not advocate piracy, they can usually skate by. I know Lifehacker has had a number of posts giving step by step instructions for ripping DVDs, Blurays and jailbreaking electronics.
Re:
A small subset of the populace will. Sure. However, the vast majority of people are more than willing to pay for a product they love from people they love.
Re: Wow....It's just like high school
Figures that you would completely miss the point of the article.
So not liking someone is all it takes to excuse infringement.
Nope. However, not being liked is a sure fire way to fail in business. If people don't like you they won't do business with you. Some people will pirate, that is unfortunate, but that is easy to stop if you would just stop treating your customers/fans as trash.
Mike is more than happy to celebrate the paywalls of people he likes (Louis CK, Kevin Smith) and denigrate the paywalls of people he doesn't.
Sure, if you have no idea what a paywall is.
Re:
So you are saying that the iPhone is not a "legitimate services [or] tool"? That is the only conclusion I can come up with based on your comment.
Now the question remains, if those people stopped infringing music copyright as a result of the notices, did that create an equal increase in legitimate sales? That is the true success of HADOPI and similar laws.
Odd...
I took a look at the site and whatever tech they use to pull the IP address and other information cannot recognize Google Chrome and Mac OS. Can't wait to see how it handles my Linux machine at home.
As for the issue of the seizure, I would really like to see what evidence they had to not only seize the website but also arrest the owners of the site.
Re:
Do you have any proof aside from conjecture that the site is illegal?
Re:
L. Frank Baum
Re: Re: Re:
Yep.
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, Trent is paid license fees, residuals, etc. You know, all those horrible trappings of copyright law and licensing that you hate so much.
Only in your mind does Mike hate artists making money.
Re: Re: Re:
Otherwise, why license music from Trent Reznor when you could make him a character within the game?
Because being a character in video games is not what Trent Reznor is known for?
As for the rest of your crap, Id would hire Trent because he creates music that fits the theme of their game. They hire Trent because they trust him to not make "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist" type music. They hire Trent because getting the same music from a nobody composer is not as valuable.
Seriously, if Trent Reznor and Joe Schmo down the street came to you with the exact same song (both written in isolation) which would you value more? It is not the music that makes Trent valuable. It is Trent.