The Ultimate In CwF: How Lovers Of Stardew Valley Fought Piracy By Buying The Game For Pirates

from the yarrr dept

Our advocating for the Connecting with Fans and giving them a Reason to Buy equation (CwF+RtB) being a solution to piracy has become something of a mantra for us here at Techdirt. And we've seen an absolute ton of success stories of people implementing some version of it. But, really, if you want a recent story of a creator going about this in a way that appears to hit every single note just about perfectly, you need only look toward the latest PC gaming hit: Stardew Valley.

Some brief background is in order. Stardew Valley is an indie game that combines a quaint and quirky farming mechanic, crafting mechanics and a social setting with non-player characters. It has cutesy graphics and is reportedly addictive at opiate levels. And, to the astonishment of many who have played the game, it was created by a single developer over a number of years. That creator, who goes by the Twitter handle @ConcernedApe, has built an ingratiating reputation for interacting with fans of the game, providing personal support and advice for players via Twitter, constantly updating the game and updating gamers with upcoming plans for the game, and generally being about as awesome in interacting with customers as a developer could possibly be. ConcernedApe's Twitter feed is littered with people's thanks and requests for help, much of which is directly acknowledged by ConcernedApe. In other words, this is as CwF-y as it gets. But do people feel that they also have a RtB?

With any PC game, one expects a certain amount of piracy. Gaming websites have noted that Stardew Valley certainly has been pirated, though they also remark on the particular levels of guilt and after-pirating purchasing that seems to be occurring with those who have. But, more recently, some gaming sites have also noticed several Reddit threads in which people are requesting help in pirating the game, and being greeted instead by fans who are purchasing and gifting the game to them instead.

And it goes on, and on, and on, and on. Several other Reddit threads picked up this theme as well, with grateful and happy Stardew Valley gamers essentially attempting to cancel out as much of the piracy of the game as they could by buying extra copies and sending them to the pirates who might or might not have ever bought the game themselves. That's not just RtB. It's Rtb+b+b+b.

And that's the true power of connecting with fans and providing them with both a solid product and a level of respect and congeniality that is far too lacking these days. Forget about having to worry or combat piracy as a creator; treat your fans well and they might just go ahead and do it for you. And in a way that puts a few more bucks in your pocket to boot. Perhaps this ape need not be so concerned.

Filed Under: cwf, piracy, stardew valley, video games

Head Of British Rights Group: Piracy Is Google's Fault Even If It's Not Actually Google's Fault

from the you-shall-know-the-truth-and-the-truth-shall-make-you-unintelligible dept

As the DMCA heads towards possible reform, critics on both sides have been airing their complaints with the current system. For far too many people, though, the problem is apparently Google, rather than the law or the DMCA process itself. Rights holder groups have been especially vocal about Google's supposed participation in copyright infringement, despite the fact it processes tens of millions of DMCA takedown notices every day.

This is a lot of work and it's being done by Google to handle DMCA complaints about content it's not even hosting. To make rights holders happy (except that many of them are not), Google delists millions of URLs every day. It also vets each DMCA notice to make sure the URLs should actually be delisted. The rise of bot-generated DMCA takedown notices has increased the workload as well as the likelihood of error. It's an ugly process all around and the law itself is in need of some serious repairs.

But Google is the villain. Even when it points out its tenuous "connection" to pirated content, rights holders (or at least their reps) are having none of it. Ben Challis at the 1709 Blog points out that a British rights holder group is still mistaking "Google" for "sites actually hosting infringing content."

Across the pond over the Easter weekend, the UK’s BPI issued its 200 millionth take down request to Google – every one, it says, targeting a searchable link which infringed on an owned copyright. As a result, BPI CEO Geoff Taylor publicly called on Google to change its infringement policy to ‘notice and stay down’; effectively ensuring that any infringing link removed from Google’s search results doesn’t then creep its way back online.

There are multiple reasons notice and stay down won't work, and this number increases when you ask a third party to somehow prevent the rehosting of infringing content at sites it can't control. The people who believe "Google" and "The Internet" are interchangeable words see no problem with ordering a search engine to somehow determine the legality of content stored at sites it has no involvement with other than indexing it for search results.

But heads of rights groups insist this is a Google problem, even when Google's "contribution" to online piracy is only a very small part of the whole.

