Twisted Arm of Illegal Youth

Farewell.

2009-07-31T13:34:00.002-04:00

More Damage 8tracks

2009-04-29T14:32:00.003-04:00

Decided to put up another.

The Jesus Lizard - Seasick (Goat LP)
Brainbombs - Die You Fuck (Obey LP)
Drive Like Jehu - Bullet Train to Vegas (S/T 7")
Sonic Youth - Swimsuit Issue (Dirty LP)
Big Black - Shotgun (Racer-X LP)
Kilslug - Autospy Performing (Necktie Party 7")
Angel Hair - Space Ape (Insect Mortality LP)
The New Flesh - Scratch & Bleed (Parasite! LP)

New 8tracks

2009-04-29T09:05:00.005-04:00

It's been a while, but I've got a new 8tracks mix up, titled Damage. It's just stuff I've been listening to recently.

Clockcleaner - Hand are for Holding (The Hassler LP)
Black Dice - Untitled (Semen of the Sun 7")
XBXRX - Song 6 (Gop Ist Minee LP)
DrunkDriver - January 02 (Knife Day 7")
Pissed Jeans - Caught Licking Leather (Hope for Men LP)
The Hope Conspiracy - Nervous Breakdown (Black on Black: Tribute to Black Flag LP)
Slavescene - High School Head (Heaven Only Knows Cassette)
Warsaw - They Walked in Line (Warsaw LP)

Resident Evil 5 Fucks Gamers

2009-04-08T09:07:00.003-04:00

Turns out that the extra "content" for Resident Evil 5, a downloadable "Versus" mode that Capcom is charging an extra $5 for, is already on the disc:

The total download size for RE5 Versus Mode is 1.86MB. You are not, in fact, downloading the content from Xbox Live Marketplace or PlayStation Network. Instead, you are downloading a key that unlocks content already on the RE5 retail disc. The same disc you paid $60 for a month ago.

This is total bullshit. Words fail me. Is this the new trend? From one-time use codes to unique CD keys, it seems like the games industry is doing everything in its power to nickle-and-dime gamers.

DRM and EULAs for PC Games

2009-03-31T13:36:00.005-04:00

Great read over at Ars Technica about the Entertainment Consumers Association pushing for the requirement of full disclosure of DRM on PC game boxes, as well as the standardization of EULA agreements. Hal Halpin of the ECA told Ars Technica:

We suggested a few things to the FTC, one of which was we'd like to see DRM disclosed. So when people go to the store and buy the packaged good, the PC game, they'll see something on the front of the box saying there is DRM inside, and to what degree it will be invasive.

The second thing that we recommended was that EULAs get standardized, so again, rather than have 30 or 40 types of agreements, there would be one standard one for all different types of computer games. People go into the store, buy the game, open it, and they can no longer return it... by standardizing the EULA, consumers will have the confidence to know what it is they're agreeing to before they buy the product.

That didn't go over so well. There was a room of attorneys that kind of gasped when we suggested standardization. One panelist commented that the EULA really were there as consumer information, and that was the one and only time that the FTC jumped in and said "wait a second, this has nothing to do with consumer information, this is purely IP protection." I pointed out that when we ran the IEMA (Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association) we were able to get the size of the boxes standardized, and to get the PC CD-ROM logo on the box. These were not herculean undertakings, and they didn't require legislation. So if we can do those things, then certainly we can do these.

This can only be good for consumers, and I'm particularly pleased to see the ECA raising the conflicts that digital distribution channels like Steam have with the concept of ownership.

This Is Bullshit

2009-03-13T14:23:00.008-04:00

Leaving aside the troubling racial imagery in Capcom's Resident Evil 5, I read this on Ars Techinca:

Capcom has sent word that a Versus mode will be added to the game... for a price.

[...]

Other than a screenshot or two, that's all we know about the content, except for price: the new mode will cost 400 MS points on the Xbox 360, and $5 on the PS3. We should expect the content "a few weeks after Resident Evil 5 is available." [emphasis mine]

Resident Evil 5 was released in Japan last week, and releases here, in North America, today. Ars Techinca reported this yesterday, before the game went on sale over here. I cannot believe that this is simply "extra content"; it seems a lot more like this "Versus" mode was intentionally left out of the initial release. It feels like milking the consumer. Downloadable content is getting out-of-fucking-hand.

Gamers should not be charged extra for modes of play that, for all intents and purposes, should have been released with the original game! Whatever you want to call this "Versus" mode, it most definitely is not an expansion pack. Beyond the Sword is an expansion pack for Civilization IV. Broodwar is an expansion pack for Starcraft. Capcom's "expansion" for Resident Evil 5 is more like the developer deciding to release an online tournament mode for Street Fighter IV, a noted omission from the initial release, as a $5 download (don't get any ideas, Capcom!)

I really hope no one buys this and Capcom realizes that gamers won't be swindled, but I know I'll be wrong. The popularity of XBox Live is enough to prove that there are a lot of suckers out there.

[UPDATE]: This is downloadable content done right:

F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin fans are in for a treat next month, as Monolith has announced that it's going to be releasing "Toy Soldiers," the game's first new map pack, in mid-April. Of course, the biggest part of the news, though, is that the DLC is going to be free. [emphasis mine]

Amazon Caves to Copyright Fear Mongers

2009-03-02T12:00:00.009-05:00

Last week Author's Guild president Roy Blount Jr. wrote a column for the New York Times arguing that Amazon's Kindle 2 is in violation of copyright law because of the unit's text-to-speech functionality. Blount argued that such functionality was a derivative work -- I won't get into why that is incorrect, since BoingBoing has a nice refutation of Blount's argument.

Today, I read an Associated Press article which reports that Amazon has caved to the Author's Guild:

Amazon.com Inc. changed course Friday and said it would allow copyright holders to decide whether they will permit their works to be read aloud using the second-generation Kindle electronic reader's new text-to-speech feature.

The worst part, though, is this:

The Web retailer also said the text-to-speech feature is legal — and wouldn't require Amazon to pay out additional royalties — because a book read aloud doesn't constitute a copy, a derivative work or a performance.

If the feature is legal, why cave to the Author's Guild? Allowing the author of a work to disable the functionality of Amazon's Kindle isn't good for users of the product. That would be like VCR manufacturers giving television broadcasters the ability to disable home recording for any particular program. Amazon's move here doesn't make any sense. Giving in to the unreasonable demands of overly-restrictive copyright proponents will only give credence to their arguments. Amazon should take a stand; the fact that Amazon's position is clearly of the right side of the law should have made this an easy decision.

I hope this blows up in the face of the Author's Guild and that e-books which allow the text-to-speech feature sell far beyond those that don't.

Blackberry: The Tool of Choice for Big Brother

2009-01-27T09:06:00.010-05:00

You may have seen this new Blackberry commercial in which Research In Motion Limited (RIM) asks, "What if delivery people ran the world?" All I have to say is that I hope they never do.

The commercial begins with a teacher taking roll. One student, Callahan, is absent. The teacher uses his new Blackberry phone/walkie-talkie to ask around the school for the student. First he asks the bus driver, who "delivers" children from the back of trucks rather than using buses, who states that the kid was dropped off already. The image of children coming out of the back of the trucks adds a kind of police state flavor to the commercial, as well. The teacher rings the gym and the hallway, looking for Callahan (the hallway monitor just finds a rather nerdy-looking freshman in a locker...) but is told that the student cannot be found. The teacher then uses his Blackberry to check for any emails from the kid's parents. When none are found, the teacher informs drivers on the street to find and detain Callahan to be brought back for detention.

What message is this commercial really sending? Technology can solve problems, and the side effects of such technologies are inconsequential to getting the job done.

Blackberry is ready to bring the Orwellian nightmare one step closer to reality. Imagine living in a world in which your every action was monitored and your freedom of choice removed. This is what RIM thinks would be a better way, all brought to you by a communications device.

Neil Postman would find this an example of the technopoly; we are so utterly in love with the belief that technology can solve problems, that we forget about the cultural values our technologies make obsolete.

For reference, here is the commercial:

Breaking Conventional Wisdom On Sharing, Remixing, and Reusing Content

2009-01-15T14:25:00.004-05:00

Nine Inch Nails' CC-licensed mp3 album, Ghosts I-IV, is also the best selling mp3 album on Amazon. A perfect summary is already available, here.

In other words, despite the fact that NIN's CC license meant that the digital album could be freely shared, remixed and reused, it was still the #1 selling album on Amazon.

RIAA, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Patent Law Absurdity: Worlds.com Claims Ownership of the Concept of MMOs

2009-01-06T12:50:00.010-05:00

I came across this Penny Arcade comic today, which is troubling. Worlds.com is suing NCsoft for patent infringement, claiming that the game developer has infringed on their "System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space" patent. Yeah, you read that right. More information can be read here and here.

If the suit is successful, I'd suspect Worlds.com to go after all other developers of MMOs. What will happen to World of Warcraft? The new Warhammer: Age of Reckoning? Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures? And the dozens of other existing MMOs?

Constitutionality of RIAA Lawsuits Being Challenged

2008-12-03T09:15:00.007-05:00

Joel Tennenbaum is currently being sued by the RIAA for having 7 songs in a shared folder when he was 17 years old. Tennenbaum is now in his 3rd year of graduate school. The RIAA is asking for damages amounting to more than $1,000,000.

Charlie Nesson is representing Tennenbaum and challenging the constitutionality of such lawsuits in the hope of stopping any similar lawsuits in the future. If successful, individuals who have shared music in a personal, noncommercial fashion could no longer be targets in the RIAA's sights.

Nesson and Tennenbaum were interviewed by David Weinberger, Harvard law professor, yesterday. Nesson lays out the grounds on which the lawsuits are being challenged. He makes the comparison between file-sharers today and radio broadcasters in the '50s; both individuals engaged in a similar activity -- sharing music for free. The difference, Nesson points out, is that the broadcasters were given payola, while file-sharers are sued ridiculous amounts of money. He also states that the RIAA's tactics are constitutional because they are a private company using the federal court system to enforce civil lawsuits through coercion, threats, and fear, amounting to extortion tactics.

Both Nesson and Tennenbaum recognize and articulate the concept that the music industry has decided to fight against file-sharing and digital technology in order to continue using their old business model rather than embrace these new technological and cultural changes by adopting a new business model.

I'll be watching their case to see how it develops.

Disintegration Nation 8tracks

2008-11-27T12:00:00.005-05:00

I finally had some time to think about a new mix for 8tracks, and I decided on a post-apocalyptic theme this time around. Enjoy Disintegration Nation:

Resistance 77 - Nuclear Attack (Nuclear Attack EP 7")
The Flesh Eaters - Disintegration Nation (Self-Titled 7")
Crass - They've Got a Bomb (The Feeding of the 5000 LP)
Conflict - Mighty and Superior (The Battle Continues 7")
Crucifix - Annihilation (Dehumanization LP)
Chaos UK - Four Minute Warning (Burning Britain 7")
Legion of Parasites - Sea of Desecration (We Don't Want Your Fucking War LP)
The Weirdos - We Got the Neutron Bomb (We Got the Neutron Bomb 7")

Georgia's Criminalization of Consensual Sex Continues

2008-11-24T15:16:00.004-05:00

I first saw this story on Scienceblogs, and now on BoingBoing, about Wendy Whitaker of Georgia who is required to be a registered sex offender because she gave a nearly 16-year-old boy a blow job when she was 17 years old. Both students were high school sophomores. Previously, the law in Georgia made any sex act between an individual 16 years or older with another individual under the age of 16 a criminal act of child molestation.

Now, she's being evicted from her home because of an unadvertised childcare center located in a local Catholic church. Her and her family have until thanksgiving to move out.

I'm reminded of the Genarlow Wilson case, which I wrote about before. Nearly identical circumstances -- Wilson was the 17-year-old who received a blow job from a 15-year-old classmate. The publicity and controversy that generated from the case when Wilson refused to take the plea bargain forced the Georgian legislature to rethink its sex offender laws. Eventually, the legislature repealed the law; however, the decision was not retroactive and did not apply to the Wilson case. When the state Supreme Court heard Wilson's case, though, they decided that his 10 year prison sentence was cruel and unusual punishment for the "crime" committed. Wilson was released after serving 2 years, and he was not required to be a registered sex offender.

But this now repealed law, this injustice, is still affecting Georgian residents. I think that Whitaker's case should be enough to convince the legislature that their decision to repeal the law should be applied retroactively to all similar cases.

DRM-Free v. DRM-Stricken

2008-11-14T15:52:00.006-05:00

World of Goo, a puzzle game, has a 90% piracy rate -- a rough estimate by the developer 2D Boy. What's interesting to note is that the developers reference the Russell Carroll study that I've written about before to show that the piracy rates between DRM-free and DRM-stricken games aren't any different:

this is in line with a previous estimate by russell carroll (director of marketing at reflexive) for the game ricochet infinity. russell estimated a 92% piracy rate and i found his analysis quite interesting (check it out here if you’re curious). one thing that really jumped out at me was his estimate that preventing 1000 piracy attempts results in only a single additional sale. this supports our intuitive assessment that people who pirate our game aren’t people who would have purchased it had they not been able to get it without paying.

in our case, we might have even converted more than 1 in a 1000 pirates into legit purchases. either way, ricochet shipped with DRM, world of goo shipped without it, and there seems to be no difference in the outcomes. we can’t draw any conclusions based on two data points, but i’m hoping that others will release information about piracy rates so that everyone could see if DRM is the waste of time and money that we think it is. [emphasis/grammar in original]

I think the more important sentence in the quoted text is this: "people who pirate our game aren’t people who would have purchased it had they not been able to get it without paying."

Game developers and publishers should keep this in mind because it means that file-sharing isn't the same thing as lost sales, which is the opposite of what most developers and publishers assume to be the truth.

Epic Games Would Charge Extra to Fight Final Boss

2008-11-12T10:11:00.010-05:00

Epic Games is at it again, this time it's in an interview with company president Michael Capps:

Q: How do you see downloadable content evolving over the next few years?

Michael Capps: I'm not sure how big it is here [in Europe], but the secondary market is a huge issue in the United States. Our primary retailer makes the majority of its money off of secondary sales, and so you're starting to see games taking proactive steps toward that by... if you buy the retail version you get the unlock code.

I've talked to some developers who are saying "If you want to fight the final boss you go online and pay USD 20, but if you bought the retail version you got it for free". We don't make any money when someone rents it, and we don't make any money when someone buys it used -- way more than twice as many people played Gears than bought it...

As I've said before, Epic doesn't make money on a used sale because they've already made money on that sale, the first sale. Ownership has transferred.

But you don't see libraries (where you can get content for free! Imagine that!) tanking the book publishing industry. The film industry is making money hand over fist despite the existence of Blockbuster and Netflix. Why does the gaming industry believe that it's in a unique situation?

Ah, here's why:

Q: Do you see an enemy in this equation? Is it the retailer, or the purchaser of second-hand games?

Michael Capps: I'd hate to say my players are my enemies - that doesn't make any sense! But we certainly have a rule at Epic that we don't buy any used games - sure as hell you're not going to be recognised as an Epic artist going in and buying used videogames - because this is how we make our money and how all our friends in the industry make money.

I think a little bit of it is education so people realise that the reason there's no PC market right now is piracy. I mean, Crytek just put out some numbers saying the ratio was 20:1 on Crysis, for pirated to non-pirated use. So guess what? That's why there's no Gears of War 2 on PC, because there's no market, because copying killed it - and that's gruesome to a company like ours that's been in the PC market for so long.

We're trying to fix it, there's a new alliance of companies trying to make PC gaming work again. But if people are playing games without buying them, then the games aren't going to keep coming.

Piracy, the ultimate scapegoat. Yeah, people who would never have bought your product in the first place are costing you sales. All those lost sales from people who wouldn't ever buy games.

The PC gaming market isn't in decline because of piracy, in fact, I'm unaware of any hard evidence that shows that the PC gaming market is in decline at all. Games still sell millions of copies, copy-protection or not. What will kill the PC gaming industry is shit like the president of Epic Games floating around the idea that developers should charge used game buyers extra money just to be able to finish their games. This kind of behavior is blatantly anti-consumer, and people will react negatively to that kind of treatment by not purchasing any of your games.

What we're seeing from Epic is a content publisher's dream-- to have ultimate control over how copies of their distributed content are used. Before digital content, these publishers had little they could do regarding the secondhand market. But the gaming industry is inherently digital. It's software; code. They have the ability to easily include schemes like this because of the nature of their medium. I'm not surprised that Epic Games (and lets not forget EA) is attacking the secondhand market for games; however, that doesn't make their intentions any less of an assault on people's expectations about what they can do with their purchased content.

[UPDATE]: Soren Johnson, game designer and programmer, offers several insightful observations on this topic.

Tom Chick, games journalist, mused on this topic as well:

Without any segue or distinction, Capps conflates renting games with pirating them. He goes straight from "buying used games" to "PC games are dead because of piracy." Amazing. [emphasis in original]

Fallout 3 Sales and Piracy

2008-11-07T12:40:00.004-05:00

Wired reported yesterday that Fallout 3 earned Bethesda $300 million, with 4.7 million units shipped between the PC, PS3, and Xbox 360 versions. The game was released on October 28, 2008.

But with just about 3 weeks before launch, the game had already been leaked and pirated on the Xbox 360. If we are to believe PC developers who claim that piracy of PC games makes them unprofitable, how are we to interpret this information? PC games are usually pirated the day of release, maybe a few days prior. Fallout 3 was pirated on a console almost 3 weeks before release!

I don't know the breakdown of sales between platforms, as that information doesn't seem to be available. So it's hard to say exactly, but I'll hedge my bets and say that piracy of Fallout 3 on the Xbox 360 did not negatively impact sales in the way that PC developers claim that such piracy impacts PC sales. I'd even go so far as to say that this is the kind of evidence that really puts that entire line of reasoning into question.

[UPDATE]: I just found this article in PC World, which states that the Xbox version of the game accounts for 55% of sales. This only further supports my conclusion.

An Obama Administration and Copyright

2008-11-07T11:38:00.002-05:00

Before the election, a former college professor of mine mentioned that Joe Biden was a big RIAA supporter. I did a little digging, and Biden's record on copyright is pretty distressing.

Today, though, I read this post over at Scienceblogs, which states that Barack Obama has placed coverage of election night under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license. Good news, indeed!

If this is any indication of how Obama views copyright, I hope that Obama will follow his own leanings on copyright law and not those of Biden.

Obama Wins!

2008-11-05T09:11:00.004-05:00

Vote!

2008-11-04T10:33:00.004-05:00

Electoral map prediction as of today, 10:33 AM:

Get out and vote!

Teenage Lobotomy

2008-11-03T08:51:00.005-05:00

Meghan McCain defines Punk Rock^TM:

STEVE DOOCY: I'm looking -- I'm looking at your website, I had no idea that the Ramones were your, uh, favorite group of all time --

MEGHAN MCCAIN: [laughs]

CINDY MCCAIN: [laughs]

DOOCY: -- because right now, you've got this thing with, uh, with Linda ~~Ramone~~ [Cummings], if people are interested, check it out --

M. MCCAIN: Yeah.

DOOCY: -- because you two travel around.

M. MCCAIN: She's incredible.

DOOCY: Yeah. Go --

M. MCCAIN: She's so cool, and we're going out on this whole new thing that the only way to be be Punk Rock^TM anymore is to be conservative.

GRETCHEN CARLSON: In your --

M. MCCAIN: So only Punk Rock^TM [indeciferable]

CARLSON: In your book, Meghan...

[edits mine]

Hmm... not quite.

25 Arguments for the Elimination of Copy-Protection

2008-10-22T11:24:00.003-04:00

A pretty good summary of why digital copy-protection and DRM are bad ideas.

DRM = Epic Fail

2008-10-21T10:23:00.001-04:00

Common Figures About the Impact of Piracy Likely False

2008-10-10T15:33:00.003-04:00

Ars Technica debunks them.

McCain-Palin Supporters Are A Classy Bunch

2008-10-09T09:05:00.003-04:00

The Used Games Market

2008-10-08T15:32:00.007-04:00

There's an interesting thread on Quarter to Three unfolding as I write this. The opening topic began discussing EA's new business model of packaging NBA Live '09 with real-time player stats. What this means is that as things happen to players in real time during the season, the game will update the stats in the game. For example, if a player breaks an arm during the season, NBA Live '09 will update that player in the game to be out until recovered. EA is only offering this feature to first time buyers; any player who buys the game second-hand will have to fork over $19.99 to have access to the feature.

