Posted on Techdirt - 21 October 2016 @ 7:39pm
Amidst the reporting and fervor over the email hack of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, there has been something of a recent discussion that has begun over the ethics of circulating what is in that hacked cache. Some within the media itself have worried about about reporting either too much on the hacked emails, or even at all in some cases, with still others going for a more nuanced position of encouraging the reporting of information in the public interest while leaving all the personal stuff in the emails undisclosed to whatever degree is possible.
It's not difficult to see the wisdom and morality in some of this, particularly when one witnesses the glee the Clinton campaign's political opponents have taken in circulating internal communications within the campaign that have no real public value other than serving as a point-and-laugh target for the most partisan among us. And it seems as though some in the GOP have in mind that there are certainly people on the other side of the aisle that would take the same joy in all of this, if the shoe were on the other hacked foot, as it were. Marco Rubio, for instance, recently released a statement indicating that anything published by WikiLeaks was out of bounds, as far as he was concerned.
"Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow, it could be us," Rubio said in a statement. "I will not discuss any issue that has become public solely on the basis of WikiLeaks," added Rubio, who is up for re-election. "As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge in it."
Frankly, it's refreshing to see a major political partisan actually understand that when you open up every option on the table to attack the political opponent, that can come back and bite you in the ass. But how wise is this particular stance, actually? It appears to rely on two premises: that Russia is behind the email hack and that WikiLeaks is a bad organization for releasing the information it releases. Note that Rubio doesn't say that this particular email hack is out of bounds, but rather that any issue raised as a result of a WikiLeaks release is. That's a hefty barrel of sand in which to put one's head in such a proactive fashion, and it presupposes that WikiLeaks' releases in the past, present, and future have not involved anything of the public interest which politicians and public servants should be talking about and/or addressing.
Time Magazine once said WikiLeaks "could become the most important journalistic tool since the Freedom of Information Act." Why? Well, because the value in WikiLeaks is that it knows far fewer boundaries than the general media and is willing to release information that would otherwise not see the light of day. That it tends to do so en masse rather than with careful curation is a potential downside, certainly, but would Rubio and these others really have the public not know about the killing of journalists in Iraq, the Chinese arrests of Tibetan dissidents, the Peru oil scandal, and the rest? WikiLeaks is not explicitly anti-American, after all, and it has released information that is absolutely in the public interest and has caused discussions of political importance within our country that would have otherwise been impossible.
Put another way, it's quite easy for Rubio to take this stance in the wake of an email hack that represents a fairly routine political scandal. What has been uncovered in the Podesta leaks is not unimportant, but it also isn't earth-shattering. What if the hack and WikiLeaks leak had instead uncovered that Hillary Clinton had made a specific agreement with the Chinese government to offer them favors in exchange for illegal campaign contributions? Would Rubio's stance hold true, despite the overwhelming importance of such information to American voters. It's hard to imagine that it would.
So, a nuanced approach to what should be reported on the WikiLeaks release makes all the sense in the world. Let's have that discussion. But putting a blanket over any information generated by WikiLeaks as an organization isn't just dumb, it's cutting out an important source of public good from the masses.
8 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 21 October 2016 @ 4:37pm
While we cover a lot of silly intellectual property disputes here, none has the potential to upend our society into a circus of hilarious litigious stupidity as much as publicity rights do. This barely-arrived form of intellectual property has been the star of all kinds of legal insanity, with one needing only to note its use by such upstanding denizens of our reality as Lindsay Lohan and the brother of Pablo Escobar. But I have to admit I had reserved a special place in my humor-heart for Harris Faulkner, the Fox News anchor that sued toy-maker Hasbro for making a a hamster figurine that shared her name. Because the sharing of a name isn't sufficient to arise to a publicity rights violation, the IRL-non-hamster-Faulkner had to claim that the ficticious-hamster-Faulkner also borrowed from her physical likeness, an argument which her legal team actually made. As a reminder, here are images of both.
Just to be clear, one of the depicted is an African-American female news anchor, while the other one is a pale-furred hamster with what appears to be a melted turd on its head. Hasbro pointed this out in its response to Faulkner's suit. I just want to hammer this point home: Hasbro had to point to the differences between a human female news anchor and a cartoon hamster in a legal filing before a very real court of these here United States. Because of publicity rights. If your head hasn't hit the desk in frustration yet, don't worry, because the two sides of this lawsuit have settled and Hasbro has agreed to stop producing the toy hamster.
The judge set up future fact-finding about children's opinions about the toy hamster and whether there was real confusion in the marketplace, but that won't happen due to the settlement.
No terms have been released by the parties, but in a joint statement, they say, "The ‘Harris Faulkner’ toy is no longer manufactured or sold by Hasbro. However, since there still may be ‘Harris Faulkner’ toys or packaging with the ‘Harris Faulkner’ name in the stream of commerce, Ms. Faulkner reiterates that she has not endorsed or approved this product."
Now, it certainly sounds like Hasbro decided that the legal action brought against it by IRL-Faulkner was entirely too much of a pain in its corporate ass compared with whatever revenue was being generated by hamster-Faulkner. But just the fact that this wasn't laughed immediately out of court is a canary in the mine of our sanity when it comes to publicity rights. This will only get worse, I fear, particularly in a country where the cult of celebrity grows at a pace that should terrify us all.
9 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 21 October 2016 @ 2:43pm
As we are quite likely in some kind of golden age for pure snark, a golden age probably in part super-charged by these here internets, it would be nice if the general public likewise had a firm grasp on the protections afforded to us by free speech rights to partake in parody and mockery. Sadly, too often the targets of such parody would rather try to silence speech than address what might be legitimate concerns. But it's when government does so that any forgiveness for this should end, as government should be particularly aware both about the free speech rights in place regarding parody and of the consequences of trying to silence criticism in any sort of ham-fisted manner.
Which brings us to the city government of Atlanta, Georgia, which appears to be trying to apply trademark law to harass a comedian whose "City of Atlanta" parody page uses a city logo, with predictably laughable results. This episode started when Ben Palmer, a local comedian, became frustrated at the machinations of city government and started a parody Facebook page, adorning it with one of the city's official seals.
Palmer started the fake City of Atlanta Facebook page when he became frustrated with numerous parking tickets, run-ins with city officials, and a lack of funds. The page uses an official city seal Palmer admits he copied from the city's Parks and Recs page. The city of Atlanta was not amused by the copyright infringement.