Google responded by telling MBW that it had already tweaked its algorithm to demote infringing sites, and that it had actually reviewed more than 80m links to pirated content in the past month alone. Google then added “Search is not the primary problem – all traffic from major search engines accounts for less than 16% of traffic to sites like The Pirate Bay...”

As has often been noted, Googling for infringing content is actually an outlier activity. There are far more efficient ways to find infringing content than going through the world's largest search engine. (Also: Google says "all major search engines," which is far more generous to the also-rans than rights holder groups. Google is targeted in 99.8% of DMCA takedown requests, according to numbers pulled from the Lumen database. Other search engines -- despite crawling the same 'net territory -- see far fewer DMCA notices and have done far less to tailor search results to please entities like the RIAA, MPAA, etc.)

But the head of BPI -- Geoff Taylor -- won't be easily dissuaded by logic or facts. It's all Google's fault.

“It is disappointing that Google continues to downplay the role its search engine plays in guiding millions of consumers to illegal sites."

Taylor then goes on to ask why Google is spending more time developing driverless cars than giving BPI the version of The Internet it desires.

A company that can 3D map the world and create driverless cars could easily apply its incredible resources to present search users with genuine sites like Apple Music or Spotify, instead of illegal sites like“free-MP3-music.download” – the very first result when I searched today for ‘Zayn download’.

ALL GOOGLE'S FAULT.

Maybe Taylor should try another search engine. Google's obviously the "piracy" search engine. Let's check Bing.


Three of the first five results appear to lead to infringing content. I guess that's better than Google.

How about Yahoo?


Huh. iTunes doesn't even appear until the fourth listing, behind three shadier links.

Meanwhile, Google's search results are roughly on par with the other two search engines, but also adds links up top to four legitimate streaming sites -- including Spotify, like the BPI head suggested. Even if you believe YouTube is just another word for nothing left to infringe, the link provided takes you to Zayn Malik's official YouTube channel.


Now, BPI may feel no one uses those other search engines, so they're not worthy of attention. But by ignoring them, he's overlooking the fact that other search engines are no better at filtering out "pirate" links than Google, but somehow it's always Google that needs to do better or face severe consequences, as Taylor suggests here.

The [UK] Government has tried to facilitate a cooperative solution but it’s becoming clear after years of voluntary talks that stronger Government action will be needed to fulfil its manifesto commitment to tackle this problem.

Like far too many misguided litigants, Taylor wants to hold the biggest, easiest-to-reach target accountable for the actions of other sites -- and the users who have actually made infringing content available. Google is at least twice-removed from the actual infringement and -- despite reviewing millions of takedown notices every day -- is still the target of legacy industry groups and rights holder associations like BPI.

Filed Under: dmca, piracy, uk
Companies: google

Anti-Piracy Informant Who Thought He Was A Paid Informant Sues Adobe For Not Paying Him

from the WE-RAT-ECONO dept

An interesting case has been brought to our attention by Eric Goldman. What happens when someone takes it upon themselves to play IP Policeman for a large corporation? The plaintiff in this case, David Heller, uncovered piracy of Adobe products in Florida (referred to in the opinion as the baseball-esque "Florida Pirates"). He brought this information to Adobe's attention. Adobe was pleased. So was Heller… at least for a little while.

The problem seems to be that Heller felt he should have been paid for his investigative efforts while Adobe felt he should have been satisfied with being a Good Citizen.

Shortly after publishing his discovery on his personal blog, Heller was contacted by Adobe's outside counsel, David Pham. A meeting between Heller and Adobe reps was set up.

The meeting included Pham, Heller, and other individuals from Adobe and Pham’s firm. Heller requested that Adobe provide him with physical protection and compensation for the additional information he was prepared to provide Adobe. An Adobe employee, Michael Draper, agreed. Heller provided the information to Adobe.

Adobe took the information Heller gave them and sued the Florida Pirates. A settlement was obtained (the opinion provides no further details on this). Everyone got paid but Heller.

So, Heller sued Adobe, claiming at least $75,000 was owed him. Heller offers no supporting documentation for this dollar amount, which is apparently based on nothing more than being the minimum needed to file a suit in federal court, rather than a state court. The court takes note of this.