But in the last few hours, the conversation has shifted towards Epic Games and their upcoming Gears of War 2. Epic has decided to include a special download code, a one time use, which would give the buyer access to 5 additional multiplayer maps. Unlike NBA Live '09, though, Epic is not offering an option for second-hand buyers to have access to the extra maps. Epic claims that this is to reward those who buy Gears of War 2 new, while simultaneously punishing those who buy the game used.

The protest has focused on this attack on the used market. What I think is being ignored in this discussion is the simple concept of ownership. Poster EpicBoy, presumably of Epic, stated in one way or another that game developers deserve to make money on the sale of used copies of their games. The problem is that the developer has already made money on that sale -- the first sale. Once that first sale occurs, the developer no longer owns that copy. Ownership has transferred to the buyer. And according to the long ago established First-Sale Doctrine, the new owner has the right to resell that copy without providing compensation to the developer. As far as I am concerned, Epic does not deserve to make money on the sale of used games simply because they no longer have ownership rights to those copies. Ownership has already been transferred.

Not only is including a special code for downloadable maps that can only be used once an attack on the used games market, but more importantly, it is an attack on the rights of consumers to do as they are legally able to do with their purchased content.

On a related note, I don't think this is good business, either. Poster Al gets right to the meat of problem with Epic's approach:

A customer of GameStop is still a customer in the video games market. When GameStop takes their money for a used copy of Gears that money doesn't just disappear never to be seen again (do your own Great Economic meltdown of '08 joke here), GameStop takes that money and uses it to buy more inventory, open new stores and so on. All of that gives publishers ~~have~~ more chances to sell their games.

Besides that the secondary market also helps lower the barrier of entry into the market which helps expand it. My teenage nephews wouldn't be playing video games at all if there wasn't a used market; they couldn't afford to. Eliminating the used market wouldn't force them to buy their games new, it would force them to find something else to do. If that happens what'll they do once they grow up and have more income? Suddenly start buying games again or stick to whatever they moved onto? [edit mine, for clarity]

Not to mention that GameStop doesn't get 100% profit on used games, as some people have suggested. I have no doubts that those margins are larger than with new games, but they still have to buy those used games from people in order to resell them.

Ouellette Responds

2008-10-02T08:33:00.006-04:00

A few days ago, I wrote my thoughts about Muxtape's closing and relaunch. A commenter suggested that I write to Ouellette about approaching independent labels, so I did. My email to Ouellette is published in the comments section. Yesterday, I got a response:

I did consider approaching independents, but it would've been extremely complicated logistically. Doing a deal with the four majors is possible with a small team of experienced lawyers, but there are literally thousands of independent labels each with their own ideas about how licensing should work and I can't even touch on the complexity of that problem. Also I couldn't have paid for it, especially in light of the fact that what I'd be selling to investors was a crippled version of the original site with a big question mark on the final price and the necessity of even licensing at all.

Even if the label negotiations had gone swimmingly well they still took up a massive amount of my time. Negotiating with independents would've been many times worse in that regard, and the site would've suffered badly. Then who wins? Muxtape was originally possible because I was free and agile to build whatever I wanted to, and that's what I'm trying to get back to. It's not just editorial control, it's the ability to say, write and release an iPhone app without having to ask someone's permission.

I think the only way to do that right now is to make the whole service opt-in. Labels and bands that see the value in it will be able make the judgement call for themselves whether or not it's right for them (and I suspect a lot of them will).

Justin

I want to thank Ouellette for taking the time to respond to my email -- I'm sure that he got a lot of questions/opinions about Muxtape in recent days. He's absolutely right about the logistics of approaching independent labels, and I suspected that would be a major barrier. The opt-in solution is a very good approach, and I also share Ouellette's optimism that many independent bands and labels will opt-in themselves. And if enough independents opt-in, I think Muxtape could have an opportunity to show the major labels and the RIAA why fighting digital file-sharing may not be in their business' best interest.

Good luck, Justin.

EA Admits File-Sharing Does Not Equal Lost Sales

2008-10-01T09:02:00.004-04:00

Gamasutra has the story. Mariam Sughayer of EA's corporate communications department states:

Stepping aside from the whole issue of DRM, people need to recognize that every BitTorrent download doesn’t represent a successful copy of a game, let alone a lost sale. [emphasis mine]

Dan Hewitt, the Entertainment Software Association's senior director of communications agreed:

It’s important to remember that it’s not a one-for-one equation. Our calculation isn’t such that we say that every game that’s been ~~stolen~~ [he means downloaded] is a sale loss." [emphasis mine]

This comes on the heels of TorrentFreak's analysis claiming that Spore has been downloaded from bittorrent file-sharing networks more than half a million times. Last week, EA reported that Spore had sold 1 million copies. Now, EA is trying to downplay the record number of Spore downloads.

I have to ask: EA, if a downloaded copy of Spore doesn't necessarily equate to a lost sale, what is the point of your DRM? Are your DRM schemes simply to stop people who wouldn't have bought your games from playing them? That's the only conclusion I can draw, since we can see that your inclusion of SecuROM did not stop people from pirating the game.

Penny Arcade's DRM Discussion

2008-09-30T08:45:00.006-04:00

I wrote before about part one of Penny Arcade's "The Origin of the CD-Key" series, and I agree with much of what was said in that post. Crecente's post did a good job highlighting what essentially most DRM proponents are ignoring -- that DRM is a flawed form of encryption. All DRM schemes give away all the tools needed to crack them -- for it is necessary to do so if content providers want the content to be useful to legitimate customers. Buyers have to be able to decode the DRM in order to use the content. In doing so, any knowledgeable party will be able to eventually crack any form of DRM imaginable.

Part two was posted last week, and it amounts to a "so what?" argument. Author Chris Remo acknowledges that DRM doesn't work, but also argues that it's no big deal. For example, he argues that it doesn't matter if publishers stop supporting games that require online activation because users can simply find the hacker's crack to play the game. Except, Mr. Remo, it does matter. For one, the described practice is against the law, according to the DMCA. Even if an individual owns the content, the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass digital copy-protection. Secondly, legitimate users should not have to resort to illegal practices to get their content to work. Finally, Remo's suggestion does not address DRM's encroachment on the First-Sale Doctrine. Many of the new DRM schemes effectively kill the second-hand market by requiring activations to be tied to an account and limiting the number of installations.

Part three, posted yesterday, brings the discussion back to a level of reasonableness. Author Daniel James makes several salient points about the nature of digital content and the ultimate effects of DRM. James hints at the concept that copying is a integral part of software, and because of that, is it ultimately futile to try to limit copying. James also hints at the important concept of software being "open." He argues for all software being shareware, and then letting the market reward the best software. This is only a step away from open source software, which would arguably create a boon in innovation by giving more users access to the innards of software. By allowing anyone to improve upon the software, we end up with a better product in the end. Finally, James hits on the concept that DRM really only hurts legitimate customers. The trend towards increasingly draconian DRM is only driving away potential buyers, while doing nothing to stop rampant file-sharing.

Overall, Penny Arcade's "The Origin of the CD-Key" is a good back and forth discussion of DRM and computer software, and I recommend everyone to read all three parts.

Muxtape Reimagined

2008-09-29T09:03:00.013-04:00

The most interesting thing about Justin Ouellette's revealing post regarding the RIAA's take down of Muxtape is how the RIAA acted independently of the labels that the organization represents.

Over the next week I learned a little more, mainly that the RIAA moves quite autonomously from their label parents and that the understanding I had with them didn’t necessarily carry over.

As Ouellete points out, the labels understood the inherent value of Muxtape -- viral marketing and mouth-to-mouth promotion of music, which creates a consumer generated community organized in a central location on the internet. The fact that the RIAA moved autonomously of the labels signifies that the organization does not understand the cultural value its content has for consumers, and instead views this content as nothing more than "product."

This fundamental misunderstanding is also evident in their ongoing anti-piracy campaign against 12-year-old kids and grandmothers. Not only is such a campaign doomed to failure, but the industry is targeting its best costumers. The only such case to go to trial, Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas, awarded damages of $222,000 to record labels. Thomas had shared 24 songs on Kazaa, a once popular peer-to-peer network. The ruling has been challenged, the punishment criticized as unfair, and the judge in the case has expressed doubts about the court's decision. The really interesting part about this case is the RIAA's efforts to solidify "attempted copyright infringement" into law. The RIAA doesn't understand that the "product" is much more than a cut of wax, a wound up analog tape, a plastic disc, or a series of digital bits to fans.

The emotional connection that people have with music goes back far in history, before copyright law and "intellectual property." Music transcends boundaries in ways that other mediums cannot. People have "played" with their culture continually throughout human history -- through sharing, modifying, or creating new works from existing works. The recent extension of copyright term limits has cut off people from these previously exercised abilities just at the same time that technology makes it easier to do so.

Muxtape served this emotional purpose well -- music fans were able to share their favorite songs to any interested party like never before. And on the business side of things, Muxtape provided the best possible form of promotion -- mouth-to-mouth advertising. People are more likely to make a purchased based on the recommendation of a real person, friend or stranger, than from record label advertisements on glossy magazine pages. All that potential, wasted. As I have said before, the RIAA is only hurting their own industry with these actions.

I think Muxtape will demonstrate the positives of sharing music through its new focus on the band feature. I find it unfortunate that Ouellette didn't try to reach out to independent labels exclusively and strike licensing deals while also barring major label participation. I think that such an action could have the effect of showing major labels that repressing people's natural desire to share will only hurt their businesses, while also helping out smaller labels experience more recognition and (hopefully) increased sales for their artists. (I'm confident that sales would increase; however, there's little solid data surrounding this issue. This could have been a great test case.) Perhaps this will occur anyway through the band feature. Only time will tell.

Muxtape Is Back! Sort of...

2008-09-26T13:52:00.005-04:00

Muxtape has an explanation for the RIAA take down in August, posted today:

[O]n August 15th, I received notice from Amazon Web Services (the platform that hosts Muxtape’s servers and files) that they had received a complaint from the RIAA. Per Amazon’s terms, I had one business day to remove an incredibly long list of songs or face having my servers shut down and data deleted. This came as a big surprise to me, as I’d been thinking that I hadn’t heard from the RIAA in a long time because I had an understanding with the labels. I had a panicked exchange of emails with Amazon, trying to explain that I was in the middle of a licensing deal, that I suspected it was a clerical error, and that I was doing everything I could to get someone to vouch for me on a summer Friday afternoon. My one business day extended over the weekend, and on Monday when I wasn’t able to produce the documentation Amazon wanted (or even get someone from the RIAA on the phone), the servers were shut down and I was locked out of the account. I moved the domain name to a new server with a short message and the very real expectation that I could get it sorted out. I still thought it was all just a big mistake. I was wrong.

Over the next week I learned a little more, mainly that the RIAA moves quite autonomously from their label parents and that the understanding I had with them didn’t necessarily carry over. I also learned that none of the labels were especially interested in helping me out, and from their perspective it had no bearing on the negotiations. I disagreed. The deals were still weeks or months away (an eternity on the internet) meaning that at best, Muxtape was going to be down until the end of year. There was also still the matter of how to pay for it; getting investment is hard enough in this volatile space even with a wildly successful and growing web site, it became an entirely different proposition with no web site at all.

And so I made one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever faced: I walked away from the licensing deals. They had become too complex for a site founded on simplicity, too restrictive and hostile to continue to innovate the way I wanted to. They’d already taken so much attention away from development that I started to question my own motivations. I didn’t get into this to build a big company as fast as I could no matter what the cost, I got into this to make something simple and beautiful for people who love music, and I plan to continue doing that. As promised, the site is coming back, but not as you’ve known. I’m taking a feature that was in development in the early stages and making it the new central focus.

Muxtape is relaunching as a service exclusively for bands, offering an extremely powerful platform with unheard-of simplicity for artists to thrive on the internet. Musicians in 2008 without access to a full time web developer have few options when it comes to establishing themselves online, but their needs often revolve around a common set of problems. The new Muxtape will allow bands to upload their own music and offer an embeddable player that works anywhere on the web, in addition to the original muxtape format. Bands will be able to assemble an attractive profile with simple modules that enable optional functionality such as a calendar, photos, comments, downloads and sales, or anything else they need. The system has been built from the ground up to be extended infinitely and is wrapped in a template system that will be open to CSS designers. There will be more details soon. The beta is still private at the moment, but that will change in the coming weeks.

[...]

I'll post my thoughts after I've had some time to think about everything involved. But perhaps this will give me the motivation to get off my ass and write some new songs...

Spore DRM Challenged by Class Action Lawsuit

2008-09-24T14:40:00.007-04:00

Melissa Thomas has filed a class action lawsuit against Electronic Arts for their inclusion of SecuROM with Spore. The lawsuit focuses on the impact of SecuROM on personal computers and EA's lack of disclosure about the program's inclusion with the purchase of Spore.

I'll be very interested to see how this turns out. Perhaps this case can at least pave the way for consumer rights regarding DRM -- the requirement of public disclosure and transparency of the DRM scheme implemented, as well as all the possible effects of such DRM software.

I also wonder if any decision would get into the conflicts between DRM and existing consumer rights such as Fair Use and First-Sale Doctrines.

DRM is PC Gaming's Ouroboros

2008-09-24T14:06:00.005-04:00

I've been discussing DRM a lot lately, and I ran across this article on Penny Arcade by guest writer Brian Crecente of Kotaku. I think that Crecente makes a lot of relevant points, especially in this passage:

As long as there are creative works people will want to buy them, protect them and, yes, even steal them. Even this modern use of the word piracy dates back to the 1700s when Daniel Defoe agonized over hand-written, pirated copies of his poems sold on the streets. He called those erstwhile literary thieves "pirates" and "paragraph-men."

Imagine, though, an unsuspecting bibliophile returning home with their copy of The True-Born Englishman only to discover that once they’ve read it, the pages turn to ash. Or maybe they can read it and let a couple of friends borrow it, but that’s it. No more reads, thank you very much. What if they find that there is someone lurking outside their library window, watching them, making sure no one else catches a glance of page 32? Or, god forbid, they try to go and sell the book back?

No, copy protection in the 18th Century was a much simpler thing. There was no technology to obfuscate what a publisher was doing. No ghosts in the machine. No machines. But today, as the ways a game or creation can be stolen increases, so do the little lies, the hidden spies created by those creators.

I think it would be beneficial if we, as a society, had a discourse about what "intellectual property" actually means. What does it mean to "own ideas"? My previous post, "Who Owns Ideas" has a discussion about the role of ideas and expressions in a democracy, and I encourage everyone to listen to the radio program.

Furthering the DRM Debate

2008-09-24T09:00:00.009-04:00

I received a very timely response to my previous post from Christian Olsson this time around, so I'll address his points again in a new post. Again, Olsson in italics:

You’re right, there does not seem to be much academic research and perhaps that’s why companies have resorted to what you describe as ‘commercial research.’ The Goizueta Business School, Emory University, Atlanta GA academic research report “An Empirical Examination of Global Software Piracy: Implications for Pricing and Public Policy” doesn’t focus on software protection but it does investigate the effects of piracy and has some conclusions that you might find interesting.

The paper referenced is interesting indeed. The paper does seem to make the assumption that downloading digital content is the equivalent of lost sales, which I've made clear I think that there isn't a causal relationship between the two. There's no data to support the assumption that those who pirated the software would have purchased it if a pirate version were not available at all. I think it is folly to assume lost sales because of the download of a virtual product. I'd admit that there are still support costs involved, but that's not what the paper is addressing.

I haven't kept up to date on my math since college, so I apologize if I have interpreted the data incorrectly in any way. The paper sets up two stages with choices of either pirating or purchasing software in order to calculate the probability that an individual would pirate or purchase software. The results are interesting.

Remember that higher δ implies that a majority of the piracy costs are suffered in the first stage, i.e., more likely that people don’t pirate at all and a lower δ implies that a majority of the piracy costs are suffered in the second stage, i.e., consumers are more likely to be deterred from holding on to a pirated copy.

I'f I'm reading the paper correctly, then it seems that δ is low for all the years analyzed, which would mean that most of the piracy costs are suffered in the second stage.

The authors conclude:

Our findings show that lower piracy is not merely a result of consumers not pirating at all, rather it is a result of pirates turning buyers in the second stage. The latter is possibly due to the fact that post-updating, those who turn buyers perceive a greater value for the product than those who remain pirates (an indication of piracy’s sampling effect) and/or consumers are stopped by the deterrence costs in the second stage and hence end up buyers. Our results suggest that there is ample evidence of both.

This seems to state part of the argument that I think a lot of proponents of less restrictive copyright law make -- that digital file-sharing creates new buyers who would not otherwise have been buyers. The paper focuses on the effect of piracy deterrence as a motivator for second stage buyers; however, in the text, the paper states that there is also "ample evidence" that individuals become buyers because they "perceive a greater value for the product." In my mind, that means that exposure to new content has caused some individuals to want to support the artists/inventors who created that content. These second stage "pirates" could very well be individuals who lend out copies to friends and family, a practice which many content producers dislike and view as piracy, despite the fact that (at least in the US) this practice is protected by the First-Sale Doctrine. I'd say that this paper isn't conclusive about the effects of piracy, but offers some interesting insights. The bottom of the paper states that research is still in progress, so we'll have to wait to see the final results.

Russell Carroll's post, that you quote, also explains that Reflexive uses an in-house developed DRM that they have repeatedly improved and continue to use.

[...]

From our point of view the Reflexive example shows that DRM has increased revenue, though not as much as they would like. You are making our point that DRM has decreased piracy and increased sales. If Reflexive used ByteShield’s much stronger SUM protection they’d see more sales with very little impact on honest users. [emphasis in original]

I revisited the Carroll posts again, paying close attention to the details. Olsson pointed out that one of the commenters of the original post mentioned that DRM had increased sales by more than 80%. But as other commenters mentioned, an 80% increase on 8% sales isn't a whole lot. The piracy rate of the games that Carroll analyzed was at a staggering 92% to begin with. As Carroll wrote himself:

The 1000:1 ratio is really, I think, the key takeaway of the article. Several people have grasped that and started applying it to different numbers in the industry, and the results are very disappointing.

I agree with Carroll that the ratio is what is really important here. Again, I don't mean to dissuade efforts to prevent piracy; however, I have to wonder what the cost/benefit ratio is when such few sales are the result of implementing increasingly difficult to crack DRM. Even the section of that article that Olsson quotes from Carroll doesn't seem to make the case that further DRM has increased sales significantly:

Clearly, if we could always have a big gain from a fix that maintains itself, it is worth spending the time to fight piracy. However, since that isn't always the case, it can sometimes (often?) be pretty discouraging to try and stop piracy.

In my view, Carroll states that if there is a big gain, fighting piracy would be worth the cost. But as his research demonstrated, that's a big "if," and Carroll seems to believe that a big gain isn't always (or even often -- his own words) the case.

Olsson's other points don't require that I go into great detail. I think that Olsson's points really demonstrate that ByteShield is committed to implementing a DRM scheme that has a lesser impact on the user while also attempting to respect long held consumer rights. Olsson acknowledges the problem with the industry's current approach to "license" software rather than sell it, and I think that is promising. Court rulings have already come down against the practice -- i.e., just calling the product a "license" doesn't make it one.

One thing that I still have an issue with is online activation and persistent verification. I think Stardock's approach provides a good compromise in this case. Instead of requiring online activation, Stardock's games require online registration in order to stay "always up-to-date" and to receive any other free, additional content for purchased games. Users only need to have registered a valid CD-key, which isn't an inconvenience at all. Being online isn't a prerequisite for playing the games, and Stardock is able to have the same kind of protection for its games that online activation provides. It's the carrot approach -- want free updates and additional content? You have to buy the game. At the same time, no additional limitations are forced onto users.

Furthermore, as Olsson has stated, the developer/publisher still has ultimate control over the level of DRM implemented through SUM, and I think that offering tools like online activation and persistent verification leave room for violation of rights. I will say that I no longer think that consecutive offline runs appear to be a problem, since Olsson clarified that this mechanism does not limit the number of installations, only the number of installations running simultaneously.

What Cultural Values Do We Want to Protect?

2008-09-22T11:01:00.011-04:00

Christian Olsson of ByteShield was kind enough to respond to my analysis of the company's white paper on DRM and PC piracy. I'll take each answer one at a time (Olsson's points in italics):

DRM can reduce some types of illegal copying. If it is extremely easy to circumvent the protection, many amateurs will do it. If the protection is more challenging, some people will not be able to get around the DRM and some of these will actually purchase the game/software, rather than find it on a torrent site. While virtually all DRM solutions have been cracked, the piracy problem might have been yet larger if all games/software had been distributed unprotected.