"The First Amendment allows people to express their opinions concerning their government in many ways, including satire. However, no person has the right to use a trademark in a manner that deceives or confuses the public," a city spokesperson said in a statement to 11Alive.
Except, of course, that's not actually true. First, there's no real deception to be taken into account here; the page is clearly parody. It is far more clear in its purpose, in fact, than many other sites on the internet, some of which can fool even Presidential campaigns. And, in the employment of this sort of parody, a satirist is allowed to use otherwise protected intellectual property. Given the entire point of the First Amendment, this must be particularly the case in the scenario of a citizen's right to criticize his or her government.
But because the city's target here is a comedian, Palmer modified the logo in a hilarious way in an effort to appease the government.
I'm sure everyone's happy now, right? But, in an effort to further thumb his nose at the Atlanta government, Palmer agreed to remove the logo entirely upon the meeting of certain demands he has outlined.
I read the news that the city of Atlanta would like me to discontinue using their logo. I will remove the logo from the page and discontinue posting as "City of Atlanta" in exchange for the following:
This is my final offer. Thank you.
- All of my parking and traffic tickets are absolved
- $60 cash
- 2 free rides on the trolley
Seems reasonable. Not as reasonable as, say, a government simply letting free speech run its course and potentially paying attention to the criticism within parody to address citizen concerns. But that appears to be asking way too much.
5 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 18 October 2016 @ 11:46am
You'll recall that we recently commented on the NFL's new dumb social media policy for its member teams, which outlines how much video content a team can push out as kickoff approaches (less than before), what type of video content from games teams can produce and distribute on their own (basically none), and the size of the fines if teams violate this policy (huuuuuge). The NFL has insisted elsewhere that this one-size-fits-all marketing approach has zilch to do with its precipitous ratings decline, although few believe it on this point. And, even as news of the policy has been released, the NFL itself has been inclined to push out as much of this very same content itself, centralizing its social media media control.
So, if you're an NFL team that doesn't like the new policy and wants to make its fans aware of how silly it is in the most hilarious way possible, what do you do? Well, if you're the Cleveland Browns and the Philadelphia Eagles, you push out Twitter updates to your followers that depict game highlights using plastic figurines. Here is how the Browns alerted their fans that their team had scored a touchdown.
And here is how the Eagles notified their Twitter followers of an in-game interception.
One wonders exactly how quickly the NFL's policy will be updated to include fines for snarkily shitting on that same policy. I imagine it will come quickly, because the NFL has not shown a propensity for having a sense of humor. Meanwhile, this should highlight exactly why the policy is so silly. Here we have creative, snarky, funny social media folks at these NFL teams whose talents are being wasted due to a top-down marketing approach from a league office that is overseeing the first ratings decline for the NFL in decades.
How in the world does that make any sense?
7 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 17 October 2016 @ 4:34pm
Sexting continues to be a thing. And, as we have covered various stories revolving around people sending pictures of their naughty bits to one another, much of the consternation in the public tends to be around children partaking in sexting. And I can see their point. While I tend to laugh at prudishness in general, it would probably be best for all involved if underage youngsters weren't texting each other provocative pictures of themselves with reckless abandon.
So what is a parent to do if their children are found to be doing just that? One might think that going to both the child's school and authorities to ask for help in stopping this behavior would be in order, right? Well, for one parent in Australia, doing just that landed him a conviction for child pornography and sex offender registration, even as essentially the entire legal system acknowledged that he was just trying to be a good father.
A man who found out that his 15-year-old stepdaughter was sexting her boyfriend proceeded to download the evidence to bring it to the school and the police to ask them to intervene. Oh dear, readers. You know where this is heading. Intervene they did. Now the dad has been convicted on child pornography charges and placed on the sex offender registry. This, despite the judge understanding exactly why the man, Ashan Ortell, 57, held onto the images.
"There is no suggestion of any exploitation of them by anybody," ruled Judge Jane Patrick, over in Australia, which is becoming as daffy as the United States. "You made no attempt to conceal the images. In fact, you were so concerned that you contacted the authorities about the images."
And then the judge proceeded to levy the conviction for child pornography upon Ortell. Why? Well, because Ortell made copies of the images he'd found his stepdaughter sending around on a USB stick and brought them to the school and police. The police apparently warned him to delete the images or risk prosecution, before reportedly failing to do much at all to address the behavior about which Ortell was concerned. Because of that, he kept the images, ostensibly so that he could address the behavior with other parties that might help him intervene. And that's when he was prosecuted for child pornography.
Let's be clear here: everyone agrees that Ortell did not keep the images for lewd reasons. There is a complete consensus, up to and including the judge who convicted him, that Ortell is merely a concerned parent attempting to do the right thing. Yet here we are. Legal systems routinely take intention into account with regards to charges, prosecutions, and rulings. Yet that failed to happen here, because context and nuance go right out the window when it comes to certain topics that have been overhyped in the public discourse as some kind of impending doomsday. Sexting amongst children is one of those topics.
Need more proof? The local police department has reached out to parents as a result of this whole fiasco with advice that wouldn't have helped in this case.
The ridiculous advice the Victoria police are giving to parents in the wake of this case is: Talk to your children about sexting "and encourage them not to communicate with people they don't know."
Well, okay. How would that have helped? The girl was definitely communicating with someone she did know: her boyfriend. I'm also guessing that talking to your kids about sexting is like talking to them about abstinence. A few may pay heed, but many won't.
The fact that sexualized pictures of "children" (anyone under 18 qualifies in federal child porn statues) are rampant and often consensual should somehow be reflected in the laws. Instead, low-level sex offenses are becoming the low-level drug offenses of this century: Something we overreact to in a charade of concern and, in the process, turn decent people into criminals.
Child pornography is not an issue to be taken lightly, to be sure, but making a mockery of the public's concern by convicting a well-meaning parent isn't the answer to anything at all.
112 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 14 October 2016 @ 8:23am
Let's jump right into this, because this post is going to be a bit on the wonky side. It's presidential silly season, as we have said before, and this iteration of it is particularly bad, like a dumpster fire that suddenly has a thousand gallons of gasoline dropped onto it from a crop-duster flown by a blind zombie. Which, of course, makes it quite fascinating to watch for those of us with an independent persuasion. Chiefly interesting for myself is watching how the polls shift and change with each landmark on this sad, sad journey. It makes poll aggregating groups, such as the excellent Project FiveThirtyEight, quite useful in getting a ten-thousand foot view as to how the public is reacting to the news of the day.