Here, Heller has alleged that the amount in controversy is met, but Heller does not allege the value of the underlying promise or the value of the work that Heller did for Adobe. Therefore, the Court cannot determine if federal jurisdiction is proper.

That settles the point of where the case actually belongs: PROBABLY NOT HERE. Going from there, the court finds it extremely difficult to pinpoint anything about this case that might allow it to go forward -- at least in an unaltered state.

As alleged, the complaint sets out that sometime in late 2013, Heller met with Pham and Draper who promised to pay him in exchange for information about the Florida Pirates. The amount of payment was not specified at that time. The complaint does not set forth when Heller was supposed to release this information, to whom, and when Adobe should have paid him, or how much. The parties apparently did not agree on a compensation range or mechanism to determine compensation in the future. In total, Heller alleges a vague promise, and without more specificity, the Court cannot determine the scope of the duty or an assessment of the damages.

The court grants Heller leave to amend this part of his complaint, but without a written agreement in hand, it's doubtful a reconstructed allegation will do much to address the lack of evidence for his claims.

Similarly granted leave to amend is Heller's equally vague claims about the $75,000 worth of anti-piracy efforts he performed for Adobe.

The complaint states that Heller performed substantial work on investigating the Florida Pirates before Adobe requested the information. Heller states that he only seeks recovery of reasonable value of the time that was spent after Adobe explicitly asked Heller to spend the time to provide further information. Dkt. No. 13 at 4. Heller’s explanation of what services he performed and their reasonable value are conclusory and vague in the complaint.

The same goes for Heller's claims of intentional misrepresentation. Again, without an agreement in hand specifying what work was to be done and what amount of compensation would be due, there's nothing for Heller to work with. It's very difficult to claim a defendant misrepresented something that was never put down on paper or existed in any tangible form.

It very well could be that Adobe and its counsel maneuvered Heller into performing free anti-piracy work for it. It wouldn't be the first time a large company exploited an individual. Or it could be that Adobe felt any further investigative work would add little value and didn't allow itself to be put in the position of cutting large checks for information of limited usefulness. Either way, Heller doesn't appear to have much in his corner other than his firm belief that he was screwed.

One of the more interesting questions this lawsuit raises (but will never answer) is how often this sort of thing happens? Who reports piracy and what do they expect to get out of it? Do larger companies rely on a network of paid informants or are they more likely to accept tips without handing out anything in return?

These questions will likely remain unanswered as it appears that Heller doesn't have enough damning information to sustain a lawsuit against Adobe. An amended complaint can't fix deficiencies related to a complete lack of verifiable claims. Since this one won't be moving to the discovery stage, we'll all have to wait until the next screwed informant files suit against a major IP player.

Filed Under: copyright, david heller, piracy
Companies: adobe

Russian Anti-Piracy Group Wants To Forbid Discussions Of Blocklist Circumvention Tools

from the copyright-leads-yet-again-to-censorship dept

Just recently, we were writing about the increasingly-desperate assault on Popcorn Time in Norway, where even linking to sites that offer the software is enough for the authorities to seize a domain name. Now the Russian anti-piracy group Association for the Protection of Copyright on the Internet (AZAPO) wants to take its own fight up a notch in an equally vain attempt to stop people finding out how to circumvent blocklists using proxies, VPNs and Tor. As TorrentFreak reports:

In a document penned by AZAPO, approved by [Russian] telecoms watchdog Rozkomnadzor, and seen by Gazeta.ru, the anti-piracy group says that banning discussion of workarounds will enhance the country's blocking regime.

"The introduction of [a system of fines] for those who promote methods for bypassing Internet blockades will enhance the effectiveness of blocking prohibited Internet resources," the group writes.

Fines will range from around $70 for individuals, up to $14,500 for companies. AZAPO's document is being sent to the Ministry of Communications for discussion in the lower house of Russia's parliament.