I'm not entirely convinced. I do accept that certain forms of copy-protection are more difficult to circumvent than others; however, I don't think that necessarily translates into fewer people cracking the protection. I've seen how hackers crack copy-protection while also synthesizing the steps necessary so that any user could repeat the steps with little technical knowledge. Even if we accept that more "amateurish" users will be unable to circumvent the copy-protection, I still find it unlikely that those users would then go out and purchase the software. And this brings me to the next point of Olsson's:

The real question is how much of piracy would turn into sales. Given piracy rates for certain games and software, the proportion does not need to be large before the impact is significant. For example, a UK study has shown that for every purchased copy of games, 10 pirated copies are used. AutoDesk has publicly stated similar numbers for AutoCAD. If only 1 of every 10 illegal copies turn into sales, revenues would double.

We have seen references to a European consumer research study, which claimed that 30% of piracy would turn into revenue. We find that number hard to believe, but if it is anywhere near true, the revenue potential is quite high.

I'm not familiar with the UK study referenced (or the European consumer research study, for that matter), but I would be interested in reading the paper. Still, I wonder if these studies are market research or academic -- it would be quite interesting if the latter and not the former. I've not seen any academic research that asks the question at hand, only commercial research, which is usually of questionable validity.

If the conversion ratio really is 1:10, then perhaps Christian is on to something. But as I wrote before, Russell Caroll, director of marketing for Reflexive Entertainment, found the ratio to be much larger:

As we believe that we are decreasing the number of pirates downloading the game with our DRM fixes, combining the increased sales number together with the decreased downloads, we find 1 additional sale for every 1,000 less pirated downloads. Put another way, for every 1,000 pirated copies we eliminated, we created 1 additional sale.

Though many of the pirates may be simply shifting to another source of games for their illegal activities, the number is nonetheless striking and poignant. The sales to download ratio found on Reflexive implies that a pirated copy is more similar to the loss of a download (a poorly converting one!) than the loss of a sale.

Though that doesn’t make a 92% piracy rate of one of our banner products any less distressing, knowing that eliminating 50,000 pirated copies might only produce 50 additional legal copies does help put things in perspective. [emphasis mine]

Reflexive found that ratio to be 1:1000, not 1:10. But I also think that Olsson is framing the question wrong. It's not how many pirated copies are used for each purchased copy, because that doesn't tell us whether or not those who pirated the games would have bought them at all. The proper way to look at this is the way that Carroll investigated the piracy of Reflexive's games -- how many sales did additional (i.e., more difficult to crack) DRM generate? The number appears to be quite small.

My own experience with people who regularly downloaded games without purchasing them paints a different picture than the one that Olsson assumes. If these individuals were unable to crack the copy-protection, they would usually just move on to another game, not purchase the game that they could not crack. The only data that I've seen on this is from Reflexive, and their conclusion supports my anecdotal evidence.

Your discussion is right on – the real issue is how easy or difficult is it to copy? A hardcover book is a lot of work to copy, a loose leaf article much easier and an electronic article requires almost no effort to copy. Thus, digital content is much easier to copy. The task of good DRM is to make it more work to copy, so that anybody desiring the content will purchase it.

This answers Wardell's question, "Is the goal of IP protection to increase our revenue or is it to prevent people who aren't going to buy games from playing them?" And that answer is to "make it more work to copy," i.e., "prevent people who aren't going to buy games from playing them." I don't think that the case has been made that making DRM more difficult to crack will result in increased sales. If the Reflexive experiment says anything, it's that we shouldn't assume preventing piracy results in new sales.

But to the point I was making -- my consumption of digital content does not deprive another of the same consumption. Because digital content is so easily produced and distributed, we can have an unlimited number of virtual copies. Physical content, by contrast, has limitations -- only one person can use a book at any time, and there is no easy way to make a copy for another person. Therefore, because of the limitations of physical content, my consumption of the book does prevent another from the same consumption. If I take a book from the library, no one else can take out that book. If I download a copy of the book from the internet, the book is still available for everyone else. This is a key distinction that copyright law does not address. The nature of digital content is different from physical content, and thus, should be regulated differently.

The key word is ‘tools’. Everything can be broken ‘manually’ and/or by brute force. The key inventions in ByteShield aim to make it necessary to solve a large number of ‘puzzles’, one at a time. Yes, it can be cracked, but the work effort required is very large.

Here, Olsson essentially concedes my point. Whoever cracks the copy-protection will likely make it easy for others to do so as well, otherwise the hacker's effort won't be of use to most anyone else. For example, a crack isn't a detailed description about how to modify an .exe file, it is the modified .exe file. I don't mean to dissuade ByteShield's efforts, but at a fundamental level, it's all the same.

ByteShield’s answer is both – prevention will increase revenue, control of free, full-feature trials encourages purchases.

I've already discussed how why I don't think DRM will increase revenue, so I won't go over it again. However, I do think that full-feature trials could encourage purchases.

ByteShield believes protection is valuable if approached our way i.e. extremely large effort to crack, no or minor impact on honest users and no impact on PC game and software developers.

The last part of that sentence is key. I think that ByteShield understands the concerns of honest gamers, and so far their SUM protection scheme does appear to have a lesser impact on users than other schemes such as SecuROM and StarForce.

ByteShield will in such cases assist the Publisher in changing the ByteShield SUM protection from limited usage to free and unlimited usage.

This is also very good to hear. Value has said the same thing about Steam, which is one reason that I think a lot of people are willing to put up with Value's DRM. EA, on the other hand, has made no such promises and has a history of ending online support for past games. I think that is part of the reason so many people are upset with the way that EA handles copy-protection.

Online connectivity is becoming ubiquitous because of the benefits it affords users – always on, always up-to-date, always connected, etc, etc and ByteShield is simply taking advantage of that situation to enable copyright protection along with multiple user benefits such as ‘unlimited activations’ – yes an occasional internet connection is needed but this is a necessary component of balancing the rights of both copyright holders and honest users without all the other limitations of DRM systems.

I understand that ByteShield is taking advantage of the "always connected" aspect of some people's computers; however, this is still a limitation that did not exist before. I can take a book anywhere. I can read it in the car, on a train, or in my living room. If online activations and persistent re-activations are enforced, I will be unable to be so flexible with my digital content as I am with my physical content. This is what has been called a technological quick-fix, and as it is currently stated, conflicts with the values that we commonly associate with our cultural content.

Not to mention that not all users will have an "always connected" broadband internet connection, or even an internet connection at all. I don't have to phone Random House every time I open a book, so why should I have to phone EA every time I want to play a game?

About a year ago, a unit of the Department of Defense invested 2 months in trying to crack ByteShield and, as far as we can tell, they did not succeed (the results are classified).

I guess I'll have to take ByteShield's word for it. That does seem promising, though.

This is crucial to our product and why we view ByteShield as considerably more end user friendly than other solutions. End users can install the game/software on an unlimited number of computers and keep on adding installations, as hardware changes or system crashes etc. occur. The real item to control is not the number of installations; it is how many of these installations can be used, at the same time. Thus, with ByteShield, the permission to run moves from one PC to another, seamlessly. The publisher can decide, per activation code:

a) How many users will be allowed
b) How many active installations each user will be allowed
c) How quickly the permission to run moves from one user to another and from one computer to another

Ah, ok. This makes more sense to me now. ByteShield checks for multiple installations of the same software activating at the same time. While ByteShield allows for more permissive use of software, the decision appears to be up to the publisher/developer, ultimately. Would EA choose to be so permissive? Doubtful, considering that users can only have one account per copy of Spore, which was virtually unheard of beforehand. Think of it as getting only one save file with Doom.

Again, we're allowing technology to dictate our values instead of using law. I don't predict good things when we allow publishers/developers to have this kind of control, especially when the potential exists to circumvent long established user rights and expectations.

The most important point I want to get across is that digital content is different from physical content. Copyright law does not address these differences. DRM and other copy-protection schemes violate users' long held consumer rights more than they prevent piracy.

Ultimately, we need to decide what values we want to protect. Do we want to be able to use our cultural content as we see fit? Do we want to protect our seemingly natural inclination to share, modify, sample, and create further derivative works from existing works? Do we still believe that the works of artists/inventors are a public service, and that as an incentive to create such works the public grants said artists/inventors with a monopoly on production and distribution for a limited time?

Who Owns Ideas?

2008-09-15T13:37:00.009-04:00

This radio broadcast is a very interesting and informative discussion of ideas, expression, and copyright. Commentary from Graham Henderson, Eric Flint, James Boyle, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Cory Doctorow, Jane Ginsburg, Michael Geist, and Steven Page.

Recommended.

Piracy of Spore Extraordinarily High

2008-09-15T09:43:00.008-04:00

According to Forbes magazine, Spore has been shared via bittorrent clients at an increasingly faster rate than other triple-A titles have been in the past:

As of Thursday [9/11/2008] afternoon, "Spore" had been illegally downloaded on file-sharing networks using BitTorrent peer-to-peer transfer 171,402 times since Sept. 1, according to Big Champagne, a peer-to-peer research firm. That's hardly a record: a popular game often hits those kinds of six-figure piracy numbers, says Big Champagne Chief Executive Eric Garland.

But not usually so quickly. In just the 24-hour period between Wednesday and Thursday, illegal downloaders snagged more than 35,000 copies, and, as of Thursday evening, that rate of downloads was still accelerating. "The numbers are extraordinary," Garland says. "This is a very high level of torrent activity even for an immensely popular game title."

TorrentFreak reported last Saturday that Spore had been downloaded more than 500,000 times, and at this current rate the game is likely to earn the title "Most Pirated Game Ever" within a matter of weeks.

EA can't be this stupid. They have to know that their use of SecuROM DRM schemes are not going to stop people from pirating the game. In fact, the Forbes article reveals that Spore was pirated a full three days before it was launched on September 4th, 2008.

But this may not be about piracy at all -- it may be about ending the second-hand market through technological means.

"Casual Piracy"

2008-09-10T16:09:00.005-04:00

So, I've been keeping up with the Spore DRM fiasco, and I've noticed a number of comments from individuals who identify something they call "casual piracy." In a nutshell, these people believe that lending your legally purchased content to friends or family constitutes copyright infringement. I'm fucking speechless.

This bears repeating -- remember the First-Sale Doctrine. It's a hard fought-for right that grants consumers the ability to do whatever they wish with their copyrighted materials after the first sale. Consumers can give away, lend, or sell their copyrighted materials to whomever they wish without compensating the copyright holder so long as no further copies of the materials are made. This means that, and I can't stress this enough, lending your PC games to friends and/or family for non-commercial use is not copyright infringement.

Hold onto your rights, people!

Spore's DRM Backfires

2008-09-09T08:57:00.013-04:00

This is very interesting. I wrote before that I decided against buying Spore because of the SecuROM DRM scheme being implemented, and it looks like I wasn't alone in that decision. As of 9:04 AM this morning, there are 1,272 one star reviews on Amazon for Spore.

Reviewer Brian Fox wrote:

DRM is a show stopper. I doubt this game will work for me after a few years given my habit of new hardware purchases and system snapshots. Like others have said, this game is for rent not sale.

Reviewer Fox News Sucks wrote:

The DRM for the game utilizes securom which is essentially a virus that installs itself without warning when you install the game. There is no way to completely remove it without reformatting and it is constantly running in the background if not removed. Sucking up computer resources.

It also is overpriced. This is actually a RENTAL, not a bought game because it only lets you install 3 times. If you install over 3 times then you must call EA customer support and beg them to let you play the game you bought. Did I mention the call is not free? If you live outside the U.S. it will be a very expensive call.

Reviewer N. Bolten wrote:

I was looking to buy the ultra-nerdy $80 package at release... no more now that I've learned of the crippling DRM. A message to EA: if you give your customers what they pay for, they're *not* going to pirate (they've already proven they will buy the game). Games are cracked *before* release, so that is not something you can avoid. Stop screwing your customers under the guise of protecting your copyrights and you'll get my cash. Until then I'll be happy playing games released by people who don't punish me like I've done something wrong for forking over $50-$80.

Further reading -- this blog post by a commenter at the Quarter to Three forums puts the issue into perspective nicely. Author peterb makes a point worth repeating; it's essentially what Brad Wardell of Stardock has been saying all along.

The damnable thing about Spore’s DRM is that it gives up some of the platform’s few advantages for…what, exactly? Is protecting yourself against pirates who are not and will never be customers really worth infuriating your paying customers and squandering your company’s goodwill?

Let's see if EA takes notice of this consumer insurrection against the DRM used for Spore.

[UPDATE]: In the span of one hour's time, another 42 one star reviews have been added to Spore's Amazon page, bringing the total 1,314 one star reviews.

[UPDATE 2]: It's nearly the end of the day here, so I checked in at Amazon one more time to see where the review count is. As of 4:19 PM, there are a total of 1,551 one star reviews. Looks like this little protest is getting some mainstream news coverage.

[UPDATE 3]: Another full day later -- as of 4:36 PM, there are 1,928 one star reviews. Doesn't look like this is coming to an end anytime soon.

[UPDATE 4]: Amazon deletes all reviews on their Spore page. Looks like it happened sometime today, 9/12/2008.

[UPDATE 5]: Looks like sometime over the weekend, Amazon put the Spore reviews back up. There are now 2,133 one star reviews, as of 9/15/2008 at 9:42 AM.

Steve Albini Interview

2008-09-08T09:22:00.002-04:00

Albini on record labels, musicians, and hardcore. Recommended.

Copyright Law in the Virtual World

2008-09-05T08:36:00.013-04:00

Christian Olsson of ByteShield, Inc. took the time to write an interesting comment on my last post about PC gaming, copy-protection, and piracy. I wanted to respond through another post because I think his comment raises some interesting questions. I'll start first with ByteShield's whitepaper, Is Anti-Piracy/DRM the Cure or the Disease for PC Games?, that Christian mentioned in his comment.

In the introduction of the white paper, it acknowledges that DRM schemes have failed and are rapidly cracked; however, at the same time the white paper acknowledges that piracy would be worse than it is today if no such measures were taken. I can't seem to understand how these two realities can coexist. If DRM has failed, then how has DRM made piracy less of a problem? I don't follow the logic being used here. Again, I see this acknowledgment that DRM has lessened piracy somewhat to be a vapid "conventional wisdom" of the gaming industry, much like peer-to-peer file-sharing is seen as a decrease in sales in the music industry.

The white paper also makes passing mention of digital technology "decimat[ing]" the music industry, as well as mentioning the "threat" to DVD sales. I've written about the music industry before, and there is conflicting evidence about the loss of CD sales due to digital file-sharing. I'm more convinced by the studies that have shown that CD sale losses have lessened as a result of file-sharing, and remember that CD sales were already declining before applications like Napster hit the scene. I'm not familiar with DVD sales, but I'm not convinced that file-sharing is causing a decrease in sales, either.

I'll reference this post again, because I make a point towards the end of the post that I think needs repeating. All too often it is assumed that piracy of digital content equals lost sales. I'm not convinced of this at all because those making this assumption have never provided any evidence to support what is underlying this assumption -- that those who have pirated the content would have purchased the content if there were no means to obtain it otherwise. The music industry makes this assumption all the time -- that a downloaded song is less revenue in their pockets. But they have no reason to think that the individual who downloaded the song would have purchased it in the first place.

There's another piece to this that I think needs to be mentioned as well. Digital content is different from physical content in a number of ways, and the most important is also the most obvious -- digital content is virtual. Why is this important? The virtual nature of digital content means that my consumption of this content does not in any way deprive another of consumption and enjoyment of this content. Perfect copies can be infinitely created at almost no cost. Digital content will never be a scarce commodity, and here lies the problem.

Our entire copyright system is based upon the assumptions and limitations of physical content. Physical content is limited in quantity, deteriorates over time, and the analog nature of physical content means that any copies of the content will be of lesser quality than the original. All of these things make the original more valuable than any copies, which is different from digital content. All the digital copies will be exactly the same, making them the same value. Content producers are trying to force digital content into the limitations of physical content. Copyright works by creating artificial scarcity -- it grants authors/inventors the exclusive right to produce and distribute copies for a set amount of time. DRM schemes are attempts to create that artificial scarcity; however, the nature of computers and software means that copies have to be made in order to run the program. Digital content exists within a realm of infinite copies. Furthermore, making copies of digital content is easier than ever. Just as the printing press lowered the barriers to entry in the book publishing world, computers and software have lowered the barriers to entry in the digital content world.

DRM schemes will always be hacked, bypassed, and subverted. As I argued in the older post, this is because of the nature of encryption. DRM is encryption, but in order to make that encrypted content useful content producers have to provide a means for the consumer to decrypt and read the content. DRM fails because DRM will always give hackers all the tools to crack their code. Without providing those tools, the content is useless and unreadable to consumers who have obtained the content legally.

To bring this all together, I think Brad Wardell sums up everything concisely:

The question our industry needs to ask itself is pretty straight forward: Is the goal of IP protection to increase our revenue or is it to prevent people who aren't going to buy games from playing them?

The white paper does make some good points. There's discussion about the lost trust between gamers and developers, and I think that is a key point. Gamers don't want to feel like criminals, nor do gamers want to be punished with draconian DRM for legally purchasing a game. ByteShield recognizes that, and I applaud them for it. ByteShield also appears to recognize that copy-protection will be hacked at some point in the game's life cycle, but the company doesn't think that DRM is ultimately futile.

The protection scheme in the white paper appears to use some features of the current DRM schemes like StarForce and SecuROM. The key to ByteShield's SUM (Software Usage Management) seems to be a connection to a remote server to run the various security checks. That in-and-of-itself us a huge potential problem for DRM. What happens when ByteShield turns off its servers? Or moves over to a new system, much like what the MLB did for its downloadable game service? What happens when ByteShield goes out of business? There's no guarantee that any of the content protected by SUM will be anything but useless to the consumer.

Also included in the protection scheme are limited number of activations and repeated verification. Gamers screamed to high hell when BioWare announced they were going to use repeated verification for Mass Effect, and the same protest was heard when EA revealed that Spore would do the same thing. Ultimately, that part of the copy-protection scheme was dropped. I don't think that ByteShield is going to have much success with that.

ByteShield is very confident that their copy-protection will be virtually unhackable to all but the most determined programming sadists. I'll be curious to see how their system holds up.

The white paper also goes through a number of common complaints against DRM and discusses ByteShield's response to those complaints. The company claims that SUM will not install hidden drivers or files, and will install transparently. In this spirit of transparency, games loaded with SUM will be clearly marked on the box for consumers. They also claim that they will retain the ability to remove the DRM at any point in the game's life cycle, that the DRM files will not run unless the game is running (gee... where have we heard that one before?), that SUM will not edit the user's registry, that SUM will not require the CD/DVD to be in the drive, that SUM will be uninstalled with the game, and the SUM will not refuse a game launch because of programs like drive emulators. If true, this is all well and good.

There are a couple of things mentioned that trouble me -- number one being the required internet connection to activate the game. Not everyone uses the internet at home, or even has access to broadband. Some gamers have a separate "gaming" PC, which is never connected to the internet. Patches and updates can usually be downloaded from another computer and then transferred to the computer without an internet connection. If repeated verification is used, then I think there is too much of a burden placed on users. What should someone, who has legally purchased a game, do if they lose their internet connection and SUM decides that a verification is in order? Moreover, people should not be required to have an internet connection for a game like Mass Effect, which is entirely single-player.

Another thing that is troubling, and maybe I'm just not entirely clear about it, is the limited user/installation distinction. ByteShield claims that the number of users will be limited, not the number of installations. I'm not sure I understand how ByteShield will go about differentiating the two. Other DRM schemes track the number of installations as if they were users. In any event, I see the potential that a legitimate user could be denied re-installing a game at some point. I need further explanation about how this actually works.

ByteShield is also offering a lot of options to developers -- the ability to offer full feature trial versions is good for the industry. Many gamers complain that demos do not accurately represent what the game is, and therefore, they become less likely to make a purchase. One thing that I think would be beneficial is the full disclosure of all the options a developer has chosen. Since it seems that each developer can customize the copy-protection using ByteShield's system, it would continue that spirit of transparency to be open and up front about what gamers can expect to be able to do with each protected game.