But sites like that obviously rely on individual polls in order to generate their aggregate outlooks, which makes understanding, at least at a high level, just how these political polls get their results interesting as well. And, if you watch these things like I do, you have probably been curious about one particular poll, the U.S.C. Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Daybreak poll, commonly shortened to the USC/LAT poll, which has consistently put out results on the Presidential race that differ significantly from other major polls. That difference has generally amounted to wider support for Donald Trump in the race, with specific differences in support for Trump among certain demographics. To the credit of those that run the poll, they have been exceptionally transparent about how they generate their numbers, which led the New York Times to dig in and try to figure out the reason for the skewed results. It seems an answer was found and it's gloriously absurd.
There is a 19-year-old black man in Illinois who has no idea of the role he is playing in this election. He is sure he is going to vote for Donald Trump. Despite falling behind by double digits in some national surveys, Mr. Trump has generally led in the USC/LAT poll. He held the lead for a full month until Wednesday, when Hillary Clinton took the nominal lead. Our Trump-supporting friend in Illinois is a surprisingly big part of the reason. In some polls, he's weighted as much as 30 times more than the average respondent, and as much as 300 times more than the least-weighted respondent.
Alone, he has been enough to put Mr. Trump in double digits of support among black voters. He can improve Mr. Trump's margin by 1 point in the national survey, even though he is one of around 3,000 panelists.
So, how does one person manage to skew a major national political poll in favor of one candidate to the tune of entire percentage points? Well, it turns out that a confluence of factors that include who is included on the poll and how often, how the poll respondents are weighted, and how this one particular voter fits into the demographic weighting converged to pretty much mess everything up. Let's start with the weighting.
The USC/LAT poll does things a bit differently than the other national polls. All polls rate respondents by demographics to correct for voting tendencies. The math can get gory and the NYT post does a good job of going through it, but you can think of it like this, for a very imprecise example: a poll respondent from the 18-35 demographic will be weighted less than a respondent from the 36-55 demographic, because the latter demo is more likely to actually show up and vote than the former. There is indeed some subjectivity in this, but the large demographic weighting drives the error margin down for the most part. But the USC/LAT poll deviates from the large-demo weighting and instead weights at very small demographic levels.
The USC/LAT poll weights for many tiny categories: like 18-21 year old men, which the USC/LAT poll estimates make up around 3.3 percent of the adult citizen population. Weighting simply for 18-21 year olds would be pretty bold for a political survey; 18-21 year old men is really unusual...When you start considering the competing demands across multiple categories, it can quickly become necessary to give an astonishing amount of extra weight to particularly underrepresented voters -- like 18-21 year old black men.
Which is how our single friend in Illinois became the poll's most weighted voter, being a 19 year old black man. The heavy weighting on tiny demographic categories caught him several times and, since he is voting for Trump, despite his demographic generally not voting for Trump, his heavily-weighted response skews things wildly. But that isn't all.
The USC/LAT poll does something else that's really unusual: it weights the sample according to how people said they voted in the 2012 election. The big problem is that people don't report their past vote very accurately. They tend to over-report three things: voting, voting for the winner and voting for some other candidate. They underreport voting for the loser. By emphasizing past vote, they might significantly underweight those who claim to have voted for Mr. Obama and give much more weight to people who say they didn't vote.
Which, again, catches our friend from Illinois. At nineteen, he obviously didn't vote in the last election. So his response is weighted even more. Using the poll's own data, the New York Times re-ran the poll using the same broad categories most other major polls used. When done, Hillary Clinton led in every single one of the iterations except for the one immediately proceeding the GOP convention. The difference between the poll's results as reported and what they would be with the normal weighted categories and the omission of the past vote weighting ranged form 1-4 points. In a political poll, that's enormous.
The final factor here is that the USC/LAT poll is a panel poll, which means that the same respondents are used each time the poll is run. So, our young black trump-voting man from Illinois got to skew these results nearly each and every time. The one time he failed to respond to the poll, Hillary Clinton suddenly led within it. As the NYT notes:
The USC/LAT poll had terrible luck: the single most overweighted person in the survey was unrepresentative of his demographic group. The people running the poll basically got stuck at the extreme of the added variance.
And, of course, the poll aggregators might include this poll, skewing the aggregate numbers as well. This isn't to say that all polls are skewed in the same manner. They aren't. The reason this is a story is because this poll is the outlier. But it is kind of fun to see how badly the sausage can be made if the methodology isn't in tune.
44 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 12 October 2016 @ 1:01pm
We had just discussed the NFL's strange edict to its member teams to significantly scale back the amount of video content they were sharing from NFL games, particularly during lead-ups to kickoff. As the news came out alongside some fairly significant reports of ratings drops for the NFL, many, including this writer, assumed that the NFL thought that such video content was a factor in the viewership decline. The NFL, meanwhile, denied this, instead claiming that the ratings drops had more to do with the election season, noting how many people were busily watching Presidential debates, with many of us watching whatever car-wreck zombie-apocalypse our political discourse has devolved into.
Whether that's true or not, it certainly seems as though the NFL itself does not think of video content and social media as some kind of enemy to ratings after all. Over this past weekend, immediately after its edict to its teams went out, the NFL was pushing even more video content out via social media than it had in the past.
If the league is panicking about the distribution of highlights on social media cutting into ratings, though, no one told their social-media managers, because pretty much every major play in an NFL game yesterday was posted almost immediately to the league’s Twitter account, often with preroll ads attached.
Ok, so what do we make of this? Well, as with many things to do with the NFL, the takeaways are both good and bad. The good is that the NFL clearly understands that video content blackouts are a thing of the past and that such content is a great driver for ratings, and not the opposite. But the bad is that the NFL seems to think that a top-down approach to controlling such content is the best approach to targeting viewers.
And that's just dumb. Not only dumb, in fact, but demonstrably silly. As I mentioned in the original post, the markets that host NFL teams are wildly diverse, from major markets like New York and Chicago -- and now Los Angeles --, to relatively tiny markets like Green Bay and Charlotte. A one-size-fits-all marketing approach never made sense for NFL teams, but before the days of digital media there wasn't a great deal in terms of diversity that could be achieved. But in the social media age? Marketing can be targeted and approached in a way tailored to specific fan-bases and markets. Why in the world would the NFL think that it had a better handle than each individual team, all of which employ their own social media managers, as to how to best drive viewership and attendance?