The TorrentFreak post points out that even if the authorities managed to enforce such a law within Russia, there's not much they could do about companies promoting VPNs outside the country. And the ultimate constraint on any attempt to forbid people from knowing something is the Streisand Effect: the more the Russian government tries to ban discussions of circumvention technologies, the more people will be keen to find out about them.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: azapo, blocklist, censorship, circumvention, copyright, piracy, rozkomnadzor, russia

UK's Pirate Site Blocklist Even More Pointless Than Previously Thought: HTTPS Defeats It

from the almost-too-easy dept

It will come as no surprise to sophisticated Internet users like Techdirt readers that the UK's attempts to block a growing list of "pirate" sites are easy to circumvent. But a post on TorrentFreak suggests that you don't even need to be a sophisticated Techdirt reader to do that:

While it's hard to stamp out piracy completely, the measures were supposed make it harder for UK Internet subscribers to access these sites.

However, a recent review of current blocking practices shows that several ISPs including Virgin Media, BT, EE and TalkTalk are failing. It turns out that many subscribers don't have to jump through technological hoops to circumvent the blockades, as many popular pirate sites are freely accessible on their regular connections.

With the help from several subscribers, TorrentFreak was able to confirm that the HTTPS versions of most blocked websites including The Pirate Bay, KickassTorrents, RARBG and Torrentz, are still freely accessible.

Apparently this has been known in certain circles for quite a while. Some pirate sites have even gone so far as to force users to connect using HTTPS to enable them to enjoy this further advantage of encryption. There's an interesting discussion in the comments on the TorrentFreak post as to when and why HTTPS connections can get around the court-mandated blocks, and what ISPs might try to do to close this gaping loophole. Even if they do, the other circumvention methods will remain.

The real point here is that the copyright industries are fighting a war they cannot win. That's not just stupid in itself, but doubly stupid, because there's a much better approach that they could take, as Techdirt has noted before: all they need to do to stop most people visiting pirate sites is to offer a good service at a fair price. Simple, really. Almost as simple as using HTTPS.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: copyright, encryption, filter, https, piracy, piracy list, site blocking, uk

Three Strikes System In Australia 'Too Costly' For Industry; Seems Piracy Not Such A Massive Problem After All

from the kangaroo-courts dept

It was evident when the "three strikes" or "graduated response" was first proposed in France back in 2009 that it was a really bad idea. After all, in its crudest form, it cuts people off from what has become a necessity for modern life -- the Internet -- simply because they are accused of copyright infringement, an area of law that is notoriously full of uncertainties. Given that inauspicious start, it's no surprise that over the years, the three strikes system has failed everywhere, with some of the early adopters either dropping it, or putting it on hold. No wonder, then, that a latecomer, Australia, is also having problems with implementing the approach, as this report from c|net makes clear:

A three strikes scheme to track down individual pirates and send them warning letters about their downloading habits has been all but quashed, after rights holders and ISPs decided that manually targeting and contacting downloaders would be too costly.

However, as in the US, where the "six strikes" scheme is also flailing, the Australian copyright industry has no intention of seizing this opportunity to move on from this punitive approach. Instead, it wants to make it worse by automating the process. Village Roadshow Co-CEO Graham Burke, who Techdirt wrote about back in 2014, is quoted as saying:

"When automation occurs, instead of costing AU$16 or AU$20 a notice [about US$12 or US$15], which is just prohibitive, it will cost cents per notice," he said. "In other words, the ISPs will have an automated system that can be done simply, as opposed to at the moment it's manual."

Of course, an automated system is likely to be plagued by false positives even more than one operated by humans. The much lower cost involved -- cents rather than dollars per letter -- means that there will be no economic incentive to check for these in order to keep the numbers down, which are likely to balloon as a result. In other words, it seems clear that the three strikes system in Australia is about to get much worse -- and it was bad to begin with.

But there is one piece of positive news to emerge from this story. The Australian copyright industry says that it is not worth pursuing alleged copyright infringement cases unless the three strikes system costs almost nothing to use. Clearly, then, the real scale of the losses caused by online piracy is nowhere near as great as companies love to claim, otherwise basic economics would push them to use even a manual system. That's yet another reason to get rid of the flawed and disproportionate graduated response.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: australia, automated, copyright, costs, graham burke, piracy, three strikes
Companies: village roadshow

Hateful Eight Pirated Leak Harms Film All The Way To Box Office Records

from the grilled-leaks dept

Mike just recently did a post on the horrible effects of piracy on Hollywood box office results from last year, which can be summarized as "holy shit, look at all the money!" That post took a macro look at the year Hollywood had at the box office, in which revenue and individual ticket sales were both up, despite the fact that piracy exists. Still, the post warned of one potential rebuttal some might make: yeah, but Star Wars.