In the end, I feel that ByteShield will be different enough from StarForce and SecuROM to actually respect some consumer rights; however, I think the same potentials for exploitation exist within the SUM system. In addition, I think that these kinds of protection schemes are still missing the point -- digital content is too different from physical content to be treated as the same in copyright law. We need more than just a re-appropriation of existing laws to digital content; we need to recognize that digital content and its copyright needs to be handled differently than physical content, lest we stifle creativity and innovation by overprotecting content.

[UPDATE]: Further reading here (Talkjack's 16 point PC Gamers' DRM Charter, referenced in the white paper), and here (discussion of StarForce DRM by Talkjack).

Information Regarding Sarah Palin Quickly Disappearing

2008-09-03T14:52:00.009-04:00

Yesterday, I read about Sarah Palin's, the 2008 Republican Vice Presidential candidate, participation in the Eagle Forum of Alaska's 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire. That day, the Blogosphere seemed to explode with posts about the questionnaire, specifically because of the factually and historically inaccurate answers that Palin wrote. There must have been hundreds of blogs in the "Links to this post" section criticizing pretty much all of Palin's answers.

I went to revisit the page today, only to find that it has been taken down. A Google cache version can be found here.

This discovery got me thinking, because I recalled that the photo page on the State of Alaska's Governor page also had been recently taken down. (Google cache here.) I first discovered that bit because I was looking into the controversy surrounding Palin's fifth child, Trig. The Moderate Voice had published a post questioning John McCain's vetting of Palin, and part of that analysis included photos of Palin when she was pregnant with Trig, yet didn't look pregnant:

Palin does not appear pregnant in any recent photographs. The announcement came as quite a shock to people who had worked closely with her, and have been quoted as saying that she did not appear pregnant whatsoever during the prior 7 months. While this is debatable, you can judge for yourself here: http://gov.state.ak.us/photos.php

(Ed Note: That link has since died since we first looked at it. The pictures were removed today.)

I'm not convinced that Palin is not Trig's biological mother, but that's really not the point here. Why remove the page of photos?

And amid more controversy, there was the alteration of Levi Johnston's Myspace, mysteriously occuring after it was revealed that Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. Bristol's pregnancy is quite interesting because of Palin's strong stance against comprehensive sex education and her strong support of abstinence-only sex education in public schools.

Information surrounding Palin is quickly disappearing off the internet. Strange...

New Brutalism 8tracks

2008-09-03T09:35:00.005-04:00

I've decided to bring back the Brutalism tape in 8tracks form, so some songs had to be cut and a few new ones were thrown in to keep it fresh. Here it is:

The Nuns - Decadent Jew (S/T 7" EP)
DrunkDriver - Women (Born Pregnant LP)
FNU Ronnies - Silver Bullet (Digital Release)
The New Flesh - Hopeless (Parasite CD)
~~TV Ghost - The Mold (The Mold Demo)~~
No Fucker - The Final Hell (No Flesh Shall Be Spared 7" EP)
Clockcleaner - Missing Dick (Missing Dick 7" EP)
The Clancy Six - Steps to the Body (One Sided 7" EP)
Aa - Manshake (S/T LP)

[EDIT]: Had to make a fix -- for some reason the TV Ghost track wouldn't upload correctly, so I've swapped it out for the Clancy Six song from the original Brutalism tape.

Gamers' Bill of Rights

2008-09-02T12:27:00.014-04:00

Last Friday, Stardock, video game publisher and developer, announced a Gamers' Bill of Rights. Here's the full list:

Gamers shall have the right to return games that don’t work with their computers for a full refund.
Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release.
Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.
Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will play adequately on that computer.
Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won’t install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their consent.
Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.
Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.
Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.

I fully support this idea, and do so further because of Stardock's intention to set up an "independent organization" that would regulate publishers and developers who agree to the terms of the Gamers' Bill of Rights.

I want to not only highlight Stardock's efforts, but to take this a step further. Many of these Rights are specifically worded to relate to video games; however, applied broadly, those same Rights are already held by consumers. The only difference here, and the only way I can see that gamers have been relinquished of these Rights, is that video games are, and always have been, a digital medium.

Games come packaged with EULAs (End User License Agreements), which in some form or another attempt to proclaim that the buyer is not actually purchasing a "copy" of the software, but rather a "license" to use the software. On top of these EULAs, games are coming packaged with increasingly draconian DRM (Digital Rights Management) copy-protection such as SecuROM.

The latest versions of SecuROM can be found in games such as BioShock, Mass Effect, and the hotly anticipated Spore. In all cases, the DRM limits the number of installations arbitrarily and requires an internet connection to activate the game. Mass Effect and Spore both attempted to require that the games be reactivated every 10 days, but reconsidered that requirement when massive amounts of vocal protest were directed at the developers. Instead, the games will only require reactivation when new game content or patches are installed.

Both the EULAs and DRM schemes like SecuROM are attempts to circumvent fair use rights of consumers. Rights such as the Doctrine of First Sale, which grant the buyer the right to resell purchased content without the need to compensate the copyright holder. I see Rights 4, 6, and 9 of the Gamers' Bill of Rights as combating this assault on consumers' rights to used content. Download managers, hidden registry keys, and online activation are all tools that can be used to make your legally purchased copy of a game useless to another person. Limiting the number of installations is another method to make a legally purchased copy of a game useless.

I also see Rights 1 - 3, 5, and 7 of the Gamers' Bill of Rights as affirming consumers' right not to be swindled. People expect a working product when they pay for something with their hard earned cash, and it shouldn't be any different with video games. Through digital distribution systems, like Valve's Steam, refunds are not available at all, even if the software distributed doesn't work. Brick and mortar retailers, like GameStop, won't refund defective games either, only replace them, and only within 30 days. If one copy of a PC game won't run on your computer, chances are that the game isn't compatible with your system specs and any further copies won't work either. Without a refund, the buyer is left with a very expensive coaster.

Right 10 of the Gamers' Bill of Rights I see as a right to convenience. If anything is clear, convenience will win out every time. And if the pirate community if offering a more convenient experience than those offered through legal channels, people are going to be less likely to purchase games legally. Right 8 plays directly into this sentiment -- treating customers like criminals with hefty DRM is another form of inconvenience. The more seamless the install process, the more likely people are going to purchase the game.

What I would like to see is game developers, and other software developers for that matter, to state these rights in more explicitly legal terms. In the end, we're really talking about copyright and how those laws should apply to digital content. If software developers set a precedent of respecting long held user rights, I think they can help stop the perception that DRM copy-protection schemes effectively combat privacy. On the contrary, these copy-protections are always eventually hacked, bypassed, or subverted, while their only accomplishment is to violate users' legitimate rights.

Final Thoughts

Over the last week, I read all about Spore's planned use of SecuROM copy-protection. I read many posts and forums about DRM, copy-protection, and piracy. Stardock's reveal of a Gamers' Bill of Rights gave me the perfect way to frame my frustrations at an increasingly hostile game publishing industry.

I have been looking forward to Spore for quite some time now; I had even purchased the Spore Creature Creator to whet my appetite for the game's release on the 7th. After reading about SecuROM's inclusion in Spore, I won't be purchasing the game anymore. EA, Maxis; you have lost this sale, permanently.

I've had my own trouble with SecuROM before, with BioShock, and I don't intend to relive the experience. In my readings last week, I found this website, SecuROM Must Be Destroyed! This article lays out several of the top complaints why a DRM scheme like SecuROM should be resisted by consumers. What will gamers do when authentication servers go offline, such as what happened with MLB's download service and MSN's music store? Limiting the number of installations can quickly descend into a nightmare due to the nature of PCs -- frequent hardware swaps, OS re-installations, and other PC upgrades. At the rate that computer technology advances, consumers shouldn't have their games become useless after a few years because of new OS installations and hardware upgrades. But this is exactly the kind of system that SecuROM is creating.

For a peak into the minds of publishers who embrace these DRM schemes, take a look at this article from The Escapist Magainze, as well as their imagining of an EA Gamers' Bill of Rights. I'll end with this Penny Arcade comic:

Legal Victory for Fair Use

2008-08-26T13:58:00.002-04:00

Reports the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation):

A judge's ruling today is a major victory for free speech and fair use on the Internet, and will help protect everyone who creates content for the Web. In Lenz v. Universal (aka the "dancing baby" case), Judge Jeremy Fogel held that content owners must consider fair use before sending takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA").

Universal Music Corporation ("Universal") had sent a takedown notice targeting a 29-second home movie of a toddler dancing in a kitchen to a Prince song, "Let's Go Crazy," which is heard playing in the background. Because her use of the song was obviously a fair use and, therefore, non-infringing, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA. Universal moved to dismiss the case, claiming, among other things, that it had no obligation to consider whether Lenz's use was fair before sending its notice. The judge firmly rejected Universal's theory.

Raucous Imminence Mix

2008-08-26T10:49:00.003-04:00

I've got a new 8tracks mix up, Raucous Imminence. This is an idea that I had been throwing around for a Muxtape tape -- music that sounds incredibly urgent, that makes me feel like I need to get up and do something reckless without hesitation. Today's 8tracks mix includes:

Iggy Pop & The Stooges - Search and Destroy (Raw Power LP)
Homostupids - Wild Weekend (The Intern LP)
The Germs - No God (Lexicon Devil 7")
Modern Warfare - Nothing's Left for Me (Nothing's Left for Me 7")
White Load - Chemicals (Demo 2007 Cass)
Violent Ramp - Pay to Skate (Grind the Pigs EP)
Black Flag - Nervous Breakdown (Nervous Breakdown 7")
Bad Brains - Send You No Flowers (Black Dots LP)

Click the 8 track tape to the right to listen to previously uploaded mixes.

The New Muxtape

2008-08-22T09:52:00.011-04:00

While Muxtape sits in legal obscurity, I've been looking for other options. I discovered the website 8tracks this morning and it's looking the best so far. Unlike Mixwit, you can upload your own songs, which is exactly what I need. Mixwit is simply an aggregate of existing links on the internet -- you are not allowed to upload your own music. Most of the music that I own is not available through existing links because of its obscurity, so the ability to upload the music I own is essential. 8tracks also seems to be on more solid legal ground:

At current royalty rates, the hourly cost per user is just over $0.02 per listener per hour in 2008, increasing to nearly $0.03 per listener per hour in 2010. This means that 8tracks must earn a net CPM from advertising of at least $20 in 2008 (i.e., $20 per 1000 ad impressions = $0.02) and nearly $30 in 2010 (i.e., $30 per 1000 ad impressions = $0.03) to cover the cost of streaming sound recordings. In addition, 8tracks pays musical works royalties to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, which generally comprises 3%-5% of revenues.
8tracks is taking 2 steps to reduce its royalty liability so can sustain itself as a business. First, it is opting into a Small Webcaster license offered by SoundExchange (at the request of Congress). This license provides for royalty payment on the greater of a percentage-of-revenue or percentage-of-expense basis, subject to a minimum fee, which will allow us to grow our user base -- and our potential for advertising -- before having to pay the more onerous compulsory rates owed on a per song, per listener basis.
Second, 8tracks is seeking direct licenses with independent record labels and artists who generally see greater promotional value in internet radio -- given relatively few alternative channels for exposure -- and are thus more willing to consider the percentage-of-revenue terms common to all other forms of radio (traditional, satellite, cable).

My 8tracks page can be found here, and I've created a test mix called The Longest Songs:

Public Image LTD - Theme (First Edition LP)
Pg. 99 - ~~A Sonnet to Both Ugly and Murderous~~ Living in the Skeleton of a Happy Memory (Document #7 LP)
City of Caterpillar - A Little Change Could Go A Long Ways (S/T LP)
Pissed Jeans - My Bed (Hope for Men LP)
Portraits of Past - Bang Yer Head (S/T LP)
Lightning Bolt - 2 Towers (Wonderful Rainbow LP)
Big Business - I'll Give You Something to Cry About (Here Come the Waterworks LP)
The White Mice - SEWERcide (BLasssTPhlEgMEICE LP)

The cool thing about 8tracks is that users can upload more than one mix at a time. I also like it's simplicity and minimalist aesthetic; although, Muxtape is still more visually appealing. One thing that 8tracks is lacking is the "stumbling" part of Muxtape -- only recent mixes are shown on 8tracks' home page. There is a search option, but that isn't quite the same to me, as I'm likely to just find music I already listen to. And there doesn't seem to be a "Favorites/Fans" feature like Muxtape has; however, I still haven't figured out how the "Following" feature works, so maybe that is something like Muxtape's "Favorites/Fans."

I'll have an 8tracks link in my side bar while I await the verdict against Muxtape. Click the 8 track tape to the right to listen any of my existing 8tracks mixes.

[EDIT]: So it seems that 8tracks has a 10 minute per song limit, which poses a problem for the Pg. 99 track that I had selected (it's 11 minutes long). I've switched it out with another song on the Document #7 LP, "Living in the Skeleton of a Happy Memory."

Aw Fuck...

2008-08-19T09:15:00.011-04:00

Muxtape is down. The website's blog says that no artists or labels complained. I hope that Muxtape can come out of this unscathed.

I really feel that the RIAA is overreaching here. This broadening copyright enforcement nonsense is quickly becoming ridiculous. As I have said before, how is Muxtape really that much different from radio? To make another analogy, isn't a website like Muxtape just the piano roll of our times?

Muxtape is merely a digital version of cassette mixtapes. Muxtape has taken pains to ensure that songs cannot be downloaded, that songs are accompanied with a link to Amazon's mp3 page, and that tapes have a variety of song selections (no tracks from the same artist/release on the same tape).

The fact that it is digital shouldn't make any difference, but the fact that it does means that the RIAA is still living in analog fantasy land.

[UPDATE]: The RIAA has released a statement regarding Muxtape:

For the past several months, we have communicated our legal concerns with the site and repeatedly tried to work with them to have illegal content taken down. Muxtape was hosting copies of copyrighted sound recordings without authorization from the copyright owners. Making these recordings available for streaming playback also requires authorization from the copyright owners. Muxtape has not obtained authorization from our member companies to host or stream copies of their sound recordings.

[UPDATE 2]: Ars Technica reports that Muxtape's future is likely grim:

Actually, it looks like Muxtape may indeed be closed indefinitely. The RIAA says it has been in communication with the site over the past several months over the getting the "illegal content" taken down. In order to get the RIAA's official blessing, Muxtape would likely have to sign a licensing agreement and begin paying royalties à la last.fm and Pandora. An agreement would dissipate the legal gray cloud hanging over Muxtape, but the royalty burden may well prove onerous, as industry stalwarts like Pandora are considering closing up shop due to the high royalty rates demanded by rightsholders.

Damn.

The Jerome Corsi Paradox

2008-08-15T14:43:00.006-04:00

Jerome Corsi, of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth fame, is at it again. This time he's written another piece of shit book riddled with factual errors and baseless innuendo targeted at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, entitled, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality. He's been all over the media pushing his book, and on today's edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends he's made a rather revealing statement:

Here's the relevant bit of the transcript:

DOOCY: You were involved in the writing of the --

CORSI: Correct.

DOOCY: -- Swift Boat book --

CORSI: Absolutely. Right.

DOOCY: -- four years ago, and so a lot of people have suggested, well, the Obama campaign is not going to allow their candidate to get Swift Boated once again by this guy, and do you feel almost as if you yourself are being Swift Boated?

CORSI: Well, in a way, but I also think the Obama campaign is making the identical mistake as the Kerry campaign.

[emphasis mine]

Without a moment's pause, Corsi responds to Doocy's question without the slightest indication of any intention to challenge the use of the term "Swift Boated." In accepting the understood definition of the term, Corsi is essentially admitting that his previous work of fiction, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, is exactly what his critics charged -- full of factual errors and baseless smears against Democratic Senator John Kerry. It's clear that that is the opinion he has of his critics now; therefore, it follows that he is using this definition for "Swift Boated."

If, in some twist of crazy, right-wing logic, Corsi believes the term "Swift Boated" is not negative, but an honest, academic analysis of the facts, then we can only conclude that he believes his critics to be correct about The Obama Nation.

This is the Jerome Corsi Paradox -- either way, he's discredited himself in that one statement.

iPatriot Act

2008-08-06T13:19:00.003-04:00

Lawrence Lessig warns of a "i-9/11 event" (which doesn't mean an Al Qaeda event, just a catastrophe on the internet that has the scale of the 9/11 terrorist attacks) during Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference. This event, suggests Lessig, is what the government is waiting for in order to push through Congress an already drafted "iPartiot Act" to regulate the internet.

Today, CNN reports that there's a major security flaw in the way that the internet operates. The security flaw tricks a computer into visiting a phony dupilcate of a legitimate site, which could be used for various nefarious purposes. One such scam has already taken place:

[C]riminals have pulled off at least one successful attack, directing some AT&T Inc. Internet customers in Texas to a fake Google site. The phony page was accompanied by three programs that automatically clicked on ads, with the profits for those clicks flowing back to the hackers.

Could this "i-9/11" be just around the corner? I fear what an "iPatriot Act" might do to the model of free-flowing information that drives the internet.

Cuil v. Google

2008-07-31T08:58:00.003-04:00

After reading Siva Vaidhyanathan's comparison of Google and Cuil (a new search engine created by former Google employees) on Googlization of Everything, I want to encourage others to try out Cuil. If anything, I think this is the most important factor for me:

Cuil has no need to keep a dossier on us to improve search. This is one of Cuil's major selling points. And it certainly should make Cuil the search engine of choice for holligans, misfits, pottymouths, and n'erdowells of all stripes. But seriously, Cuil might be able to demonstrate that quality search need not depend on massive data collection and exploitation. [emphasis mine]

Oliver Stone's "W" Teaser Trailer

2008-07-30T09:00:00.002-04:00

Conservapedia Is Obsessed with Homosexuality

2008-07-29T16:08:00.007-04:00

Every once in a while I find myself strangely drawn into the insanity that is the alternate universe known as Conservapedia. I'm sure most everyone is aware of this caricature of reality that poisons the minds of young, home-schooled children nationwide, but if you really want to catch yourself up on the mind-blowing falsity of Conservapedia, check out Rational Wiki.

I happened upon Conservapedia today and made an interesting observation. On the main page there is a list of Conservapedia's most popular articles. I like to read the talk pages, as there is always someone who tries to talk some sense into the idiots that run Conservapedia, and these exchanges can be pretty entertaining at times. After reading through Feminism, Dinosaur, and CE, I opened up the page for Homosexuality. This is by far the longest article I have ever seen on Conservapedia, to the point of obsession.

Vast amounts of incorrect information aside, one thing that really stands out is the number of references -- 358! Holy crap. Compare that to Conservapedia's article for Heterosexuality -- not one reference. Even Bisexual has three references!

The article for Homosexuality has more references than even both Christianity (15) and Conservative (4) combined -- the two things that define Conservapedia most.

And it's not just references -- the article for Homosexuality is crazy long, with 40 different headings and about another 2 dozen subheadings. The content of these headings consist entirely of false associations and outright misinformation.

Seems like Christian conservatives really love to talk about homosexuality. Perhaps there are a lot of closet cases in Conservapedia Land.

Feminism Tape

2008-07-28T21:26:00.007-04:00

It's about time I put up a new muxtape -- the Feminism tape. This edition has a theme of women musicians -- all the bands feature women entirely or in prominent ways. Check out Punk77's Women In Punk as well.

Crass - Bata Motel (Penis Envy LP)
D.I.R.T. - Democracy (Death is Reality Today 7")
Toxic Waste - Good Morning (We Don't Want Your Fucking War Comp. LP)
Potential Threat - The Other War (We Don't Want Your Fucking War Comp. LP)
X-Ray Spex - Oh Bondage, Up Yours! (Oh Bondage, Up Yours! 7")
Sacrilege - Dig Your Own Grave (We Don't Want Your Fucking War Comp. LP)
Bikini Kill - Rebel Girl (Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah Split LP)
Bratmobile - Cool Schmool (Pottymouth LP)
Blatz - Berkeley Is My Baby (And I Want to Kill It) (Shit Split LP)
Turboslut - Roadkill (Demo Cassette)
Tunnel Canary - Jihad (Jihad / Live At The ECCA 1980 Double LP)
Sonic Youth & Lydia Lunch - Death Valley '69 (Bad Moon Rising LP)

You Have the Freedom to Shut the Hell Up

2008-07-09T09:48:00.006-04:00

A 61-year-old woman was issued a ticket for trespassing on city property during a supposedly public town hall meeting being held by Republican presidential candidate John McCain. The McCain staff asked the secret service to ask the building management to remove the woman because she was holding a sign that said "McCain = Bush." She was told to either put the sign away and stand in line or leave the premises, and if she refused she would be issued a ticket.

Un-fucking-believable.