12 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 11 October 2016 @ 11:03pm
I will occasionally have someone suggest to me that we don't cover enough good or positive news about intellectual property disputes here at Techdirt, and I know our other writers occasionally hear that as well. I think it's probably not as true as those folks think it is, but certainly we talk about the problems in the IP realm more than when courts and businesses get it right. Still, it's a good idea to highlight that the entire collective world isn't insane on these kinds of issues.
Which brings us to a trademark dispute in New Zealand, brought by credit card company MasterCard against a sporting event. And the dispute itself is certainly laughable.
MasterCard International Inc challenged the colour and words of the 2017 World Masters Games, to be held in Auckland, claiming it was too similar to its own logo. MasterCard argued the event's name and logo was "likely to deceive or cause confusion" and was too similar to the credit card company's name and logo. World Masters Games disagreed. World Masters Games said there was no confusion, or even allegations of confusion, despite the parties' respective marks co-existing in new Zealand since at least March 2014.
Yes, while both MasterCard's logo and the logo for World Masters Games almost share a word in common, that obviously isn't enough to amount to anything remotely resembling trademark infringement. Instead, the real focus was on that common word and its use in the logos for each company, with MasterCard insisting that those logos were so similar that customers would be confused. And here are the logos in question.
One wonders if there is a gas leak in the legal department at MasterCard HQ. Because there is nothing in those logos that would mislead a drunken chimp, never mind a human being. Yet MasterCard moved forward with challenging the trademark application for World Masters Games, because trademark bullying knows no limits. The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand, fortunately, essentially laughed this out of the trademark office.
However, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand ruled MasterCard had no grounds to oppose and allowed the registration of 2017 World Master Games' logo. In her decision, Trade Marks assistant commissioner Natasha Alley said the opposed mark – that of World Masters Games – was "visually, aurally and conceptually dissimilar to the MasterCard word marks".
"They convey very different ideas and look and sound different."
That's a more polite way of saying, "Why in the world are you even here bothering us with this?" Good on the IP office of New Zealand for getting this exactly correct.
16 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 11 October 2016 @ 2:47pm
It's been a time of remarkable progress of late when it comes to professional sports organizations being smart about how to pursue viewers in this here digital era. Major athletic institutions are finally opening up the door to wider streaming options, putting aside the doomsayers. Add to that that other leagues are starting to realize what a boon Major League Baseball's Advanced Media product has been to viewership and attendance and it seemed like we were on the precipice of a golden age in digital sports media.
Leave it to the NFL to ensure that we take at least one step backwards. What once seemed like a never ending funnel of money and upward trending viewership, the NFL has undergone something of a ratings correction as of late. It seems that amidst the controversy over head injury, bad officiating, the contraction of one-day fantasy football, and what some think is a generally declining quality of the on-field product, less people are watching games, both in person and on television. This had to happen at some point, if for no other reason than because NFL ratings over the past 2 decades were completely boffo. But the NFL's choice to combat this inevitable decline takes a page from the days we finally just got over.
We’ve obtained a memo that went out to all 32 teams reflecting that, starting Oct. 12, clubs are subject to a new fine schedule for exceeding the limits on video and any moving content. Those are particularly strict during the 60 minutes leading up to games, and through games, with clubs largely limited to re-posting from the NFL’s own accounts (with some allowance for approved content on Snapchat). The memo says that first-time offenders will be fined up to $25,000, a second offense will warrant a fine of up to $50,000, and a third offense will merit a fine of up to $100,000 and loss of rights to post league-controlled content.
This is flat out dumb for a number of reasons. To start, a top-down control over how teams choose to market their product breeds rigidity. Rules applied both to a market like New York and Green Bay are going to be flawed almost by definition, as those markets are completely different and the tactics needed to attract fans simply aren't the same.
But the larger idea of blacking out or setting limits on social media video content as a way to increase viewership is both a misunderstanding of how such content is viewed and shared, as well as a misunderstanding as to its wider effects on audience numbers. Simply nobody is watching highlights of video on an NFL team's social media account in lieu of watching the game live. That isn't the point of those highlights. Rather, the point is to attract, through the sharing of the video, new viewers who perhaps weren't initially interested in watching the game.
It's what makes MLBAM so powerful. I'm not perusing Twitter to get my live game action, but I sure as hell will switch over to a game in progress, or one upcoming, should some video content give me a compelling reason, whether it's a pitcher throwing a no-hitter, a batter one hit away from the cycle, or some on-field altercation that ratchets up the intensity level. I'm a baseball fan; I live for that stuff. And having a team try to lure me to their broadcast, which I can likewise access via the excellent MLB.tv service, is a brilliant piece of marketing.
Marketing that the NFL, normally smart in its business practices, has decided to forego. Television blackouts of old have become social media blackouts today, and for no good reason.
27 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 7 October 2016 @ 3:22am
We talk a great deal on Techdirt about the importance of free speech alongside the importance of not damning technological tools for the way third parties choose to use them. These matters can delve into minutiae in the American and Western forms of this conversation, with discussions about Section 230 protections and the like. But in other parts of the world, the conversation is much different.
Back in 2008 in Iran, for instance, the government there elected to imprison a Canadian resident of Iranian lineage, initially under a death sentence, but later commuting that sentence to mere life imprisonment. His crime? Saeed Malekpour created some open source code for sharing photos on the internet that others within Iran used for pornography.
Saeed was living in Canada as a permanent resident before he embarked on what was supposed to be a short trip to Iran in October 2008. While visiting his father in Iran, authorities decided to target Malekpour for his open source software program that others had used to upload pornographic images to the Internet.
His story is one of many that exemplify the fear Iranian authorities use to control the nation's Internet space. Saeed was charged with threatening the nation's Islamic ideals and national security via propaganda against the system, but evidence against him was scant. He spent time in solitary confinement and gave forced confessions — widely publicized on national television in 2010 — that were extracted under torture, including beatings, electrocution and threats of rape.
This follows the Iranian tradition of tamping down on the freedom and outcry of its own citizens by making examples of others. The guilt or innocence of these others is hardly relevant to this practice. In the case of Saeed, the target was the sharing tool, not the porn that others might have used it for. It's no mistake that Saeed's arrest came directly in the wake of the Iranian government's 2008 legislation blitz aimed at curtailing a free and open internet presence within its borders.
While groups like the EFF have been calling for his release for some time now, they are also currently running a campaign to help him through a letter-writing blitz targeted at Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. On Tuesday, the anniversary of Saeed's arrest, #FreeSaeed made its way around Twitter.