And it's true that such a high level look at the numbers would need to account for the smash hits released and gobbled up by the public. Still, such examples seem to indicate that the public is willing to fork over dollars if demands are met, but there are micro-examples of this as well. Take, for instance, The Hateful Eight, Tarantino's latest film. You may recall that the film suffered a leak prior to its release, making it widely available on the internet for anyone who wished to engage in a little piracy. It was downloaded hundreds of thousands of times, leading some to worry that its availability to would hamper its success at the box office. That's when one writer, with impeccable intelligence and an un-matched sexual charisma, wrote:

Pay close attention to how Hateful Eight does at the box office, because it's almost certain to be a smash hit, even as it competes with a certain film franchise from a long time ago and far, far away. And that really is the point. Even as media reports will breathlessly detail the pirating of the film, even as we'll be told about street corners in China where copies of the film are offered, and even as the download numbers of the film will soar, the film will do well.

So, how did it all work out for The Hateful Eight? It was, as predicted, a hit. As in a record-breaking hit. Specifically, the 70mm version, something requiring special equipment that is unavailable to most pirates, helped propel the success.

The 70mm version of the film, which has been showing in the largest 70mm release in more than 20 years, had a strong opening-weekend debut, earning $4.6 million at 100 venues in 44 U.S. markets. After its first two weeks, its 70mm engagements have grossed $11.2 million for a $112,000 per theater average for the first 12 days.

The neo-Western expanded to a total of 2,474 engagements at the beginning of its second weekend on Jan. 1, and its combined 70mm and digital showings have grossed a domestic total of $33.8 million to date.

All of that for a film which was leaked early and available for pirating. So, why the success? Well, the obvious answer is the 70mm gimmick, which those pirating the film couldn't enjoy. But that doesn't really tell the whole story, because $34 million gross early in a film's release, especially when competing with Star Wars, is quite a thing. The real reason for this is the combination of Tarantino building up a loyal fanbase that wants to support his work coupled with the theater experience that is still immensely important to many viewers. Going to the theater is an event that cannot be replicated in the home for many movie-goers, no matter how good home theater technology gets.

So, if this demonstrates that piracy doesn't really translate into lost ticket sales in the theater, as I believe it does, then this all returns us to the question of why Hollywood wants to spend so much monetary and emotional capital fighting a fight that might not really matter?

Filed Under: box office, competing with free, hateful eight, leaks, piracy, quentin tarantino, records, screeners

Once Again, Piracy Is Destroying The Movie Industry... To Ever More Records At The Box Office

from the because-of-course dept

We seem to end up posting stories like this every year, but it just keeps on happening. Hollywood whines and whines and whines about how piracy is killing the movie business... and then announces yet another record year at the box office.

Recent numbers show that the movie industry just broke the magic $11 billion barrier, generating more revenue than ever before at the North American box office. The revenue for 2015 totals $11.3 billion, which is roughly a 9% change compared to last year.

The worldwide grosses also reached an all-time record according to research from Rentrak, which estimates the global grosses at a staggering $38 billion based on data from 25,000 theaters across the globe.

Of course, sometimes people argue back that this is only because tickets are more expensive and that fewer people are actually buying tickets to go to the theater. About that...

Another sign that business is going well, at least for some, is the increase in the number of tickets that were sold. In 2015 theaters increased their ticket sales by more than 5% in North America.

I imagine that some will respond that this was really only because of the desire to see the new Star Wars flick, but isn't that simply proof that if you deliver what the public wants, they'll pay to go to the theater?

The other response, then, is that the real problem is that the home video market has declined. Sure, but that's the same home video market that Hollywood tried desperately to kill, so I'm not sure that's a legitimate argument if you're defending Hollywood.

But, even if we accept the question of the home video market, I'll just point out that, last I checked, Netflix had a valuation over $45 billion. So, at least Wall Street doesn't seem to be too up in arms about the state of the "home video" market.

Of course, every time we post this kind of thing, we're left asking if Hollywood will finally recognize that, maybe, just maybe, piracy isn't the issue they should be focused on. And it never happens. However, let's be optimistic this year and hope that maybe Hollywood will finally come around to realize that the thing it's been saying will kill it hasn't done anything of the sort.