Seriously, America, what the hell? This woman was on public property exercising her freedom of speech in a non-disruptive way. Isn't there something wrong with our police system when taxpayer funded public servants enforce the will of private parties over that of constitutionally guaranteed rights? How do these officers, and the secret service agents, justify their actions to themselves? How to they sleep at night knowing that they bring the destruction of liberty?

Furthermore, what is wrong with John McCain? He says that he has fought for the freedoms that this country guarantees its citizens, yet he is willing to snatch those freedoms away at his own discretion. How could anyone trust such a man to protect American values?

Google Ordered to Hand Over YouTube Records to Viacom

2008-07-07T10:17:00.006-04:00

BBC reported last week, as well as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (today), that media conglomerate Viacom obtained a court order to receive12 terabytes of data from Google regarding video views on YouTube. The data includes the usernames and IP addresses of viewers, how many videos they have watched and how many times those videos were watched. That's a lot of private information Viacom has obtained.

I'm currently reading Lawrence Lessig's Code: Version 2.0, and I feel that the arguments in that book apply here. The current debate surrounds the issue of privacy, and whether or not a constitutional right has been violated. I think Lessig would say that this we currently have a choice about what values we want to protect in cyberspace. That is to say, the Constitution may very well have little guidance on this conflict because the conflict is not addressed.

I'd really hope that the side of privacy wins here. From my perspective, copyright law was no guarantee of perfect control over copies of content; however, as Lessig argues in Code, the internet can provide content providers with a more prefect control than was previously available. With the undoubtedly meticulous records of YouTube users stored by Google, there's a gold mine of information for Viacom to police the use of its content.

Another question remains of whether or not we want to decide on the value of protection over the value of accessibility, as well as the value of privacy. The privacy issue should concern us all -- in effect, Viacom has been given the viewing records of individual users to use for a legal case. If users are aware that their viewing habits could be monitored, could that potentially dampen said viewing habits? To make a rough analogy -- imagine that Random House, Inc. had obtained a court order requiring the Library of Congress, Harvard University, or the Boston Public Library to turn over records of all individuals' reading habits, including which books were checked out, the number of books checked out, and the number of times each book was checked out. Ultimately, how is this scenario much different from Viacom v. Google?

YouTube is digital, and therefore, presents circumstances that were not possible in a real space library. A library has physical limitations which make it impractical that any books held within could be checked out and read millions, let alone billions, of times within a year. Moreover, each book can only be checked out by one person at a time. Because of these physical limitations, there is little threat to the commercial publishing industry from libraries.

But now imagine that the library is entirely digital. Now many users can view books at the same time, thus increasing the number of views in the same time frame. Being digital, it is now easier for users to create derivative works by cutting up the digital pages of books and splicing them together, or even adding original content to the existing works, to create something different. I would argue that our copyright law, and the Constitution in general, do not address this issue specifically. As Lessig argues, it is up to us to make the choice about which values from real space we want to preserve in cyberspace.

I come down in favor of less restrictive copyright and a preservation of privacy. I think the culture of YouTube and the ability of people to share and create existing and new works is an impressive testament to the power of the internet as a medium. I believe that such sharing can only facilitate more culture, and we will be all the better for it.

Muxtape

2008-07-02T09:02:00.004-04:00

I haven't updated my muxtape with something new in about two months. I'm a bit torn about changing it, though -- everyday or so someone new decides to add it to their favorites, and I'd rather not change the whole tape soon after someone has added my tape to his/her favorites. Since Brutalism went up, I've gone from having 12 fans to 27 fans (including Alternative Tentacles Records!).

But that doesn't mean I haven't been thinking about a new tape, I just haven't decided on a good theme for the next one yet.

Some ideas that've been floating around in my head are the Annihilation Tape (which might include Crucifix, Conflict, Resistance 77), the Riot Tape (Dead Kennedys, Violators), and the Epicly Epic Tape, which would include songs that have build-ups to the most crushingly suffocating crescendos I've ever heard (Pg. 99, Hair Police, The Blood Brothers, Circle Takes the Square, Black Sabbath, Lighting Bolt).

Part of the delay is me having a hard time finding the songs I want to put in a new muxtape within my existing mp3 collection and not having the desire to go through the lengthy process of ripping the songs from my vinyl collection. Another part is the fact that I'm still trying to find the best 12 songs for any of my tapes.

So for those who are waiting, hopefully I'll have an update soon.

We Are All Pirates

2008-07-01T09:01:00.002-04:00

See more here.

Associated Press Attempts to Destroy Journalism

2008-06-18T09:09:00.012-04:00

Patrick Hayden wrote on Monday that the Associated Press is now charging fees for individuals to quote as little as five words from AP articles. I'll borrow the graphic from Cory Doctorow to illustrate the insanity the AP has decided to spiral downwards into.

Furthermore, Hayden writes that the AP reserves the right to terminate any license if the user criticizes the AP. From the AP's Terms of Use:

You shall not use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to the author, the publication from which the Content came, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or depicted in the Content. You agree not to use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to or damaging to the reputation of Publisher, its licensors, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or referenced in the Content […]
Publisher reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time if Publisher or its agents finds Your use of the licensed Content to be offensive and/or damaging to Publisher’s reputation.

Whatever happened to fair use?

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. [emphasis mine]

Aren't those the activities that journalists, bloggers, and other interested individuals engage in when quoting a news story like those provided by the AP?

The AP has reported that the organization will be meeting with bloggers to address their "assertion of copyright." I'll quote the article at length, and without an unconstitutional license from the assholes at the AP:

The Associated Press, following criticism from bloggers over an AP assertion of copyright, plans to meet this week with a bloggers' group to help form guidelines under which AP news stories could be quoted online.

[...]

Wendy Seltzer, a legal scholar and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, said it was encouraging that AP wanted to find an arrangement with bloggers to facilitate a mutually agreeable way for them to use AP content.

But she cautioned that the news organization, a not-for-profit cooperative owned by its member newspapers and broadcasters, should not try to go beyond what's legally permissible.

And that's exactly what the AP is trying to do; the organization is trying to go beyond what is legally permissible. Moreover, the AP has proven itself unable to uphold journalistic standards and democratic ideals:

[Jim] Kennedy [AP Director of Strategic Planning] said the AP had both a journalistic concern about preventing AP news from being quoted out of context and also a business concern about protecting the value of AP's news from being diluted if its key elements are made available from places that aren't licensed.

Un-fucking-believable.

[UPDATE]: Michael Arrington of TechCrunch sums it up quite well:

The A.P. doesn’t get to make its own rules around how its content is used, if those rules are stricter than the law allows. So even though they say they are making these new guidelines in the spirit of cooperation, it’s clear that, like the RIAA and MPAA, they are trying to claw their way to a set of property rights that don’t exist today and that they are not legally entitled to. And like the RIAA and MPAA, this is done to protect a dying business model -- paid content.

[UPDATE 2]: The Associated Press capitulates.

Network TV: Whitewashed

2008-06-18T08:47:00.002-04:00

From Entertainment Weekly:

Today the current prime-time lineup, including fall's 14 new scripted shows, is looking alarmingly pale. According to an Entertainment Weekly study of scripted-programming casts for the upcoming fall 2008 season, each of the five major broadcast networks is whiter than the Caucasian percentage (66.2 percent) of the United States population, as per the 2007 census estimate. And all of the networks are representing considerably lower than the Latino population percentage of 15.2 percent, with The CW -- whose only lead Latina star, JoAnna Garcia, will be playing a white character named Megan Smith on Surviving the Filthy Rich -- registering just 3.8 percent.

Religulous

2008-06-09T14:32:00.003-04:00

A new movie from Liongate Entertainment called Religulous, starring Bill Maher and directed by Larry Charles (Borat, Curb Your Enthusiasm), is coming October 3rd, 2008:

The documentary RELIGULOUS follows political humorist and author Bill Maher (“Real Time With Bill Maher,” “Politically Incorrect”) as he travels around the globe interviewing people about God and religion. Known for his astute analytical skills, irreverent wit and commitment to never pulling a punch, Maher brings his characteristic honesty to an unusual spiritual journey. Directed by Larry Charles (BORAT: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN, “Curb Your Enthusiasm”), RELIGULOUS will mark Charles’ first feature project since the critically acclaimed, wildly successful BORAT. Jonah Smith and Palmer West of Thousand Words (A SCANNER DARKLY, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM) and Bill Maher are producing.

View the trailer here.

Phony Democrats for John McCain

2008-06-05T08:55:00.007-04:00

This morning, I heard that Hillary Clinton is expected to suspend her campaign for the presidential nomination on the Democratic ticket. So, it is with great puzzlement that I came across this website, The National Organization of Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain. What the hell?

My knee-jerk reaction is that this is a load of crap. From the horrible, eye-bleeding design of the website (the formatting of which, I've come to notice, is a trademark of Right-wing bullshit chain emails -- i.e., use of flashing words, all-caps, multiple and conflicting colors, and misaligned text) to the use of the phrase "Democrat party," I get the clear indication that these "Democrats" were likely not progressives ever at all.

But this also reminds me of something that happened while I was in college. The 2004 presidential election had wrapped up towards the end of the semester during my political science course on interest groups and lobbyists. My professor related a story about a student who came to him about financial aid. The rules for qualification had changed, and those changes had been made possible by the Bush administration. This student wanted to know what he could do to remedy his situation quickly, as he would now be unable to afford his education. My professor asked one question first, "Who did you vote for?" The student's answer was, "Bush." And my professor snapped.

Because my professor is a principled educator, he did eventually help this student out but not before laying into him for his voting choice. What bothered my professor so much was the fact that this student had voted for a president who was actively working against the student's best interest. My professor was amazed how an issue of such importance to this student, such as education policy, had not been on his mind when he voted.

I am similarly amazed at the idoicy that is The National Organization of Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain. Here we have a group of individuals who are prepared to campaign against their own interests (by supporting a candidate, John McCain, who is against most of the policies of their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton) while also sabotaging those same interests (by planning to actively campaign against a candidate, Barack Obama, who represents many of the same policies as Hillary Clinton).

Mind-boggling.

"Assassination" Art Exhibit Shut Down by Police

2008-06-04T13:18:00.009-04:00

The New York Times reported today that artist Yazmany Arboleda's exhibit "The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama" was shut down by New York City police.

The exhibit was shut down by 9:30 am, and police interrogated Arboleda for about an hour. According to Arboleda, authorities were concerned that the exhibit "could excite someone to do something crazy, like break the window."

Arboleda stated that the exhibit was about character assassination and how the media has portrayed the leading Democratic candidates:

It’s art. It’s not supposed to be harmful. It’s about character assassination — about how Obama and Hillary have been portrayed by the media. [...] It’s about the media.

The exhibition is supposed to be about character assassination. [...] It’s philosophical and metaphorical.

What bothers me about this incident is that there is a clear violation of this man's 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech. On the other hand, there is the concern of "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" syndrome; however, I do not think that the word "assassination" near the names of presidential candidates in an art exhibit qualifies. There's nothing about this art exhibit that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that a threat existed.

Ultimately, I think that this is an overreaction on part of the police, and in the process this man's speech was stifled. The 1st amendment is there to protect what others may find objectionable -- we don't need a constitutional amendment to protect what is acceptable to express, we need a constitutional amendment to protect what is taboo.

One commenter, B.A., from The New York Times article gave a rather intelligent insight:

This is just one of the things that is wonderful about America. If we feel this is inappropriate, irreverent, impolite, we have equal rights to speak out against it, in forums like this, or by walking down to the location, holding up signs and protesting. If this exhibit ignites passion furiously against it, those unwilling to do more than complain from their keyboards should not endorse the bending of the law to make it go away.

The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not police oppression and/or intimidation.

Turn Jesus On

2008-06-03T16:37:00.005-04:00

What can I say about this except creepy, and maybe prophetic? Symbolic?

Don't Punish Legitimate Customers

2008-06-03T09:35:00.010-04:00

Yet, that is exactly what entertainment industries do when they implement intrusive and inconveniencing DRM schemes. Rob Fahey, of GamesIndustry.biz, wrote a few months ago:

The response from the videogames industry to piracy has, thus far, been utterly asinine. Not, of course, that videogames should be singled out here -- the music and movie businesses, too, have done their fair share of asinine things in the last five to ten years as they desperately struggle to understand the changes which internet piracy is causing to their market. Only the music business, which has been struck hardest by online, user-driven piracy, has begun to learn its lesson and adapt its business intelligently. It remains to be seen whether movies and games are condemned to repeat the same costly mistakes, or whether they can learn from their sibling industry and avoid the traps.

The core of the response of both games and movies (although our focus here is on games, obviously) to internet piracy -- the response which leads me, with absolute confidence, to describe these efforts as being asinine -- is to treat their legitimate users as though they were criminals. Almost every single effort which has been made by these industries to protect their products has had the result of inconveniencing, frustrating and disenfranchising honest, paying customers.

[...]

There will always be a core of people who can't or won't pay for things, and who will go to incredible lengths and inconvenience themselves awfully just in order to get stuff for free. However, it's a stupid and useless dogma to claim that all piracy happens because of that impulse. The reality is that when pirates are offering a better user experience than you are, your business model is broken -- and rather than punishing your loyal customers, or whinging to national governments in the hope that they'll cover your backside with unpopular, civil liberties infringing legislation, you need to fix your business model. Or find a new job. [emphasis mine]

Another key thing that Fahey mentions, regarding music, is this:

Lo and behold, consumers aren't actually against paying reasonable prices for music - they're just against having to go out and buy CDs with spyware on them, or having to download tracks that are crippled, locked up and liable to be unplayable as soon as the company you bought them from goes bust. [emphasis mine]

This is exactly the problem with the new trend of game developers requiring gamers to be connected to the internet to play their games. What happens when the developer goes out of business? What happens when the publisher and/or developer cease to support their older titles? The only conclusion I can draw is the same one that Fahey draws -- the games will be unplayable, utterly useless.

I recently installed Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts. This is an expansion to the first game, Company of Heroes. The Opposing Fronts expansion pack came with some hefty DRM, unlike the original game, which came DRM-free. It took me several hours to install the game simply because of the DRM. My experience was one of frustration.

First, the expansion required that the original game be uninstalled before installing the new DRM-laden expansion. OK, did that, no problem. The expansion took a very long time to install, even on my Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor. After installation, I went to run the game, but was unable to do so because of a required patch installation to play online. I wasn't even interested in playing online; however, I was required to install the patch to play at all. Every time I tried the in game patching process, the game failed to connect to the internet and download the patch (and yes, I had created a firewall exception for Company of Heroes). I was forced to shut the game down and hunt for the patches online (which wasn't easy), download them individually (there were at least a half-dozen), and install each patch individually.

After I had completed this time-consuming endeavor, I opened up the game again. This time, I was prompted to log in with a user name and password in order to play the game. The DRM with this expansion required either the DVD in the drive or an internet connection to play. I had my DVD in the drive, so I was a bit puzzled why the game would require me to create a login. But even this didn't work correctly -- the button to "create" a profile was shaded, meaning that I couldn't access the profile creator in-game. I was forced, yet again, to shut down and create my profile on the developer's website and then start the game back up again. Finally, many hours later, I could play!

To a more casual player, it's likely that s/he would have given up at some point during this ordeal. Perhaps this person would recommend to friends that the game isn't worth the time it takes to install. Perhaps this person is now less likely to buy a future title from the developer. Perhaps this person is likely to return his/her legal copy and instead download a pirated copy because the pirated copy is easier to install. Perhaps this person is now more likely to pirate future games from this developer. Company of Heroes has plenty of pirated copies available on the internet, so all this DRM has done is inconvenience a legitimate customer, potentially encourage a former legitimate customer to pirate games, and/or drive away a legitimate customer from PC gaming to more convenient, legal gaming systems like consoles (PS3, XBox 360, Wii).

Further reading: Cory Doctorow's DRM talk, which discusses all of these issues at great length.

Oh Those Poor, Poor Rockstars

2008-05-28T08:53:00.004-04:00

Yesterday I read this old article on Ars Technica about the UK government's decision to cap copyright protection at 50 years:

The music industry had lobbied the government hard for a copyright extension, saying that it was necessary to protect the rights of musicians, especially groundbreaking acts whose older songs were about to hit the 50-year limit.

Here's where I have a problem:

Criticism from the music industry has come fast and furious in the wake of the government's decision. "Thousands of musicians have no pensions and rely on royalties to support themselves," said Roger Daltry, lead singer of The Who. "These people helped to create one of Britain's most successful industries, poured money into the British economy and enriched people's lives. They are not asking for a handout, just a fair reward for their creative endeavors."

With all due respect, fuck you Roger Daltry. There are a lot of professions, many of them non-creative, that provide no pension. Daltry made tons of money as the lead singer of The Who, and it's not the younger generations' fault that he couldn't think ahead and plan for his own future through investments like the rest of us. Yet, this fucking rockstar has the gall to complain about his copyright expiring. As far as I am concerned, Daltry has already received his just reward of exclusive copyright as an incentive to create further works; however, he'd rather keep culture off-limits to the people for his own monetary gain.

How more simply can I put this... "Hey Daltry, you'll have fifty-fucking-years of royalty payments from your creative endeavors, and that's more than most other people in most other professions can say. You are asking for a handout -- you've had your turn, now let someone else run with the culture. It's not our fault you were fucking irresponsible with your earnings."

So, fuck you Daltry.

This is what Daltry doesn't quite understand:

Critics of extended copyright protection point out that musicians already enjoy 50 years of royalties and that copyright laws attempt to balance the rights of artists with a desire to encourage new works and ensure a rich public domain for new artists to build on.

Copyright was designed to be an incentive to creative further works, not an economic safety net. At some point we have to allow creative works into the public domain, otherwise it will become increasingly difficult for new artists to create new works. If we want a rich and diverse culture, a healthy public domain is necessary for people to comment and improve upon the creative works that influence them. Moreover, we cannot expect people to sit on the sidelines and only passively interact with their culture, nor should we strive for such conditions.

Another Reason the RIAA Doesn't Get It

2008-05-20T13:36:00.006-04:00

I just discovered that Nothing Nice to Say came back a number of years ago (I had stopped reading the comic after I thought it had ended), and I came across this gem:

Bush Out of Touch on Gas Prices

2008-05-20T09:21:00.003-04:00

As if we needed another reason to demonstrate that George Bush is out of touch with real Americans, The Chicago Tribune reports today that gas prices have broken the $4 barrier:

Chicagoans are paying an average $4.07 a gallon for gasoline, good enough for topping the notorious list of the highest gas prices in the country. Long Island residents are also paying about $4 a gallon—making it the only other large metropolitan area to hit the $4-a-gallon mark for regular gas.

Remember this?

Peter Maer of CBS News Radio asked: "What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing ... "
"Wait, what did you just say?" the president interrupted. "You're predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?"

Maer responded: "A number of analysts are predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline."

Bush's rejoinder: "Oh, yeah? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."

Preakness: A Highlight of Economic and Racial Inequality

2008-05-19T10:48:00.007-04:00

I went to Preakness in Baltimore this weekend with my wife and her cousin, but we didn't go to enjoy the festivities. We went to join the PETA protest against the inhumane practices allowed within the sport of horse racing. While this is a noble cause, the real story during Preakness was on display on the streets of Baltimore. Horse racing, a traditionally white, upper class activity (dubbed "The Sport of Kings"), attracted a cadre of white, upper class people to one of the poorest, African-American areas of Baltimore.

The whole experience was quite surreal. African-American people of all ages and genders were on the streets offering to shuttle the belongings of white people to and fro the arena. I even witnessed one white kid having paid to have himself carted into the arena. The African-American residents of the neighborhood were offering their lawns, streets, and driveways for people to park their cars. African-American residents were out in their front yards cooking food for the mostly white attendees of Preakness.

Even as I walked down the street to raise awareness about the realities of horse racing, African-Americans had already assumed I was there to take part in the drinking and partying of Preakness. And why wouldn't they? On any other day, there's unlikely to be that many white people in that area of Baltimore.

The image was glaring -- poor, unprivileged African-Americans were catering to the needs of affluent, privileged whites to watch a sport that has its roots in Nobility.

Baltimore is largely African-American, has the highest proportion of impoverished residents and the lowest median household income of any other area in Maryland. Baltimore City also has the highest proportion of residents without any health insurance in Maryland.

I found it striking that such an event as Preakness would happen in Baltimore, and how the socio-economic climate created through this clash of cultures, economically and racially segregated, would be so ignored.