For those of us who believe in not only a free and open internet, but in the freedom to create and evolve digital tools -- without having to fear being targeted for the actions of others, particularly for benign actions like pornography -- it's a cause worth joining.
18 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 6 October 2016 @ 11:55pm
While we'll try to keep the grave-dancing at a minimum, it wasn't difficult to see this coming. Game publisher Digital Homicide has something of a history of lashing out against any negative reviews it might receive, of which there are many. Whether it is more high profile targets like well-followed YouTube game reviewers, or merely lowly Steam customers that offered reviews of Digital Homicide games, the company has taken to simply suing everyone for all the things as its reaction. It seemed easy to recognize that this was not a winning business strategy in general, but when Steam reacted to the latest attempts at litigation by simply dropping all Digital Homicide games from its store, things clearly became dire for the company.
And now the story comes to a close with a conclusion pretty much everyone saw coming: Digital Homicide has filed a motion to dismiss its lawsuit against those Steam customers, declaring the company to be financially ruined and unable to move forward with the litigation.
Speaking with TechRaptor, Digital Homicide’s James Romine explained that Valve’s decision to remove all of the studio’s games from Steam is what did them in:
“The case dismissal was only due to financial reasons caused by the removal of our games. I believe the case was very solid. There were in excess of 140 false statements by the 11 Steam users, tens of thousands of posts harassing myself and my customers, three direct interference with written contracts with third parties by Steam users (some of which were competitors), and much more. A combined in excess of 25 reports were filed against the worst users of the 11 with no resolutions being found.”
Well, you know, maybe if you hadn't attacked Steam customers on the basis of leaving bad reviews for your games, this wouldn't have happened. It's important to recognize, as I mentioned in an earlier post, that even though Romine talks a great deal about the vile vitriol some folks have harried his company with, the lawsuits come down to bad reviews. Suing those that leave negative reviews of your product isn't so much a business strategy as it is an attempt at business suicide, a lesson that appears to have been taught to completion to Digital Homicide.
The filing itself claims not only that Romine's business is "destroyed", but that he had sought out a local sheriff initially for help building a criminal case against the Steam users. Also, Digital Homicide would like a refund on its court filing fee.
One can only hope that other businesses will learn from this and not react to negative reviews by torpedoing their businesses through similar litigation.
33 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 6 October 2016 @ 3:25am
Confession time: I think memes generally suck. Yes, yes, I know you love them, but when I think of memes, I tend to think of political memes on Facebook that I then have to drop Snopes.com links into the comments on, stupid copyright trolling over them, and that time Axl Rose tried to DMCA a meme so that nobody would see that he dipped into the chocolate fudge too much recently.
Which is why I'm going to move to Indonesia, where the government has decided it's time to put a strict control policy on any memes it finds offensive, embarrassing or that incite fear.
Its Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE) punishes any electronic media communication that incites fear or embarrassment under its defamation article. The public has continuously called for the article's removal, but instead Indonesia is introducing more restrictions to freedom of expression. Posting memes, texts, pictures, or videos would be punishable if found to have a defamatory or slanderous tone.
And, hey, what could possibly go wrong? After all, nobody actually wants to defend memes that incite fear, or are defamatory or slanderous, do they? And nobody wants to be embarrassed, right? Well, as per usual when it comes to censorship codified in law, the devil is in the nearly complete lack of details.
According to the Indonesian government, this provision stands to prevent and control cyberbullying. But it can further be used as a political tool against opposition during elections. Citizens reproach this act, as there are no clear rules that define what is considered offensive. The government decides and is often ambiguous about it.
Since its implementation in 2008, 200 people have been prosecuted according to data from the Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network. Among the most notable cases, was the prosecution of Prita Mulyasari in 2009 for complaining about Omni International Hospital services on an online mailing list.
In other words, by crafting the law in about the most ambiguous manner possible, the Indonesian government can simply make up on the spot what it considers offensive, defamatory, and all the rest. This inoculates them against memes as a political tool. And the idea of a complete dearth of political memes sounds like heaven, except that a government that would ban them is exactly the kind of target for which they would be appropriate.
Dressing up censorship in language to do with stopping offense and fear is an age-old tactic, one that those of us that believe in free speech should not let stand in any corner of the world. Free the meme, Indonesia!
13 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 5 October 2016 @ 11:23pm
Readers of this site should know by now that, as a general rule, DRM is equal parts dumb and ineffective. What in theory is a way for game publishers to stave off piracy typically instead amounts to a grand digital method for making sure legitimate customers can't play the games they buy. Now, not all DRM is created equally shitty, of course -- one of the more benign forms of DRM is Valve's Steam platform. Because games purchased on the platform check in with Steam servers for product keys and otherwise encrypts the individual files for the game each user downloads, it's a form of DRM.
And because DRM is almost always annoying even at its best, there are some gamers who will only buy DRM-free games. Many Kickstarter campaigns for video games, in fact, explicitly state that backers and non-backers will have a DRM-free option for the game available, either through platforms like GOG and HumbleBundle, or directly from the developer. Duke Grabowski, Mighty Swashbuckler! was one such game, with developer Venture Moon Industries promising both a Steam release and a DRM-free release when it collected funds from backers. Then, suddenly, once the company got a publisher on board for the project, it announced that the game would only be available on Steam.
During the campaign, DRM-free copies of Duke Grabowski were promised to backers. Of course, most people expected this promise to be honored. As of yesterday, the publisher the developers have lined up told them this no longer is the case. The whole DRM-free thing has been thrown out the proverbial window and only Steam keys are being offered. Understandably, the comments section on Kickstarter is in an uproar.
The reaction has been almost universally negative, with nearly every commentor speaking out against the decision. Several backers are demanding a refund because they only backed it because DRM-free was promised. Instead of getting militant, a few backers have decided it best to petition the publisher to honor the original promises. One has even written up a template to send toDukeGrabowski@gmail.com.
Well, yes, the reaction from those who have paid for a product, even if it's a pre-payment in the form of a Kickstarter pledge, will tend to be negative when promised iterations of the game are suddenly yanked away without warning or recourse. Everyone seems to agree that publisher Alliance Digital Media was the one behind the decision, but to the end customer that makes little difference. If a developer promises a DRM-free version of its game to backers, then that developer had damned well better make sure the publisher they select is on board with that as well. Otherwise, it was a promise made without the commitment to keeping it.
As it turns out, this particular story has a happy ending, with the developer announcing on Kickstarter that the DRM-free version of the game has been promised again.