Filed Under: box office, movie industry, movies, piracy, revenue

Book Publisher Has No Idea How Google Works But Pretty Sure It Could End Piracy If It Tried

from the just-do-the-thing!-THE-THING!-how-much-more-clear-do-I-need-to-be?!?! dept

Here's the stupidest thing on piracy you're going to read today. Or this month. Maybe even this whole holiday season. Rudy Shur, of Square One Publishers, has a problem with piracy, which he thinks is actually a problem with Google.

After being contacted by Google Play with an offer to join the team, Shur took it upon himself to fire off an angry email in response. That would have been fine, but he somehow convinced Publisher's Weekly to print both the letter and some additional commentary. Presumably, his position at a publishing house outweighed Publisher Weekly's better judgment, because everything about his email/commentary is not just wrong, but breathtakingly so.

After turning down the offer to join Google Play (Shur's previous participation hadn't really shown it to be an advantageous relationship), Shur decided to play internet detective. Starting with this paragraph, Shur's arguments head downhill… then off a cliff… then burst into flames… then the flaming wreckage slides down another hill and off another cliff. (h/t The Digital Reader)

[W]e did discover, however, was that Google has no problem allowing other e-book websites to illegally offer a number of our e-book titles, either free or at reduced rates, to anyone on the Internet.

There's a huge difference between "allowing" and "things that happen concurrently with Google's existence." Shur cannot recognize this difference, which is why he's so shocked Google won't immediately fix it.

When we alerted Google, all we got back was an email telling us that Google has no responsibility and that it is up to us to contact these sites to tell them to stop giving away or selling our titles.

Yep, it's called the DMCA process. It's been in all the papers. DMCA notices are issued to websites hosting the pirated material. Google also delists search results in response to DMCA notices. What never happens is Google arbitrarily delisting sites just because someone notices piracy exists. Google is also not "The Internet" and lacks the power to shut down websites it doesn't own. It is not Google's job to police the web for infringement, no more than it's Yahoo's or Microsoft's.

Undeterred by this illogical conundrum, Shur heads into the "inadvertently comic analogy" territory previously reserved for Thomas Friedman.

Let me ask you something. If a store sells knockoff designer handbags, why is it okay for police to come in, confiscate the illegal merchandise, and arrest and fine the store owners? It’s because the store is profiting from the sales of these illegal goods, in the same way Google can increase its advertising rates because these illegal sites increase the number of users it attracts.

No, it's because the store is selling infringing goods. The store has infringing goods on the premises. It's not because the store is "profiting." It's because of what it's doing and what the store contains. A better analogy would be to point out that cops can't raid a business directory company just because it prints out pages that might contain names and addresses of stores selling illicit goods.

The fact that Google advertises on its own search results pages is beside the point. Ads will be served whether or not "pirate sites" show up in the search results. The ads are not tied to illegal activity. Whether or not some ads are "more profitable" (even if Shur's postulation is true) doesn't matter.

And that's not even the worst part of that paragraph. Shur actually is trying to claim that piracy attracts more people to Google's search engine. Normally, people (misguided people) try to argue that Google directs people to pirate sites. Shur reverses this theory and comes out looking even worse than many who share his viewpoint that Google should be in charge of stamping out infringement.

So far, Shur has been unable to be even technically correct. Now, he attempts to be morally correct.

As a long-time publisher, I’ve been reasonably successful in this business; I also have always attempted to do everything right. That approach has allowed me to work with such companies and groups as Macy’s, the National Science Foundation, Corning Inc., and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, to mention just a few. If Google wants to really work with Square One, I would first ask Google to do the right thing as well. But based on the fact that it would rather hide behind the doctrine of noncensorship, Google doing the right thing doesn’t seem likely.

Whatever. Taking the moral high ground is a terrible way to make a point. It's a way to make a point badly, but it's only going to resonate with those who sincerely believe companies are morally obligated to do whatever any aggrieved party feels they should. It's a non-starter, and it only serves to highlight the weakness of the surrounding arguments.

That's the original flaming wreckage -- all included in Shur's email to Google. What follows is Shur's successful attempt to shove his burning, demolished credibility off another cliff.