O'Reilly Comedy Gold

2008-05-16T08:55:00.002-04:00

By now, I'm sure you've read about Bill O'Reilly's meltdown during a taping of Inside Edition. Now, through the power of the internet, we have the dance remix:

X-COM Rumors Buzz Again

2008-05-12T08:38:00.019-04:00

Strategycore reported last week that IGN has unofficially-officially confirmed old rumors that a new X-COM game is being made and that 2K Boston (the team that developed BioShock) is working on the title. IGN's new Warplay column has a piece on the prospects of a new X-COM and what the author, Steve Butts, would like to see in the game. Here's a summary of game mechanics that Butts would like to be maintained:

Realistically modeled tactical strategy game.
The overall atmosphere of an alien invasion as an imminent global threat has to be maintained.
The game really has to offer a sense of attachment and vulnerability for the members of your squad.
We'd love to see the new game emphasize the element of time.

And a couple of improvements suggested by the author:

A much better system for equipping and organizing your soldiers.
The game design from the original redone with the concepts and technologies that have developed since.

The author also seems to suggest that we could be seeing a revival of the failed X-COM: Alliance, because the RPG-based, story driven tactical squad FPS is an industry favorite at the moment (BioShock, Crysis, Gears of War), and it would make sense if the team that brought us BioShock is indeed developing the game. While an X-COM: Alliance game would be alright, I'd much rather see a re-imagined X-COM: UFO Defense, much like what X-COM: Genesis was supposed to be before it was canceled.

In this space, I'd like to offer some game mechanics that I think are necessary for any X-COM sequel to have the same kind of impact that made the first game legend.

First, I think I need to discuss the different kinds of game engines that could be used for a squad-based tactical strategy game. While there are many squad-based tactical strategy games I could discuss and cite here, I'm going to stick only to games that are within the X-COM universe or are inspired by the X-COM series.

X-COM: UFO Defense, and it's sequel X-COM: Terror from the Deep, used a turn-based system, which I believe has worked the best out of all the engines used. In UFO Defense, the player could move one soldier at a time, which I think helped players focus solely on that soldier as s/he executed commands. This kind of focus would help players write their own stories about these characters because everything that happened to each soldier would be right there on the screen. Players would be able to focus on every detail as private Otter Zander successfully guns down several aliens only to have his mind controlled and later turn on his own comrades. Those are the kinds of gaming moments people remember most, not the ones told to them, but the ones players can write themselves.

Additionally, this turn-based system gave the player time to tactically position soldiers around the map, plan ahead, and form mission goals. The most interesting part of any tactical mission was breaching a UFO's front door and watching a carefully planned storm go to shit as aliens inside gun down soldiers or as the plan executes perfectly. No matter how experienced the soldiers either scenario was always possible, and it's that kind of tension that made the game.

Moreover, the pacing is perfect. There's no long planning stage of just setting up moves, which I find to be incredibly boring, or too much happening at once that the player becomes overwhelmed.

X-COM: Apocalypse used a combination of a turn-based engine and a real-time engine, which I believe hampered both gameplay modes in the final release. Turn-based in Apocalypse felt uneven with poor pacing in mission, while the real-time mode was heavily overpowered in favor of fast firing weapons (the machine gun and the chemical handgun). This removed much of the need to play strategically. In real-time, it was much easier to load up on those weapons and run around the map mowing down anything in sight. These aspects of the real-time game bleed into the turn-based game as well, though not the same extent.

Other games, such as the UFO: After... series, used only a real-time game mode. I played the Aftermath game (first in the series) and was really disappointed with the real-time engine. Moving strategically was a chore, mostly because instead of giving a command and watching that command executed immediately (as would happen in UFO Defense), I would have to pause the game, queue commands on multiple soldiers, and then hit play, hoping that I would have the ability to watch several independent teams across a large map react to changing circumstances on the battlefield. If that sounds like a mouthful, that's because it is -- the real-time engine put too many things happening at once in front of the players' eyes. No longer could the player focus of the actions of one soldiers because something else could be happening to another soldier across the map. The game became a pause-fest, which destroyed the pacing in mission. In the end, I would end up just grouping all my soldiers in one clump, running them around the map and focusing fire on one enemy at a time.

Finally, we have the turn-based/real-time hybrid mode of Laser Squad Nemesis. The game is turn-based but the turns are split into ten second intervals. Both players queue up all actions during the same turn and then hit the play button to see what happens. It's a sort of simultaneous turn-based engine, which addresses the issues that some have raised about a purely turn-based game favoring the player who goes first. While the idea works well, I don't think it is as much fun as a purely turn-based game. There's too much focus on planning instead of acting. A lot of time is spent planning moves for a turn, and the only reward is a ten second animation of simultaneous actions across the entire map. I found keeping track of everything that happens to be difficult. Furthermore, the focus on each individual solider that I mentioned above is removed from the gameplay.

Overall, I do hope to see a purely turn-based game because I think the focus on individual soldiers is very important to the X-COM experience. Furthermore, immediate responses to commands are important to keep the pacing smooth, and the turn-based game will give players plenty of time to plan and execute tactical maneuvers across the entire map without feeling overwhelmed.

First, any X-COM game should include the basics of the series -- base management, research, manufacturing, personnel management, geopolitical relations, UFO interception, and squad-based ground investigation of UFO activity.

The game also has to be dark. No cartoony bullshit, please. I want a sense of dread every time I send a squad into a mission. That tension made X-COM the kind of game that the Civilization series is known for being; "just one more turn." A dark motif fits the genre well and gives players a sense of purpose for each mission. I think that prevents missions from becoming like chores for the player to perform in-between building bases and researching alien technology.

That leads me to my next point -- an expansive tech tree is a must. Part of the joy that was X-COM was building a rag-tag organization of rookie soldiers from the pits of human technology into an elite squad packing the superior firepower of the alien menace. I would hope that the game provides a more interesting tech tree that lends itself to re-playability. I want a tech tree that allows for different paths but not enough time to explore all branches in one play through. The player would be given choices like, "should I continue exploring this laser technology, or scrap it for the alien plasma technology?" Either tree could lead to powerful weaponry, albeit with different tactical focuses and usefulness, but the player would have to make a choice between the two because the looming alien invasion will only allow so much time before the earth is overrun.

Re-playability is key to any X-COM game, which is why my next point is about X-COM's randomization. Maps need to be randomized. Players are going to expect to play hundreds of missions in an X-COM game; therefore, it is imperative that each map is different. One of the major failings of the X-COM inspired UFO: Extraterrestrials was the fact that maps were pre-rendered. With only 200 maps, missions quickly began to look the same. Randomization was a big part of X-COM and it created an unpredictability about the game that kept it fresh year after year. In that spirit, randomization shouldn't only be limited to map generation but should be applied to almost everything within the game. Damage, healing, stat increases, etc. should all have a slight random element to keep the game a bit unpredictable. No one likes playing a predictable game for very long.

Mission variety would be a welcomed improvement. Terror from the Deep expanded on the classic mission types from UFO Defense (UFO crash sites, landed UFO sites, alien base raids, and terror missions), but did so clumsily. The sequel added some mission types but also extended missions to make them longer. Terror missions aboard a cruise ship became the equivalent of two terror missions from UFO Defense. More does not always equal better. Rather, I'd like to see more types of missions that have importance for the larger game. For example, raids on supply ships going to an alien base could open a window of opportunity to attack the base when it's supplies are low, thus making the attack a little easier than when raiding when the base is fully supplied. More mission types, not longer missions.

Furthermore, missions should have fully destructible terrain and multi-level buildings for players to explore. Another part of the tension was sending a team into a building and checking each room for any hiding aliens -- the player never knew what might be behind the door. Fully destructible terrain keeps the tactical game realistic while also providing a nice, satisfying feeling when sending a blaster-bomb to level a building holding an entrenched enemy. Destructible terrain opens up more tactical choices.

RPG elements for soldiers are also a requirement. Soldiers should have stats that increase with experience, although, nothing should make soldiers omnipotent. One of the great things about X-COM was the fragility of the player's soldiers, which helped shape that all important tension. Even if you were sending your best soldier with a heavy plasma rifle and power armor into a UFO, you'd still be worried that s/he could die from one well placed shot from the enemy. Stats shouldn't be directly user-directed, either, as that can lead to power-gaming. Stats should increase based on actions performed by the soldiers (i.e., firing a weapon in mission will increase accuracy). Since the actions are commanded by the player, this in an indirect way for the user to influence stat increases. The RPG elements also have the effect of creating a sense of progress, which gives the player a feeling of having created something special and unique. No two soldiers will ever be quite alike, which also has the effect of the player becoming attached to his/her soldiers.

In addition to the RPG elements, soldiers need to have morale effect their ability to perform. Some of the most terrifying moments happen when a soldier panics, drops his/her weapons and walks straight into danger. Even more terrifying were the moments when a soldier went berserk and shot in all directions, sometimes accidentally killing fellow soldiers. Morale keeps that tension going -- the player never knows what may happen.

I think that it goes without saying that any X-COM game should have two interconnected games within itself -- a turn-based, squad-based tactical game as well as a real-time, strategy management game. X-COM split this into the "battlescape" and the "geoscape," and I hope that any further X-COM game would capture this game mechanic in some way. A lot of the fun was building bases, researching technology, and managing relations between X-COM and the sponsoring countries of the earth. A really sophisticated geopolitical model should be a part of any new X-COM; something like a refined political model from the Apocalypse game would be a great starting point.

Base building and management is also key. Extraterrestrials also failed here by automating a lot of the management aspects of the geoscape. Taking control out of the players hands leads to the player feeling less attached to the organization as a whole. With the kind of control given to the player in UFO Defense, the player really feels like s/he is a part of something that s/he has built from the ground up -- a mechanic that taps into the sandbox genre.

Finally, a compelling story needs to be a part of the game. The story should unfold through research, which puts the pace of the game's progress into the players hands. The "UFOpaedia" entries were short and concise, but detailed enough to keep the story interesting. As you may have noticed, many of my X-COM requirements put control of the game into the player's hands. This is on purpose, and I believe this is what makes X-COM so captivating; in a sense, the game is about allowing the player to create a story about saving the entire planet from an alien invasion.

Of course, many small things should be updated (like soldier equipping and the user interface, as IGN mentioned) to the standards that gamers have come to expect in top-tier games today. What I'm most concerned about are the game mechanics I've outlined above.

One last note -- I'd hope that if the rumors of a new X-COM being under development are true that 2K Boston would have enough sense to contact Julian and Nick Gollop!

Here's to hoping that this will indeed happen, and that the developers take care to listen to a fan base that has been aching for a true sequel to UFO Defense for nearly 15 years.

You May Not Share Your Culture

2008-05-09T08:59:00.007-04:00

During the first week of April, I discovered the website Muxtape.com. The site allows people to create free accounts to put together online “mix tapes” to share with others. Muxtapes are limited to 12 songs, and users are not allowed to upload more than one song from a single release or artist or have multiple muxtapes. Muxtapes are not available for download and all submitted songs are accompanied with a link to Amazon.com’s mp3 downloads section. I thought that this website was a great compromise between music fans who want to share music via the internet and a music industry that is increasingly hostile to such sharing. I also just wanted the chance to make my own virtual mix tape to share with other people!

One of the songs that I selected for my first muxtape was from the mostly unknown Philadelphian band FNU Ronnies, titled, “Silver Bullet.” I had only first heard about the band a week prior from a close friend, but was nonetheless impressed with the song. I recorded the streaming audio on my computer as the song played on the band’s Myspace page, much the same way I used to make cassette tapes from songs recorded from radio. Up went the song onto my muxtape.

A little more than two weeks later I got an email inquiring about the song. The author of the email wanted to know how to get a copy -- I only mentioned that I had recorded the song from Myspace, as I was still waiting for my copy of FNU Ronnie’s debut 7” from Parts Unknown Records. About a week after responding to the email, I received a strange comment on my blog. The post was about Yoko Ono’s lawsuit against the producers of the anti-science film Expelled for their use of John Lennon’s “Imagine.” In the post, I discussed the copyright issues involved. The comment on this post asked me how I felt about individuals “illegally trying to sell” music “ripped on the internet”; a strange comment, considering its lack of relevance to the post. That tipped me off to search around for information about the commenter.

After a short Google search, strong circumstantial evidence led me to believe that the comment came from FNU Ronnies, as did the email I had received a week prior. This turn of events puzzled me. My experiences with music subcultures, specifically those rooted in punk rock, have given me an anti-copyright impression. Many of the bands I have known and have been involved with never considered actually copyrighting music. Labels I have known and have been involved with were never concerned with file-sharing or lost sales. Furthermore, my close friend who introduced me to FNU Ronnies informed me that the debut 7” is nearly sold out. Clearly, my inclusion of “Silver Bullet” cannot be cutting into sales, right?

I must admit, though, that this all is likely to have been in jest. FNU Ronnies is a part of a new musical movement -- Skull music -- which combines early ‘80s American hardcore (YDI, Black Flag) with the strange-yet-hard-sought-after punk classics (Mentally Ill, The Eat, Remo Voor) released on the Killed by Death (fan music blog link) record label. Self-described Skull bands, such as Clockcleaner and Homostupids, engage in a sort of confrontational performance art along with their music. Clockcleaner’s Nevermind album (a re-appropriation of Nirvana's second album title) was named as such to enrage listeners -- guitarist and vocalist John Sharkey stated in an interview with Dusted Magazine, “I kind of wanted people to react like, ‘What balls! Who the fuck are these assholes?’” The fun doesn’t stop there, either: legend has it that Sharkey pissed all over the merch of rival band Bad Wizard at one show and intentionally knocked over a kid with cerebral palsy at another performance (I know; I was there). So my confrontation with FNU Ronnies is likely to be a part of the Philadelphian humor; however, the incident did get me thinking further about copyright issues.

Sites like Muxtape allow people to share music (hopefully) without the fear of a “Cease and Desist” letter from their ISP or a lawsuit from the RIAA. I was a bit shocked that an artist would take offense from a fan putting one of his/her songs on a muxtape for other people to hear. My intentions had been to share the music that really resonates with me. That’s how I’ve almost always discovered new sounds -- someone I knew made me a copy of some new music and gave it to me for listening. This is classic mouth-to-mouth advertising, arguably the best advertising one can get.

There is one critical difference, in the eyes of the industry, between mix tapes/CD-Rs and digital file-sharing -- scale. Sharing music online is easier and faster than sharing has ever been. But how different is a site like Muxtape from a radio broadcast? What about a Myspace music page? Why are these digital streams viewed as different from their analog counterparts?

What are Muxtape and a Myspace music page, ultimately? They are both platforms for distributing music digitally. Instead of a corporate, computer generated play list that is simulcast throughout tens -- even hundreds -- of radio stations, fans and artists are put in the DJ seat. Those who enjoy the culture of their music are participating in that culture by sharing it with others. In other words, they are in a position of control at the individual level of the culture they enjoy.

And that is the difference -- control. Radio broadcasts happen on federally licensed airwaves. Only a select few have access to these avenues of distribution. The content providers have a vested interest in their distribution model succeeding because of the vast amount of resources spent. The internet appears to be the great equalizer in this equation -- it provides a democratic distribution model. Anyone, anywhere, can share music with anyone, anywhere. The music industry is used to being in control of their distribution model and now the industry is trying to apply that system of control to a distributed network based upon protocols. The end result of this is technological quick fixes that have no way to enforce a control model -- DRM (Digital Rights Management) and copy-protection is easily hacked, bypassed, and subverted.

What does this mean for the future of music and file-sharing? The music industry is already of the opinion that file-sharing is the equivalent of lost sales. The data on this varies by who you ask -- in 2004, a study conducted by Felix Oberholzer-Gee of Harvard University and Koleman Strumpf of the University of North Carolina concluded that file-sharing increased CD sales for top selling albums. The RIAA will point to research by Edison Media Research which claims that file-sharing has decreased CD sales; however, Jupiter Research conducted two studies (in 1999 and 2002) which concluded that music fans who shared music files for six months were 75 percent more likely than average online music fans to purchase more music. If file-sharers are the industry’s best costumers, how can they be the cause of a loss of sales?

Instead of attempting to circumvent possibly the best form of advertising being offered on a silver platter by fans, the music industry should embrace these technologies which can bring music to people’s ears faster than ever before. Music fans are so rabid about their favorite artists that the industry wouldn’t have to do much to promote those artists. But this is a risky new democratic model, as it could lead to super-smash hits being relegated to a lesser role and will remove the control the industry has relied upon to make low-risk investments in new artists. But couldn’t such risk stimulate an environment that feeds off of creativity and innovation, rather than following a tried-and-true model?

Police Abuse Authority Yet Again

2008-05-08T08:50:00.004-04:00

MSNBC reports that police officers in Philadelphia severely beat three suspects during an arrest:

A police sergeant and five officers were pulled from street duty Wednesday as city officials investigated television footage showing a group of officers kicking and punching three shooting suspects.

[...]

Officers gathered around the vehicle and pulled three men out. About a half-dozen officers held two men on the ground on the driver's side. Both were kicked repeatedly, while one was punched; one also appeared to be struck with a baton.

On the other side of the car, the video showed, more officers kicking a third man who ends up on the ground.

[...]

[Dwayne] Dyches had a welt on his head the size of a baseball and one of his legs was seriously injured.

Video of the assault by police officers:

There's no excuse for this. Police officers are granted significant authority to perform their duties, and this is a prime example of abusing that authority. Whatever the individuals arrested are suspected for is besides the point -- if we value the ideals of freedom then police officers cannot be allowed to act like thugs. The MSNBC report mentions that officers have been on edge because of the recent fatal shooting of Officer Stephen Liczbinski; however, as I have mentioned, and as the police commissioner suggested, this is no excuse for their behavior.

The mother of one of the suspects said she was outraged.

"I'm horrified to see that our city cops would beat some human being like they did, like a gang-style fight," Leomia Dyches said. She added, "I'd like to see them tried for what they did."

Who wants to bet that the officers won't get off with only a suspension with pay and no criminal charges?

The Gas Tax Holiday Scam

2008-05-07T08:53:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, I read this post over at Stranger Fruit on Scienceblogs, which got me thinking about Hillary Clinton's comments over this issue:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But economists say that's not going to happen. They say this is going to go straight into the profits of the oil companies, they're not going to actually lower their prices. And the top two leaders in the House are against it. Nearly every editorial board and economists in the country has come out against it. Even a supporter of yours, Paul Krugaman of 'The New York Times" calls it pointless and disappointing. Can name one economist, a credible economist who supports this suspension?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I think we've been, for the last seven years, seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion basically behind policies that haven't worked well for the middle class and hard-working Americans. From the moment I started this campaign, I've said that I am absolutely determined that we are going to reverse the trends that have been going on in our government and in our political system. Because what I have seen is that the rich have gotten richer. A vast majority, I think something like 90% of the wealth gains over the last seven years have gone to the top 10% of wage earners.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But can you name an economist who thinks this makes sense?

CLINTON: Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists. Because I know if we did it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively. [emphasis mine]

What's this "elite" opinion Clinton is talking about, you say? More than 200 economists who have publicly denounced Clinton's proposed gas tax holiday. This isn't "elite" opinion either, this is what we call expert opinion, and the two are not synonymous. Elite opinion is when an individual thinks that s/he knows more about a topic than those who actually do know quite a lot about the subject of that topic. This is exactly what Clinton is espousing -- she is guilty of her own criticism. Furthermore, this is indicative of the Republican playbook, i.e., "attack the intellectuals." She's fanning the flames of anti-intellectualism for her own political gain at the peril of an educated America.

This is also why Barack Obama is a breath of fresh air. He's publicly denounced Clinton's proposal as a typical "Washington gimmick" to win votes, which it is and which Clinton's own campaign staff have admitted to, and in this way he has stayed committed to his promise of a different kind of Presidency. Not only is Clinton is on the wrong side of the issue, but I feel that her implicit attacks on intellectualism do far greater damage to our country.

Lo-Fi On MTV

2008-05-07T08:49:00.002-04:00

A Return to Payola?

2008-05-01T14:39:00.008-04:00

That's what this post, by Alex Tabarrok (associate professor of economics at George Mason University), seems to be implying. I came across this today while doing some research on music and copyright issues. Tabarrok's argument seems to be that payola is nothing more than payment for advertising (since playing a song from an album is just the same as a 30-second TV ad for that album), so there's no reason for it to be illegal.