Good news! Alliance has told me that they are planning on releasing a DRM-free version of the game before the end of the year, and that more details will be coming soon. So thank you for your patience and understanding.
Which is, you know, fine, but with Kickstarter becoming a major vehicle for funding the creation of new gaming content, this kind of thing needs to get ironed out now. Because backers aren't going to keep backing without some level of trust that promises made to slurp their money from them will be kept, preferably without them having to light the torches and dig up their pitchforks.
37 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 4 October 2016 @ 4:25pm
There must be something in the air to do with tacos these days. On the heels of our post about the silly efforts chain Taco John's is undertaking to retain sole trademark ownership of the ubiquitous "Taco Tuesdays" phrase, we have another trademark dispute involving everyone's favorite hispanic delicacy. In this instance, however, the focus of this post won't be on the dispute between the two restaurants, but we can start there anyway.
A Vermont business that is only a few months old is changing its name following a cease and desist notice from another restaurant group clear across the country.
The owner of a 10-week-old taco business said he'll change its name after a California-based restaurant's lawyer claimed it infringes on theirs. Tito Garza, 29, of Brattleboro, received a cease-and-desist notice last week from a Los Angeles trademark lawyer demanding he stop using the name, Tito's Tacos of Vermont.
The lawyer, Greg Victoroff of Greg Victoroff & Associates, said "Tito's Tacos is the exclusive registered trademark of Tito's Tacos Mexican restaurant in Culver City, California."
Garza said he doesn't have the resources to tangle with a law firm in California, so he'll change the name of his venture, though he hasn't decided what yet.
So, yeah, that's annoying. A guy can't name his restaurant after himself because of a trademark owned by another company clear across the nation. We could spend some time discussing whether there is any actual customer confusion to be had here, or whether or not a trademark consisting of a common name and a common food was worthy of such protection. But, instead, let's focus on the other part of this trademark dispute.
It seems that the lawyers for the Tito's Tacos in California are a bit confused as to how trademark law works in conjunction with the basic federal laws governing how the press operates. The link above comes from the Brattleboro Reformer, a news group focusing on local news in Vermont. By reporting previously about a local food festival, and including images of Tito Garza selling his tacos at it, the lawyer for Tito's Tacos seems to think it too has violated his client's trademark rights.
Meanwhile, Victoroff also has requested that the Brattleboro Reformer remove from its website a picture of Garza selling tacos at the Brattleboro BaconFest because his Tito's Tacos banner hangs in the background. The photo, taken on Saturday, Sept. 17, also was the main image on the front page of the Monday, Sept. 19, Reformer.
"The news story and photograph appearing at [the Reformer's website] ... is infringing the Tito's Tacos trademark by displaying and distributing content referring to a food vendor named Tito Garza using the Tito's Tacos trademark in Brattleboro, Vermont, and elsewhere in violation of state and federal trademark law," Victoroff wrote in an email to the Reformer.
Nothing about that is remotely correct. To start with, the news group can simply shout "fair use!" and walk away from the threat, because news organizations have a longstanding right to include images of the subjects on which they report. Imagine if, in an age where media is dominated by the image, a company could demand takedown of any trademark-related images in this manner. Reporting would breakdown entirely, particularly on television. Add to that that the one allegedly violating the trademark in question is Tito Garza, not the news group, and one wonders how this threat could get any dumber.
Unsurprisingly, The Reformer has declined to remove the image.
"The photo in question depicts a local food vendor whose sign identifies his business as Tito's Tacos," wrote Rutberg. "While this use of the name Tito's Tacos may indeed infringe on your client's registered trademark, it is our opinion that the photo in question does not constitute an infringement of your client's trademark. At best it is a 'fair use' of trademarked material."
Rather than accept this lesson and lick his wounds, Victoroff actually responded by insisting the paper was wrong and again demanding the image be taken down. It hasn't been, of course.
One wonders if this ignorance of the law might give Tito Garza pause as to whether this is a fight he can win.
15 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 3 October 2016 @ 11:07pm
Way back in 2010, Mike wrote about how the Taco John's restaurant chain had threatened a small restaurant in Oklahoma for daring to use the phrase "Taco Tuesday" in a promotion for cheap tacos on...you know...Tuesdays. Taco John's did indeed have a trademark on the term in 49 of our 50 states, with the exception being New Jersey, because life is strange. The question at the time, as tends to be the question in most trademark disputes, was whether or not there was any potential customer confusion to worry about. Given the somewhat descriptive nature of the phrase, not to mention its widespread use both commercially and in common parlance, the whole thing seemed rather silly.
Six years does little to change things, it seems. Taco John's recently fired off a cease and desist notice to the Old Fashioned Tavern and Restaurant in Wisconsin for using the phrase.
For almost a decade, the restaurant had sold $2 tacos on Tuesday night. Other restaurants and bars in the area had similar promotions, and in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, Taco Tuesday specials are as plentiful as yoga classes.
But the author of the letter claimed that “Taco Tuesday” was a federally registered trademark that belonged to Taco John’s, a chain of around 400 Mexican-style fast food restaurants. And as Old Fashioned manager Jennifer DeBolt told the local Cap Times, they quickly realized that “the law firm is completely legit.”
And, because this kind of trademark bullying totally works, the restaurant decided to change the name of Taco Tuesday and set up a poll on its Facebook page for fans of the business to suggest new names. Those suggestions are certainly creative.
- Cease-and-Desist Taco Special
- Trademark Tyrant Taco Day!
- Edible Taco Tuesday
- Tacos on the Square
- Taco-tastic Tuesday
- Dy-no-mite Taco-nite
- Ye Old Fashioned Taco Tyme
- Corporate-free Taco Night
- Totally Renamed Tuesday
- Wistaco Day
- The Tuesday Special That Shall Not Be Named
You get the idea. Taco John's trotted out the usual excuses about the need to protect this trademark, lest it devolve into generic status. Simultaneously, it also seems to fully understand exactly how generic the term has become.
“Over the years we’ve certainly asserted our trademark against national companies, restaurants big and small, and even pharmaceutical companies,” says Billie Jo Waara, the chief marketing officer at Taco John's. (Waara can’t reveal details, but we suspect the pharmaceutical company used “Taco Tuesday” in a drug ad.) “We also recognize that the unauthorized use [of Taco Tuesday] is prolific, and we do our best to communicate ownership. It’s a challenge for sure.”