I wonder how the good people at Google would feel if one of their patented parts or products were to be knocked off and either given away free or incorporated into a cheaper copycat item. Judging from the Wikipedia entry “Google Litigation,” it seems that the company has no problem going after those it has judged as infringing its patents. I wonder if any of the companies it has sued thought of initially responding to Google by sending the following email:

Since we have nothing to do with the actual infringement of your product, we share no responsibility in making it available to the public. Rather, we advise you to take the matter up with the engineering firm that makes the offending part. In the meantime, we will continue to sell the product until the firm stops offering it to us.

To make this analogy work… well, actually you can't. You just cannot make this work.

All the litigation Shur "cites" (with a Wikipedia reference and no link) is defensive litigation. Very little of it has to do with patents. Google isn't filing lawsuits alleging IP infringement. Google is almost always the defendant, especially in patent cases.

So, Shur's analogy is completely dismantled by the very reference he cites in support of it. even before he tries extending it with his "what if" scenario. Even if we play by Shur's rules, the analogy still doesn't hold. The scenario here -- when applied to Shur's "why won't Google shut down pirate sites" argument -- plays out like this:

Google sues YellowPages.com because a company listed in its pages is infringing on its patents. YP gets itself dismissed from the lawsuit by pointing out that it has nothing to do with the alleged infringement. That's Shur's situation applied to his stupid analogy. And it puts him right back at square one, with Google telling him to contact the sites hosting infringing material, rather than Google, if he wants the content taken down.

This makes his attempt to pound the message home that much more pathetic.

Unfortunately for the publishing industry, under Google’s sense of fairness, copyright protection is not equal to patent protection.

Or, more accurately, a whole bunch of people think Google owes them something, especially when IP is involved. Shur thinks Google owes him a piracy-free ebook environment. In support of his theory, he has all these analogies that only make sense to others with the same mindset -- people who believe Google owns the internet and should always be policing it from pirated goods. (Or terrorist content, people saying mean things, etc.)

And finally, A CALL TO ARMS!

It is highly doubtful that the email response I sent to the Google representative is going to make Google rethink its policies, but if enough of us raise our voices loud enough, maybe someone at Google will sit up and take notice.

No offense, Shur, but maybe let someone else -- someone who actually understands the things they're talking about -- lead the charge. You can't win if you don't even know what game you're playing.

Filed Under: copyright, piracy, rudy shur, search
Companies: google

Microsoft Lobbying Group Forces 'Pirate' To Get 200,000 Views On Anti-Piracy Video... Whole Thing Backfires

from the 'education'-campaign dept

The history of anti-piracy activities by the legacy entertainment and software industries always seems to focus on the mistaken idea that if only the public were "more educated" piracy would magically go away. That's never been true. In fact, nearly every attempt at an education campaign hasn't just failed to work, it's often actively backfired and been mocked and parodied. And yet, if you talk to politicians and industry folks, they still seem to think that "more education" will magically work next time. One can only wonder what the hell the geniuses at the Software Alliance (the BSA -- which used to be the "Business Software Alliance" but has dropped the "Business" part, but not the "B" in its name) were thinking when they decided to "settle" with a guy who apparently uploaded some Microsoft software in the Czech Republic. The terms of the settlement required him to take part in a "professionally produced" anti-piracy video and that the video needed to get 200,000 views on YouTube or he might face having to pay damages in court.

The BSA is a well-known front for Microsoft, and has a long history of rather ridiculous claims about "piracy," so I guess it's little surprise that it's now engaged in out and out propaganda, but done so badly that it's turned the whole thing into a laughingstock. The whole "compelled speech" aspect of the settlement, including the requirement to get so many views, strikes basically everyone as ridiculous and stupid. Press attention has of course propelled the video to well over 200,000 thousand views at this point, and many of the YouTube comments are completely mocking the campaign -- and noting that they're watching the video to help the accused be let off the hook. The video is in Czech, but even so it's hilarious. It has the same sort of ominous production values as the old "You wouldn't download a car!" ads that have been mocked for years as well: It really highlights just how out of touch folks at the BSA are, in that anyone actually thought this kind of thing would help it in any way, rather than making it a continued laughingstock.

Filed Under: czech republic, piracy, punishment, settlement, video
Companies: bsa, microsoft