Tabarrok seems to have missed the point entirely, and a quick Rock 'n' Roll history lesson would do him well. When this was an issue back in the '50s, radio DJs were very influential people. The were also very individualistic, bringing their own tastes and opinions about what they considered good music to the airwaves. DJs called the shots about what would be played and what wouldn't, and a DJ sunk or swam based on the kind of buzz s/he could generate with his/her play lists. In this context, it is quite scandalous to find out that record labels had been paying DJs to play certain songs.

Furthermore, radio stations were the method of distribution for new music back then. There was virtually no other way to hear about new music except on the radio. To allow labels to pay for their songs to be played would give monopolistic control to the highest bidder.

Yes, payment to a radio station to play a certain song isn't necessarily illegal, but the reason this is so is because stations must disclose such transactions to listeners. That's what makes all the difference -- listeners aren't being duped into believing that the DJ really digs the song s/he is playing and wants other people to hear it too.

But this really is a non-issue today, considering that radio stations employ computer generated play lists simulcast throughout all the parent company's radio stations. People don't really look to DJs anymore for what's new, interesting, or different in music. Moreover, the radio is no longer a leading medium in which music is distributed but is instead a competitor among many different mediums; therefore, it's influence is somewhat diminished.

More importantly, though, Tabarrok glosses over the other key criticism that still stings quite well in today's climate of ultra-consolidated media conglomerates. He characterizes the argument as, "big record companies would use their wealth to promote music that listeners would prefer less to what they would have heard without advertising." Not quite. The fear is not that big record companies would promote "music that listeners would prefer less," but that big record companies would have more power to promote their own catalog over those of smaller, independent labels who don't have quite as much capital to spend on this kind of "advertising." Payola, in this sense, would be rigging the playing field in favor of established labels with established money-making artists.

A further side-effect would be a chill in creativity and innovation. The major record labels don't like to take risks and will continually invest in the tried-and-true models. Major labels will let the independents take all the risks, and then sweep up the break-out bands that create new music trends. What we would have is a system in which the entrenched styles are promoted the most because the majors are antsy about taking risks, and the independents' abilities to produce and promote break-out bands would become diminished.

Brutalism Tape

2008-05-01T07:34:00.013-04:00

The time has come for the next edition in my series of themed muxtapes. For the second installment, I decided to create a theme based on sound rather than lyrics. This edition's theme will be one of brutality -- I've put together the most brutal, uncompromising, and relentless sonic waves of destruction that I've heard recently. Click the cassette to the right and enjoy the Brutalism tape!

The Nuns - Decadent Jew (S/T 7" EP)
DrunkDriver - Women (Born Pregnant LP)
The New Flesh - Hopeless (Parasite CD)
Clancy Six - Steps to the Body (S/T 7" EP)
Black Dice - Narcissus & Echo (Lamb 7" EP)
TV Ghost - The Mold (The Mold Demo)
Homostupids - Finger (Brutal Birthday 7" EP)
No Fucker - Conquer the Innocent (Conquer the Innocent 7" EP)
Clockcleaner - Missing Dick (Missing Dick 7" EP)
Jazkamer - Friends of Satan (Metal Music Machine LP)
Pissed Jeans - Fantasy World (Hope for Men LP)
Wolf Eyes - Noise Not Music (Human Animal LP)

[UPDATE]: I fixed the files that wouldn't upload, so the tape is complete. Notice removed.

We Begin Bombing In Five Minutes

2008-04-30T13:50:00.004-04:00

Erik Farseth's We Begin Bombing In Five Minutes came to my attention today. I've read through the introduction and am particularly interested in the conflict between these two quotes:

Fanzines were the blogs of the early 80's. Anything went with the zines; they not only covered music, there was a heavy dose of politics as well... They were truly independent and decentralized, in sharp contrast to the mainstream media I was used to.

--Krist Novoselic; Bassist, Nirvana

On the other hand, I don't think that blogs are zines. Because the thing about zines was that it was underground. You had to find out about it. And I remember, when I first discovered zines, it was like another world had opened up for me. When I was interviewing people about zines, they would use metaphors like Alice falling down the rabbit hole. And because of that, it had a whole other culture surrounding it, a system of signs and morays, which made sense... it had a sort of cultural coherence.

-- Stephen Duncombe; Professor, New York University

Of course, the rest of the subject matter also holds my interest -- the intersection of punk, DIY culture, and publishing. Recommended reading for today.

Yoko Ono Sues Producers of Expelled Movie

2008-04-25T12:33:00.007-04:00

I'm a bit late to this, but the Associated Press reported yesterday that Yoko Ono is suing the producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for the use of John Lennon's "Imagine." From the article:

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan, Ono accuses the producers of ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' of suggesting to viewers that those who guard John Lennon's legacy somehow authorized or sponsored the film.

[...]
Ono's lawsuit claims the producers did not ask for permission either because they knew they couldn't get it or because they did not want to pay for the rights. It objects to the way ''Imagine'' is listed in the film's credits, saying it suggested to members of the news media and others that the song's use had been approved.
''Internet 'bloggers' immediately began accusing Mrs. Lennon of 'selling out' by licensing the song to defendants,'' says the complaint, filed this week.

The producers have claimed fair use, but as has already been pointed out at Sivacracy, I think it's unlikely that that defense will hold up. I'm interested to see how this turn out, not only because I'd like for nothing else than the financial ruin of the producers of a film littered with distortions, misinformation, and lies, but also to see the ruling regarding fair use.

I think Ono has a strong case, as the producers of Expelled clearly fail on factor (1) on the US copyright website describing fair use. I also think that Ono could make a case regarding factor (4) considering the negative publicity she has received because of the song's appearance in Expelled.

This isn't the only copyright infringement that has gotten Expelled into hot water, either. As PZ Myers pointed out, several of the animations appear to be plagiarisms of existing cellular animations by XVIVO and PBS. I'm not so sure that the animations infringement claim is strong enough to provide a case for either XVIVO or PBS to file suit, but Ono's case is solid.

No God Tape

2008-04-18T08:24:00.004-04:00

I've decided that I will start putting up themed mix tapes on my muxtape page. The first in this series will be the No God Tape:

The Germs - No God (Lexicon Devil 7" EP)
Dead Kennedys - Religious Vomit (In God We Trust, Inc. 12" EP)
Minor Threat - Filler (Minor Threat 7" EP)
Heart Attack - God Is Dead (God Is Dead 7" EP)
Government Issue - Religious Rip Off (Legless Bull 7" EP)
Crass - So What? (The Feeding of the 5000 LP)
Rudimentary Peni - Sacrifice (Farce 7" EP)
Chaotic Dischord - Fuck Religion, Fuck Politics (Fuck Religion, Fuck Politics LP)
Subhumans - Religious Wars (Religious Wars 7" EP)
Icons of Filth - Onward Christian Soldiers (Onward Christian Soldiers LP)
Flux of Pink Indians - Is There Anybody There? (Strive to Survive LP)
Public Image Ltd. - Religion II (First Issue LP)

If anyone has any suggestions for the No God Tape, feel free to leave a comment.

For archival purposes, I'll post my first muxtape here:

Hair Police - Let's See Who's Here and Who's Not (Obedience Cuts LP)
Wolf Eyes - Human Animal (Human Animal LP)
Kilslug - Autopsy Performing (Necktie Party 7" EP)
Mentally Ill - Gacy's Place (Gacy's Place 7" EP)
Black Flag - Nervous Breakdown (Nervous Breakdown 7" EP)
The Germs - No God (Lexicon Devil 7" EP)
Homostupids - Wild Weekend (The Intern LP)
FNU Ronnies - Silver Bullet (Digital Release)
Sightings - Cuckoo (Sightings LP)
Boredoms - No Core Punk (Osorezan no Stooges Kyo LP)
Aa - Manshake (Aa LP)
Lightning Bolt - 30,000 Monkies (Wonderful Rainbow LP)

A Little End of the Week Fun

2008-04-17T12:30:00.005-04:00

These videos are awesome:

What's even more hilarious are all the comments that don't understand it's satire.

I Need That Record!

2008-04-16T15:09:00.003-04:00

More information here.

The Pay-Per-Play Scheme

2008-04-11T08:34:00.007-04:00

Something I forgot to mention in my previous post came back to me during a conversation on the train the other day. A friend of mine mentioned that Comcast wants to premiere new film releases by streaming them to subscribers on the day of release. This reminded me of some of the proposals of posters in the Quarter to Three forum thread that making video games a subscription service as a solution to large scale, peer-to-peer file sharing.

The pay-to-play scheme is a content provider's dream. Perhaps most importantly, it removes ownership completely from the consumer, and therefore, strikes out one of the content provider's greatest dislikes -- the doctrine of first sale. First sale doctrine stipulates that once a physical copy is sold that the consumer has the right to resell or give away that copy to another without compensating the content provider. First sale is a leak in the system for copyright holders. Pay-to-play schemes do this by not actually "selling" the consumer a physical product, but by instead "licensing" a copy for a one time use.

Computer software companies have been attacking the doctrine of first sale for some time now. According to the EULA (end user license agreement; that dialog box software users will check the "Yes, I agree" box without reading in order to install the software), computer software is not sold but licensed.

There have been differing court court decisions regarding first sale and software. In SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc., Adobe attempted to prevent Softman from reselling their bundled software programs separately; however, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the terms of the EULA did not apply because Softman had never agreed to them (Softman never ran the program -- installation is the only point in which the EULA is presented); therefore, Softman maintained the right of first sale because a physical copy of the software was sold in a single transaction. In Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc ., the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that Internet Gateway had forfeited its first sale rights by checking the "I agree" box.

The two previously mentioned cases appear to uphold the concept that software companies can force consumers to forfeit their right to first sale in order to install their software. But the issue is not so simple because other court cases contradict this opinion. Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus introduced the doctrine of first sale in 1908. In this case, the US Supreme Court ruled that the statute of the right to sell does not also grant the right to limit resale. Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell supported this decision and also added that simply calling a sale a license does not make it one.

While the Supreme Court decisions set the precedent of first sale doctrine, the previously mentioned lower court cases are challenging the established law. Specifically allowing software companies to force consumers into an EULA which takes away their consumer rights is only the first step towards a pay-to-play system.

Regarding the suggestions from Quarter to Three posters, the only conclusion I can draw is that many game developers and publishers would prefer this system. There are already precedents -- the most well-known being Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft is an MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role-playing game) which is subscription based. Players pay a monthly flat-fee in order to play the game. Players have accepted the idea that such games will be subscription based because the game requires the use of the company servers to play. Furthermore, the game is given constant attention by the company through the release of free updates, patches, and additional content to the game. But many of the Quarter to Three posters want to place all games into a subscription system, or even a pay-to-play system.

Some suggestions mimicked the MMORPG system of a monthly flat-fee. Others were for an hourly-rate, i.e., players would pay based on the number of hours logged into the game. This is basically pay-to-play lite, in that there is still an initial sale of software to the consumer, but that there will also be additional charges to play the game. The next step would be to "license" (for lack of a better term) software to consumers free of charge, but then charge the consumer for each time or for how long the game is played, or charge the consumer based on a subscription fee. This would be much like the arcades of the '70s and '80s. The end result would be that no players would actually own their games anymore.

Such systems would also require 24/7 internet connections, which means that all games would have to be played while the computer is online. Some posters pointed this out as a huge drawback that might cause many players who enjoy single-player games to object to purchasing any future games. Supporters of this system argue that it would be an effective way to combat PC game file sharing. The question is, then, would such a system do that?

If Vivendi Universal v. Jung says anything, the answer appears to be no. In this case, bnetd.org was an open-source software package reverse-engineered from Blizzard's battle.net service (Blizzard's online multiplayer service for its games using the company's servers). The software was licensed under the GNU General Public License, and provided an emulation of battle.net for players on their own privately run servers. Of note is the fact that bnetd.org circumvented Blizzard's online CD-key check, therefore allowing invalid CD-keys full access to the emulated multiplayer service. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that bnetd.org violated the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) by circumventing the copy-protection of Blizzard's games. Despite bnetd.org being shutdown (the website is now under Blizzard's control and redirects to battle.net), other services have popped up in locations that the DMCA does not have influence.

Just as I wrote before, someone will find a way to get around any copy-protection or DRM employed in digital media. The simple fact that in order for encrypted content to be useful for consumers is to hand them the information, decoder, and key will mean that all copy-protection and DRM will always fail at some point. There will never be a hack-proof system that also makes content useful to those who the content provider is trying to prevent certain access.

There are more important reasons than the fragility of such systems for why this is a bad idea. As I have outlined before, these pay-to-play schemes designed to prevent unauthorized copying will stifle creativity and innovation. Users will no longer have access to the content in the same way they would by owning a physical copy. They will be unable to interact with the content to alter or improve upon it. Such limited access cuts a people off from their culture.

Just as the Quarter to Three posters advocate a system of pay-per-play for video games, we see the first steps towards that system with film. Comcast's move to stream new film releases could be the first step in streaming all films in the future. We already have streaming films for a fee via various On Demand services. Adding new releases to the rooster could give the film industry reason to slow, or even halt, DVD/Blu-Ray releases as some point in the future. I don't think it's that much of a stretch.

PC Gaming and File-Sharing

2008-04-09T14:12:00.008-04:00

I've written before about my opinion on copyright issues, usually specifically regarding music, but I haven't said much about copyright, piracy, and PC video games.

Over the weekend I bought the game Sins of a Solar Empire, a 4x (explore, expand, exploit, exterminate) real-time strategy game in which players create and manage a fleet of spacecraft and conquer different worlds within the galaxy. I went over the the Sins of a Solar Empire forums to get some starting pointers from more experienced gamers and I found this post, which points towards this post by Brad Wardell, President and CEO of Stardock Entertainment (publisher of Sins of a Solar Empire).

Wardell begins by acknowledging the existence of piracy in the PC game market, but dismisses any further discussion on that problem specifically. Instead, he gives a very intelligent insight:

When you blame piracy for disappointing sales, you tend to tar the entire market with a broad brush. Piracy isn't evenly distributed in the PC gaming market. And there are far more effective ways of getting people who might buy your product to buy it without inconveniencing them.

Blaming piracy is easy. But it hides other underlying causes. When Sins popped up as the #1 best selling game at retail a couple weeks ago, a game that has no copy protect whatsoever, that should tell you that piracy is not the primary issue.

In the end, the pirates hurt themselves. PC game developers will either slowly migrate to making games that cater to the people who buy PC games or they'll move to platforms where people are more inclined to buy games.

In the meantime, if you want to make profitable PC games, I'd recommend focusing more effort on satisfying the people willing to spend money on your product and less effort on making what others perceive as hot. But then again, I don't romanticize PC game development. I just want to play cool games and make a profit on games that I work on. [my emphasis in bold]

Sins of a Solar Empire is a game that shipped without any copy-protection at all, but despite this the game was the #2 top selling PC game of all February 2008 releases. Kieron Gillen makes the observation at Rock, Paper, Shotgun that Sins of a Solar Empire is one of the least leeched torrents on Mininova, the largest torrent site on the internet. The point that Wardell is getting at is that game developers should concentrate on the consumer market for games, not the user market -- i.e., make games for buyers, not players.

I don't disagree with Wardell's recommendation, and it's largely because the gaming market is very different from the music market. While research has shown that those who share music files are also the music industry's best costumers, I haven't seen any data to show that those who share PC games are also the gaming industry's best costumers. For example, it was revealed by Infinity Ward that a staggering percentage of online players for Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare were playing on cracked/pirated copies of the game. Call of Duty has also been one of the top selling PC games since its release.

Of course, all of this is anecdotal evidence, and I know of no such comprehensive analysis of whether or not PC game file-sharing has affected PC game sales. It's difficult to draw any kind of conclusion with the available data, but what we can see is that sharing music and sharing games are two different beasts.

All of this led me to this forum thread at Quarter to Three, in which Michael Fitch, Creative Director of THQ, offered some commentary about the February closing of Iron Lore Entertainment. Fitch immediately assumes that piracy equals lost sales, though I'm not convinced. I'll get to that later, but suffice it to say that Fitch throws this claim out without elaborating. Here's the take home message of his post:

One, there are other costs to piracy than just lost sales. For example, with TQ, the game was pirated and released on the nets before it hit stores. It was a fairly quick-and-dirty crack job, and in fact, it missed a lot of the copy-protection that was in the game. One of the copy-protection routines was keyed off the quest system, for example. You could start the game just fine, but when the quest triggered, it would do a security check, and dump you out if you had a pirated copy. There was another one in the streaming routine. So, it's a couple of days before release, and I start seeing people on the forums complaining about how buggy the game is, how it crashes all the time. A lot of people are talking about how it crashes right when you come out of the first cave. Yeah, that's right. There was a security check there.

So, before the game even comes out, we've got people bad-mouthing it because their pirated copies crash, even though a legitimate copy won't. We took a lot of shit on this, completely undeserved mind you. How many people decided to pick up the pirated version because it had this reputation and they didn't want to risk buying something that didn't work? Talk about your self-fulfilling prophecy.

Discussing file-sharing can be tricky, because it's easy to get backed into a corner of defending theft. That's what happened later in the thread, as poster SirBruce boxed himself in. Ultimately, theft is not the issue, but the copy-protection schemes implemented by developers. Fitch's statement quoted above makes it very clear that the copy-protection scheme used caused a negative side-effect (whether warranted or not) of giving the game a poor reputation. Several posters in the thread hit on this point, and several others seemed to think that solution is more DRM and copy-protection. I'll make my case why this is an incorrect solution.

First, I want to argue from a practical standpoint. I'll need to lay out a quick-and-dry explanation of encryption history to get started. Afterall, that's what copy-protection is -- encryption.

Encryption systems go back a long time in human history. Encryption is used to protect information from being interpreted by people whom the author of the information does not want to give access. For example, say we have two warring nations. The king of Nation A wants to send a surprise attack order out to his/her generals in the field. Obviously, it would not be desirable if this information were to fall into enemy hands -- if Nation B were to get a hold of the message, the attack could be thwarted. So Nation A employs an encryption method -- the message is encrypted and the only way to read the message is to have both a decoder and a key. When the messenger is sent out of the castle gates, s/he is only given the message. Those in command positions will already possess the decoder and key. This makes the information within a closed system -- if Nation B were to intercept the messenger, they would have no way to read the message at all.

But modern digital encryption is quite different. Content producers encrypt their information to prevent unwanted copying; however, all this is for naught. In order for the consumer to be able to use the content, content producers have to provide not only the information but the decoder as well as the key! Using my example above, it is as if Nation A has sent the messenger out with all the necessary components -- message, decoder, and key. In the event of a Nation B interception, the information would surely be in enemy hands.

This is why copy-protection and DRM (Digital Rights Management) will always fail. There is no way to provide useful encrypted content to consumers without also giving consumers the tools to decode and interpret that content. Siva Vaidhyanathan's Copyrights and Copywrongs and Anarchist in the Library discuss this concept at length.

My point is that no matter what type of copy-protection is used, someone will always hack it. Implementing these copy-protection schemes only serve to inconvenience legitimate customers -- i.e., the people who have actually payed for the game. Shitting on your consumer base is never a good idea.

I can relate my own experience with overbearing copy-protection. When I attempted to install my legally purchased copy of BioShock, everything went fine at first. But when I attempted to activate my game through the online activation process, the program was unable to read my disc. I had to contact SecuROM, the company who authored BioShock's copy-protection, to figure out the problem. Eventually, I was forced to manually activate the game through a website they created because of issues like mine. It took days for SecuROM to get back to me. I had even further problems after I updated my computer and had to reinstall the game. This time, the copy-protection was causing some strange problem with my DVD drive -- basically, it didn't like the firmware and refused to read my disc. I am forced to run the game on my other DVD drive (good thing I have two). Again, the point here is that a legitimate customer is being inconvenienced, while at the same time the copy-protection hasn't done anything to stop file-sharing of the game.

The Titan Quest example is different, though, and thus failed for different reasons. The copy-protection implemented made the game appear to crash randomly, which caused the game to earn a reputation as buggy. It was argued that this was not to tip off the hackers about the copy-protection throughout the game; however, it had the effect of bad publicity. In the process of attempting to circumvent hackers, the developers instead turned away likely legitimate customers.

Second, I want to argue this from an ideological standpoint. The idea here is that these types of copy-protection and DRM schemes will do a disservice to innovation and creativity. As Vaidhyanathan also argues, excessive copyright protection in addition to technological quick-fixes will only hamper the people's ability to interact with culture.