So prolific, indeed, that it would be silly at this point to claim that there is any actual customer confusion for which to be concerned. Should the average person drive down the street in their hometown and see a tavern advertising "Taco Tuesdays!", that person is not going to think of Taco John's at all, let alone wonder whether there was some kind of affiliation. That's because there is nothing in the phrase that acts as a source identifier. It's mostly descriptive, involves mostly generic words, and the company's protectionism typically induces a sneer.
The biggest threat to Taco John’s ownership over Taco Tuesday, however, is not a populist backlash. It’s that so few people know about its claim. When the Los Angeles Times asked a waitress at a Mexican restaurant about the trademark issue, she responded, “Give me a break. Everybody has Taco Tuesdays.” And that was twenty years ago.
Taco Tuesday belongs to the people now. It'd probably be best for everyone if Taco John's just gave it up.
31 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 3 October 2016 @ 3:23am
While the recording of police activities has been covered here for years, I think we're starting to see what is at least a slight ratcheting down of the drama over the issue. Once almost universally rejected by law enforcement groups, the freedom to record police as they go about their public duty has become more recognized rather than less. That doesn't mean the issue is settled, though, as shown in a recent example in which Arkansas police arrested a state Congressman who had helped push through a state law protecting the rights of citizens to film police.
Officer Jeff Thompson of the Little Rock Police Department arrested Arkansas state Representative John Walker for recording their treatment of a black man who had been put in handcuffs during a traffic stop. Officer Thompson told Rep Walker he had to stop recording or face arrest. Rep Walker said, "Arrest me." Officer Thompson did. Police later dropped charges against Rep Walker, but are continuing with the prosecution of his colleague, civil rights lawyer Omavi Shukur.
Shakur, officers say, had done more than merely be present with a recording device, having at one point supposedly stepped in the way of the officers as they performed their duty. Police reports and statements alike, however, suggest that Rep. Walker merely stood by and filmed the police traffic stop and refused to leave when so ordered. The arresting officer indicates that Walker was told that he would be arrested for simply refusing to leave the area, at which point Walker said "Arrest me."
In other reporting, some of the police that were on site at the time of arrest discuss Walker being purposefully provocative, with one even indicating that Walker likely wanted to be arrested.
Film in another patrol car, taking the driver to jail, has audio of an older officer telling a younger black female officer who'd made the stop about Walker: "His main purpose was to be arrested." Walker, he said, had been "a thorn in the side of the police department" since he joined the force.
Even if we accept this at face value, there seems little value in law enforcement obliging Walker, giving him fuel for his cause and plastering his name all over the news. Particularly when the arrest comes about for his doing something that not only isn't illegal, but is something that Walker personally fought to legalize. Would it be so hard to just let Walker film away and go about your public duty?
33 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 30 September 2016 @ 12:55pm
We talk about porn filters occasionally here at Techdirt. Usually those discussions revolve around how useless and easily circumvented those filters are, even as the more clueless in government insist that we need more of this non-filtering filtering. This is not one of those stories. Instead, it is the story of one of the most tone-deaf individuals with a penchant for excuse-making I've ever come across.
We start with Gizmodo, a website that used to be owned by Gawker Media until a rich guy decided to show America exactly what a rich guy with a lot of money could do and had Gawker shut down, presumably then diving into a pile of gold coins and rubbing hundred dollar bills on his nipples. Gizmodo recently filed an FOIA request to get at documents involving the misuse of computer equipment with the Department of Homeland Security. The site was hoping to see if there were any cases of overreach and abuse of technology by the department. Instead, it uncovered four cases of people watching porn, including one really special case involving a border patrol agent that simply would not stop looking at porn while on the job.
According to the report obtained by Gizmodo, this particular case, where names have been redacted to protect the privacy of the agent, involves thousands of attempts to access porn on government computers in 2015.
The government says the unnamed agent tried to access porn 644 times in just a two-day span in July of 2015. The DHS internet software filters denied him access 467 times during those two days. Some of the porn was accessed simply because it was hosted on sites that weren’t recognized as exclusively for porn, like Flickr and Tumblr.
644 instances of watching porn while at work is the kind of dedication one likes to see out of an employee actually doing his or her job. That kind of relentless drive to jacking it while on the clock, however, isn't generally smiled upon. An investigation was conducted, which included an interview with the man caught loving himself. The agent had an excuse, however, and it's glorious.
He said that he knew he shouldn’t have been accessing porn at work, but that part of the blame was really with the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) office for not having “adequate web filters.”
Just drink that in for a moment. A border agent, part of an organization that is essentially a filter for those traveling across our borders, has said that part of the blame for his constant porn-viewing rests with the fact that the internet filter used didn't do a good enough job blocking his attempts to look at pornographic material. One immediately wonders if this excuse might be ported to the analog world of illegal immigration. Should an illegal immigrant caught by INS be able to simply shrug and say the blame for his or her illegal entry is really on the CBP for not stopping them? One might even imagine a caught illegal immigrant suggesting that CBP agents clearly didn't mind their entry if they spent so much time watching porn rather than, you know, catching those attempting to illegally cross the border. After all, if the filter isn't catching them, let's just blame that, right?
Are porn filters easily circumvented? Yes. Is that to blame for a CBP agent trying to find porn at work at a rate of near Olympic proportions? Mmm, no.
32 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 30 September 2016 @ 8:33am
You may recall that roughly a year ago, a federal judge struck down a New Hampshire law that made "ballot selfies" illegal. The state had essentially updated its laws revolving around limiting the ability to sell votes or influence the public through depicting who a person voted for to include criminalizing anyone that took a picture of their completed ballot and shared it on social media. The state had said that allowing that sort of thing encouraged voter corruption, with the idea that ballot selfies would be used as a form of proof that a bought vote had been completed, or might otherwise be used to influence other members of the public as to how to vote. It was a strange theory, given how unlikely it would be for a corrupted voter to post evidence of his or her corruption on Facebook, not to mention that stating that a person essentially couldn't engage in a form of political speech via a picture was flatly unconstitutional. The federal judge agreed.
But, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, New Hampshire appealed this ruling. And so it went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit... which found the law to be flatly unconstitutional as well.
The court held this statute violated the First Amendment; whether or not it’s viewed as content-based (and I think it should be), the statute is unconstitutional because it fails even the “intermediate scrutiny” applied to content-neutral speech restrictions.
From the ruling itself:
Digital photography, the internet, and social media are not unknown quantities — they have been ubiquitous for several election cycles, without being shown to have the effect of furthering vote buying or voter intimidation...But even accepting the possibility that ballot selfies will make vote buying and voter coercion easier by providing proof of how the voter actually voted, the statute still fails for lack of narrow tailoring.
The ruling goes on to detail the two reasons. First, the court points out that none of the fears the state raises as its reasons for enacting this law have been realized and that curtailing the free speech rights on an entire population over a theoretical problem ain't a thing that the state can do. Second, should those fears actually come to reality, the court points out that there are already laws on the books to address them and, again, limiting free speech rights on an entire population when that's the case isn't going to fly.
The point is that political speech is about as sacred a thing as a secular republic like ours has. That New Hampshire is going to such lengths to keep people from being able to proudly show that they voted, and who they voted for, seems strange for a state with a motto of "Live free or die."
Read More | 29 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 29 September 2016 @ 11:52am
While politics isn't generally a topic we dive into around here, technology policy and issues certainly are. And, since presidential election cycles infect every conceivable topic like a wine stain spreading across your favorite couch, we've talked about the two mainstream candidates quite a bit recently. And I get the complaints from all sides against both candidates, but it's become somewhat breathtaking to watch Donald Trump build a campaign in large part on nonsensical and easily debunked conspiracy theories, such as how the planned internet governance transition will cede control of the web to China and Russia, or that our current sitting President might be a secret communist Muslim clay-person, but maybe not.
And, of course, there is the constant claim of victim-hood at the hands of that damned liberal establishment, which now apparently includes Google. Some background for you is in order. Over the summer, a really dumb video went viral after claiming to show that Google was manipulating autocomplete searches to keep any bad press out of the results for searches about Hillary Clinton. Compared with Bing, for instance, Google's autocomplete failed to finish off a search for "Hillary Clinton cr" with "Hillary Clinton crimes", instead completing as "Hillary Clinton Crimea." While your drunk uncle lost his goddamned mind over a conspiracy surely proven, Google chimed in to note that it specifically designed its autocomplete feature to keep disparaging results from anyone's name, not just Hill-Dog's. This was easily shown by putting in "Donald Trump cr", which likewise autocompleted as "Donald Trump Crimea."
And that really should have been the end of that. But, because Donald Trump's campaign isn't one to pass on a good chem-trails story, its candidate tried to deflect a general panning of his debate performance by repeating this already disproved accusation.
While discussing polling numbers at a rally in Wisconsin on Wednesday, Donald Trump offhandedly accused Google of manipulating search results in favor of rival Hillary Clinton, because hey, why not?
“The Google poll has us leading Hillary by two points nationwide,” said Trump. “And that’s despite the fact that Google’s search engine was suppressing the bad news about Hillary Clinton, how about that? How about that?”
I'm always reminded of a supposed quote from Michael Jordan back in the 90's when a reporter asked him why he didn't endorse political candidates, despite such an endorsement being so potentially powerful. His response was supposedly something along the lines of: "Because Republicans buy gym shoes, too." Imagine for a moment if Google, in the business of making money essentially by getting as many people as possible to use its search engine, decided to alienate roughly half of the American population by trying to dick around with search results for a political candidate. It would literally have to hate money to take such an action. Anyone think that Google hates money?
And, separately, I know that politicians generally lie, and have for quite some time, but it used to be that a candidate for president wouldn't simply be able to say something easily refuted and get away with it. I don't mean refuted in a murky way that can be debated. This conspiracy theory that Trump is continuing to raise has been debunked. It isn't a real thing. Yet he continues to repeat it. Some in the media may even call him out on the lie, but those that do will be accused of liberal bias and the whole thing will feed the playback loop.
This can't be a good method for picking our national leaders.
139 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 28 September 2016 @ 11:01pm
While the industries that dominate digital products generally aren't great at recognizing the true nature of the threat of piracy to their businesses, it seems to me the video game industry is better at this game than most. Whereas the movie and music industries are dominated by a great deal of fists pounding tables, some game developers have for some time recognized that piracy might actually be an opportunity in wolf's clothing, if they would only try connecting with these potential customers and ingratitate themselves to this wider potential audience. Still, because this idea that should be easily portable to other industries is so rarely entertained by those other industries, it's worth pointing out the ongoing examples of how gaming companies combat piracy by being awesome and human.
One such recent example is the story of how PM Studios, makers of Playstation Vita game SUPERBEAT: XONiC, reacted to a discussion on Reddit's r/VitaPiracy/ thread detailing how to pirate the game. The game developer decided to jump into the comments themselves with the following:
We feel honoured that you enjoy our game SUPERBEAT XONiC so much, we would like to invite you to take this opportunity to purchase it on sale at the Playstation Store.
You can enjoy the original game and show support to the team for just $15.99 (60% off), no Playstation Plus required!
Have a nice day!
This, quite simply, is how it's done. Rather than flying into a rage, which would be somewhat understandable on a thread designed specifically to show how to play the game without paying for it, PM Studios decided to treat those on the thread with respect, even thanking them for trying out the game. This acknowledgement that some percentage of piracy is comprised of those wanting to see if they'll like a game before buying it, combined with simply ignoring those that pirate without any intention of ever buying the game, and wrapped up at the end with a link to where the game can be bought while on sale, was met with enthusiastic responses in the comments.
And not only that. PM Studios stayed in the thread and had a relatively lively but respectful debate about how it views piracy, the harm of piracy, and describing its status as a small team just looking to make great games. In other words, rather than simply screaming about piracy, it connected with its potential customers in a respectful way. In the end, several comments came to the defense of PM Studios.
[–]DidntEvenReddit 5 points 3 days ago*
For a small team making Xonic it really is a way to keep the developers on the payroll post-release and keep in mind this is a third party exclusive game on the fucking vita to begin with so the margins are already against them. I have no idea why you would equate the practices of AAA publishers to PMStudios or why you wouldn't want to support them. You're not sticking it to the big corporate man by fucking over a small studio like this
One imagines that this kind of thing builds up goodwill amongst potential buyers of PM Studio games. Some of the comments on the thread state as much. It won't do anything with the pure-pirate folks out there, but, then again, nothing will. Worrying about those that were never going to buy the game would have been wasted time and energy. Instead, the developer chose to try to win over those that might indeed want to support its efforts.
Here's hoping PM Games gets the positive reinforcement needed to confirm that this kind of thing is the right way to deal with piracy. And that other studios are paying attention, as well.
15 Comments | Leave a Comment..
More posts from Dark Helmet >>