Yes, software development is a part of culture. Putting up walls and protecting this information means that interested parties cannot use it for further derivative and transgressive works. I've seen how game developers and publishers will clamp down on modders who alter a game's code to make something different for non-commercial use. There is a much more protectionist attitude in the gaming industry than in music, to bring back my earlier comparison, in that music is more lenient about sharing and reusing information (though, now their are significant licensing fees for samples; see Copyrights and Copywrongs for more on this subject), but that is really for another post. My point in mentioning this here is that games are very protected pieces of culture. People enjoy culture because it is an interactive experience, and so, people will do what they can in order to interact with the culture they enjoy.

Furthermore, we are a democratic society. We should embody and encourage the values of democracy, which includes the free-flow of information. I am not against compensating the developers for their hard work; however, that compensation should only go so far. As with music, these works should eventually fall into the public domain. And considering the incredibly high rate of change within the gaming industry, the current model for copyright extension does not seem appropriate. I'll reference Vaidhyanathan again, as his books offer a unique analysis of copyright law and its effect on creativity and innovation.

Admittedly, this does not directly apply to the situation I've been discussing within this post. However, I add it because many of the posters within the Quarter to Three forum advocate more draconian measures to clamp down on unauthorized copying, while also neglecting to consider the real-world consequences that would have on a culture of open, distributed computer systems. Such measures are likely to increase the barriers to entry of the gaming industry for small, interested individuals. We have seen how such copy-protection has served previous industries, and we can see it in music today -- existing copyright law entrenches established artists while punishing emerging artists.

Finally, I wanted to comment on Fitch's statement that piracy equals lost sales. I'm not convinced of this because it has not been demonstrated that those who have participated in the file-sharing of PC games were likely to purchase the game at all. In fact, Russell Caroll investigated this regarding the casual game genre -- games like Bejeweled and Diner Dash. What he found was that for every 1000 pirated copies thwarted, they only gained one sale. The take-away here is that most people who download games were not going to purchase those games anyway.

This brings us back to the main topic of my post -- that game developers should take Wardell's recommendation to concentrate on making games for those who buy them, not just those who play them. It's a much better solution to the piracy problem than increased consumer inconvenience via draconian copy-protection that can easily be bypassed. Moreover, without the existing protectionist attitude it's likely we'd see more innovation and creativity in gaming titles, because the information to make those games would be available for others to comment on and improve upon.

The Media Have Failed Us

2008-04-07T10:58:00.005-04:00

Required reading from Greg Greenwald:

In the past two weeks, the following events transpired. A Department of Justice memo, authored by John Yoo, was released which authorized torture and presidential lawbreaking. It was revealed that the Bush administration declared the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to be inapplicable to "domestic military operations" within the U.S. The U.S. Attorney General appears to have fabricated a key event leading to the 9/11 attacks and made patently false statements about surveillance laws and related lawsuits. Barack Obama went bowling in Pennsylvania and had a low score.
Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:

"Yoo and torture" - 102

"Mukasey and 9/11" -- 73

"Yoo and Fourth Amendment" -- 16

"Obama and bowling" -- 1,043

"Obama and Wright" -- More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)

"Obama and patriotism" - 1,607

"Clinton and Lewinsky" -- 1,079

There's another angle of critique that Greenwald neglects -- it's not just rampant narcissism on part of journalists, but the culture of corporate media.

Journalists are expected to contribute to the bottom line, i.e., turn a profit for the parent company. I wrote earlier about a survey which found that 91% of newspaper, magazine, TV, radio, and online journalists believed their top priority to be to "make [his/her] publication successful by creating appealing content for its audiences." Journalists have internalized the values of their owning corporation in lieu of their commitment, their civic duty, to provide to the public the necessary information to protect our democratic values and form of governance.

So, it's no wonder that the media have largely ignored the Department of Justice memo and neglected to cover of the occupation of Iraq more thoroughly as of late -- journalists think, for their own self-serving interests, that trivial matters like Obama's bowling score are more important to the American people than attacks on American civil rights and liberties.

The New Sound Is Robot Music

2008-04-04T13:06:00.005-04:00

I posted earlier this week about an article in Word Magazine and promised some follow-up commentary. The Word Magazine article shed some light onto the other factors, besides the loudness war, that are effecting the way that music is recorded nowadays. I was particularly interested in the the discussion about the practice of cutting and pasting track clips instead of recording a track in one take, as well as the use of Auto Tune.

What does this mean? No mistakes. No variation. No style, period. How can I tell the difference between two guitarists if both are picking the best played riff of their track and looping it throughout the song? Where are the quirks, or slight variations to distance musicians' sound from one another? And with Auto Tune, I'm guaranteed a pitch-perfect sound. This program removes the human-factor in live recordings. I might as well be listening to a sampling machine; musicians might as well just program their songs into Pro Tools. What's the point of a live recording?

I see this new trend of recording, mixing, and mastering as removing the musicians from the picture. The only thing keeping them there, as of now, is the live performance. If fans didn't continue going to live shows there'd be no reason to keep the flesh and blood around. Musicians would be programmers, and fans wouldn't know the difference because they'd just be downloading the music from iTunes to be the soundtrack of their morning commute.

And with this new robotic method of producing records we have the loudness war. Doesn't seem like much of a war to me, though, as pretty much all the mainstream acts and labels are going this way. I mean, who's fighting this at the top? So it's really the loudness trend, since there are no signs of it slowing. In doing further research, I came across this blog post that chronicles the change in sound of Rush records over the years.

A long and informative commentary, especially near the middle of the post where the author makes an excellent point through use of example. The point the author is highlighting is one that has been stated numerous times in the past -- that by increasing the volume, listeners will being to fatigue. That's exactly what happens when, as in the post's example, a reader is subjected to large, bold text in all caps for an extended period of time. The writing is devoid of any form of dynamics, just as the heavily compressed audio file is stripped of all of its dynamics. Too much of this and the brain is unable to process the sounds -- there's nothing left of make any of the sounds distinct.

The music industry only appears to be interested in continuing this trend. Mainstream records are increasingly unlistenable, aside from the actual music, because of the way the sounds are recorded, mixed, and mastered.

Music is no longer something that is listened to alone. That is to say, music is background sounds for many people. People listen to their iPods while commuting to work, walking the street, or exercising. People listen to music more in the cars than at home. The point is that the act of listening is not the primary action taking place -- it is secondary to the other things that people are focusing on.

Not only that, but music now has many more forms of entertainment media to compete with than in years past. Cable/satellite television, streaming internet media, video games, and DVDs are only a few of the new entertainment media that music must compete with for the attention of its listeners. The industry has deemed it necessary to make records louder in order to be heard over all the other noises vying for our attention. This is why I don't think we're going to see dynamics brought back into mainstream recordings.

Fidelity is dead.

Muxtape

2008-04-03T20:59:00.005-04:00

I opened a Muxtape account today -- the link (http://illegalyouth.muxtape.com/) will have a permanent place on my sidebar. I'll change my "online tape" from time to time (hopefully, at least once a week), so anyone who's interested in what I'm listening to should check back often.

Program to Check for Bit Torrent Throttling

2008-04-02T11:21:00.005-04:00

Torrent Freak reports that some new software, Gemini, will allow users to find out whether or not his/her ISP is throttling his/her internet connection when using peer-to-peer applications.

This comes a little late for me because I had already discovered what Comcast is up to months ago, and I've since switched to Verizon. I've been very happy since -- Verizon's internet connection is much faster than Comcast (I'm getting upwards of 50 times my previous download speed and about 15 times my previous upload speed), and I have not experienced any throttling issues. Still, this could still be useful in the future in case Verizon goes the way of scamming users.

It's just too bad that Verizon wasn't available in my area when OiNK was still around.

Obama On the Issues

2008-04-01T09:46:00.006-04:00

Via Raw Story:

Do All New Mainstream Records Sound Alike?

2008-03-31T14:55:00.003-04:00

Yes, according to this Word Magazine article:

No, it’s not you – records do all sound the same these days. Desperate to get their music on the radio at all costs, record labels are employing a new and powerful software to artificially sweeten it, polish it, make it “louder”… and squeeze out the last drops of its individuality.

[...]

When you turn on the radio, you might think music all sounds the same these days, then wonder if you’re just getting old. But you’re right, it does all sound the same. Every element of the recording process, from the first takes to the final tweaks, has been evolved with one simple aim: control. And that control often lies in the hands of a record company desperate to get their song on the radio. So they’ll encourage a controlled recording environment (slow, high-tech and using malleable digital effects). Every finished track is then coated in a thick layer of audio polish before being market-tested and despatched to a radio station, where further layers of polish are applied until the original recording is barely visible. That’s how you make a mainstream radio hit, and that’s what record labels want.

I'll post some further thoughts on this when I have more time later in the week.

Land of the Free? Not If You Have Nipple Rings

2008-03-28T13:25:00.005-04:00

I just read this:

A Texas woman who claims she was forced to remove a nipple ring with pliers in order to board an airplane called Thursday for an apology by federal security agents and a civil rights investigation.

[...]

Hamlin said she was trying to board a flight from Lubbock to Dallas on Feb. 24 when she was scanned by a Transportation Security Administration agent after passing through a larger metal detector without problems.

The female TSA agent used a handheld detector that beeped when it passed in front of Hamlin's chest, the Dallas-area resident said.

Hamlin said she told the woman that she was wearing nipple piercings. The female agent then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the body piercings, Hamlin claimed.

Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked if she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was removed, she said.

[...]

"Still crying, she informed the TSA officer that she could not remove it without the help of pliers, and the officer gave a pair to her," said Hamlin's attorney, Gloria Allred, reading from a letter she sent Thursday to the director of the TSA's Office of Civil Rights and Liberties. Allred is a well-known Los Angeles lawyer who often represents high-profile claims.

[...]

She said she heard male TSA agents snickering as she took out the ring.

And here's the kicker:

She was scanned again and was allowed to board even though she still was wearing a belly button ring.

She was allowed through with a belly button ring, but not nipple rings? That's blatant evidence of reckless abuse of power by TSA.

Looking more into this story, I came across a BoingBoing post with a comment that directed readers to this site -- quote possibly the most unjust turn of events I have read in my life. It's so surreal that you'll think you're reading Kafka.

This Could Have Been A MadTV Sketch

2008-03-28T12:04:00.006-04:00

Journalism In Trouble

2008-03-28T11:30:00.007-04:00

Editor & Publisher reports on the 2008 PR Week/PR Newswire Media Survey. The most troubling part about the survey is this finding:

When asked to identify the most important aspect of their work, 91% of respondents say "make my publication successful by creating appealing content for its audiences" -- ahead of "educate and inform the masses," "break news," and "chronicle events as they happen." This finding, says the survey, suggests a significant level of commercial awareness on the part of journalists.

As Network predicted, Neil Postman warned, and Robert McChesney and John Nichols have identified, there are problems with corporate media -- chief among them being valuing the bottom-line over the free-flow of information to inform a democratic public.

The fact that 91% of respondents are more interested in making his/her respective publication successful rather than informative is depressing.

Further Details on the Clinton/Scaife Meeting

2008-03-28T09:58:00.003-04:00

Talking Points Memo has more on the Clinton/Scaife meeting, suggesting that Clinton is taking part in the Right-wing smear against Obama about the Jeremiah Wright "controversy":

As you know, earlier today Hillary Clinton tried to stoke the Jeremiah Wright controversy by telling an editorial board meeting in Pittsburgh that Jeremiah Wright "would not have been my pastor" and then going on to note that she had denounced Don Imus in contrast to Obama's allegedly more tolerant attitude toward hate speech.

Later in the afternoon she repeated the same comments at a press conference and when asked why she had chosen to engage Obama on the Wright controversy she seemed to suggest that rather than being intentional she was only providing an answer to a direct question. "Well I answered a question in an ed board today that was very specific about what I would have done," Clinton told the reporter, "And you know I'm just speaking for myself, and i was answering a question that was posed to me."

Video Games, Violence, Rating Systems, and Warning Labels

2008-03-27T14:54:00.008-04:00

A couple of years ago I bought the game The Suffering: The Ties That Bind for my wife. She's a big fan of the survival horror genre, and especially likes to watch all the gory, violent details animated on screen. Unlike the first game in the series, this one failed to hold my interest long. I still haven't finished it. I relay this information because of the circumstances around which I was subjected to when I bought the game at Best Buy -- I was carded.

"Whaaaa??" you may be thinking. That's right -- I was carded to buy a video game. It was strange, and the clerk even said that he thought it stupid but had to ask because of an overzealous, hovering boss. With its "M" rating, Best Buy needed to be sure that I was at least 17 to sell me the game. I didn't bother to protest it because I was in a hurry, but I still cannot think of any legal basis that Best Buy could deny someone the sale of a game based on the buyer's age. Unless...

Video games will be forced to carry cigarette-style health warnings under proposals to protect children from unsuitable digital material.

The report, commissioned by the Prime Minister in response to a growing moral panic about video games, will conclude that they can harm the development of children’s beliefs and value systems and desensitise them to violence. It will also recommend that retailers who sell video games to anyone under the age rating on the box should face a hefty fine or up to five years in prison. [emphasis mine]

I read the above in The London Times today. What the hell is this crap? I realize this is being proposed for the UK, and I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure exactly how the UK operates regarding the policing of its cultural content. Despite this, I'm going to argue from an American point of view.

Last I checked, there's no such warning on movies, books, or other content. What makes video games so special that they need to be singled out? Cultural conservatives have been claiming for decades that violent and sexual content is harmful to children; however, they are yet to provide any supporting evidence. To the contrary, there is little-to-no evidence linking violence in video games to violent behavior:

Perhaps most tellingly, video game critics fail to show where, exactly, the real-world evidence of harm lies. Assuming that teens are being exposed to bad language and animated violence, so what? Daily teen life involves some profanity, adult themes, and violent entertainment. Has the sexual material resulted in an increase in teen sex? No; the National Center for Health Statistics reported last year that fewer teens are engaging in sexual activity than in the past, and the rate dropped significantly between 1995 and 2002.
Has the video violence resulted in an increase in violent crime? No; on Oct. 17, 2005, the FBI released figures showing that the U.S. violent crime rate declined again last year. In fact, violent crime has dropped significantly over the past twenty years— just as video games have become more violent. The NIMF and Senator Lieberman even decried "graphic scenes of cannibalism" in video games.

Should America brace itself for a rise in teen cannibalism? Violent video games have been around since 1991, yet clear evidence of any harm has yet to emerge.

This line within the Times article is revealing about the true motives of the report's author, Tanya Byron, "[video games] can harm the development of children’s beliefs and value systems and desensitise them to violence" [emphasis mine].

Just exactly what "beliefs" and "value systems" are being harmed, and in what way? I'll hedge a bet that Byron never examines this question, and it's likely that her report is based on assumptions about what are the "proper" "beliefs" and "value systems" that children should be developing. In the end, the report appears to be endorsing censorship of ideas that the author does not like. This report's premise has also been brought into question before the study even began.

Finally, I'll just add that adding a "cigarette-style health warning" is a seriously bad idea. There's no evidence that there's any health risk to playing video games (and there's even evidence that some types of games are actually good for your health), while the evidence that there's a health risk associated with tobacco products is overwhelming. Drawing a comparison like this only serves to raise pseudoscience up while devaluing real science at the same time.

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

2008-03-26T12:20:00.003-04:00

My wife sent me this link today, about the familial connection between Angelina Jolie and Hillary Clinton, as well as the connection between Brad Pitt and Barack Obama.

Jolie and Clinton are ninth cousins, twice removed, while Pitt and Obama are ninth cousins, according to a genealogical study conducted over the last three years.
In addition to her kinship with Jolie, Clinton is also related to Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette, researchers found. Other cousins include Camilla Parker Bowles and Jack Kerouac.
Obama, on the other hand, shares his ancestry with six U.S. presidents, including current commander in chief, George W. Bush, and his father, George H.W. Bush.
Other far-reaching Obama relations include Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman and James Madison, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney and Sir Winston Churchill.
[...]

[John McCain] was found to be a sixth cousin to first lady Laura Bush.

Strange, isn't it, that almost every presidential election cycle in recent memory has some article about the familial connections between politicians and other politicians and/or celebrities. Isn't this only more evidence that our entire mainstream political and cultural structures are run by a perpetuating elite few?

Clinton Meets with Scaife

2008-03-26T10:50:00.004-04:00

As has already been pointed out by Atrios over at Eschaton:

First Clinton allows Rupert Murdoch, Chair and CEO of News Corp., to host a fundraiser for her campaign, now this.

A Video Game Console History

2008-03-25T14:29:00.006-04:00

There's a seemingly complete list of video game consoles on the internet now. The consoles that I have had that are also listed:

(Although, we actually had an Atari 600; this is the closest to that which is on the list.)

(Rented when the system first came out, though, we didn't end up getting one to keep.)

A very Nintendo-heavy list and increasingly more PlayStation-friendly. But the list was missing this one, the Texas Instruments TI-99/4A, which was more of a home computer than a straight game console (as was our Atari 600). We did play a lot of games on that system, especially the cassette-based text-adventure games. My Dad also says that he's got an old Magnavox Odyssey -- he claims that it played only two games so it was probably this one:

He also modded the system to remove the built-in controllers to make them portable, connected to the system with 1/4" jacks.

Top 100 Albums of the '80s

2008-03-18T09:03:00.026-04:00

I was looking around for Boredoms' lyrics this morning and I came across this link in the Boredoms Soul Discharge wiki for Pitchfork's Top 100 Albums of the 1980s. Scanning though, there are a number of my favorite albums represented here. By the way, Soul Discharge comes in at 89:

Boredoms' first full-length gave adventurous listeners something disturbing and more than a little stupid to chew on, but Soul Discharge was arguably their greatest early example of their thrilling widescreen outbursts. They played Sabbath riffs over ramshackle, caveman Japanese Court beats; they managed to mangle even the most rudimentary garage pound, creating a soundtrack for scat-porn toons and destroying cats; and, of course, they managed to provide a lifetime of jams at a fraction of the sanity.

This is one of my favorite records -- "Bubblebop Shot" is simply awesome. Strange, fast, punk, noise, and off-the-wall crazy, this song will leave a weird feeling inside your ears.

At top 100 spot is Minor Threat's Out of Step EP. A great record; however, I still like their first 7" EP, Minor Threat, better. Eight songs of punch-you-in-the-face awesomeness, clocking in at just over nine minutes. The Out of Step EP has a different production sound than their early records, which sound more raw.

At number 54 is Big Black's Songs About Fucking. One of the records that started me down the road of noisy rock, this is one that I'll still put on every once in awhile. Though I think that vocalist/guitarist Steve Albini's other project from the '80s, Rapeman, was better, especially the Budd EP.

Mission of Burma's Signals, Calls, & Marches comes in at 53. This is record that I've been trying to get a copy of for quite a while. Everyone tells me that I'd really like it...

Hüsker Dü's Zen Arcade gets the number 32 spot on the list. I didn't really like this record much the first time I heard it; however, letting it sit for a while and coming back put the record in a new perspective. Zen Arcade is good, but Land Speed Record is by far my favorite Hüsker Dü album. Despite it being live, I think this record captures the intensity and rawness of the band much better than any of their studio albums. And "Data Control" is just plain awesome.

Coming in at number 25 we have Black Flag's Damaged. While I generally dislike Henry Rollins' vocals (Keith Morrison's vocals for the Nervous Breakdown EP captured what I feel is the band's signature sound; the title track is one of those songs that you can listen to over and over again), for Damaged they work surprisingly well.

That's about it for some of my favorite records making the list -- there are other bands on the list I like; however, Pitchfork chose records that aren't really my favorites. Of all the Sonic Youth that made the list, Pitchfork left off Bad Moon Rising. There's also a lot of Pixies records on the list; while I used to like that band much more when I was younger, I haven't listened to them in years. Only a few songs by them can be recalled from my memory. Other bands on the list that I've been meaning to listen to more of are The Fall, The Jesus & Mary Chain, Public Image Ltd., and Minutemen. PiL's First Edition is amazing -- "Theme" is a prefect record opener, and Lydon's lyrics for "Religion" (I & II) are a penetrating stab against that social malignancy akin to the Crass song "Asylum." But I still need to check out PiL's Metal Box, or Second Edition as it is also known.

Faithful Blinded While Looking for Vision of the Virgin Mary

2008-03-14T16:22:00.004-04:00

Is this ironic, or what?

Reports in India of a miraculous image of the Virgin Mary in the sky have led about 50 people to blind themselves by staring at the sun.

The blindly-faithful have literally blinded themselves looking for a vision of the virgin Mary. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up!

Fuck You, Mr. President.

2008-03-12T12:19:00.003-04:00

Fuck you.