When Will Hollywood Stop Blaming Everyone Else And Help Itself?

from the stop-blaming-others dept

Just last month, we talked about two studies released by Hollywood. The first was one from the MPAA itself, which (as happens all too often) focused heavily on blaming Google for its supposed problems in monetizing the online world. It used some highly questionable methodology to suggest that people doing searches ended up downloading unauthorized flicks. This was released in coordination with a Congressional hearing on copyright, in which the message pushed by the MPAA's sister organization, the RIAA, was "what we really need is for Google to help us return to our former glory." Oddly, that same day, NBC Universal released the second version of its own "piracy" study, which aimed to show how "big" the problem was. However, as we noted with both this and the original version of that study, when you look at the data, it shows pretty clearly that the "problem" is one that Hollywood has made for itself. That is, when good, convenient and reasonably priced offerings hit the market, an awful lot of video watching moved to those authorized offerings. It's when those offerings were missing entirely that the amount of unauthorized access seemed to shoot up.

Inspired, in part, by the thinking about these studies and claims, Jerry Brito from the Mercatus Center teamed up with Eli Dourado and Matt Sherman to launch a new site called piracydata.org, which attempts to collect (and visualize and -- most importantly -- make available) data that shows whether or not the most "pirated" works each week are available for legal access. It's still at a small sample size so far, but the initial results don't speak well to Hollywood's claims that it's adapted to the digital era. The MPAA's attempt to talk its way out of the hole it's dug itself is kind of funny. Basically it's a "hey, squirrel!" response.

The Walking Dead was pirated 500,000 times within 16 hours despite the fact that it is available to stream for free for the next 27 days on AMC's website and distributed in 125 countries around the world the day after it aired. Our industry is working hard to bring content to audiences when they want it, where they want it, but content theft is a complex problem that requires comprehensive, voluntary solutions from all stakeholders involved.

Now, if you're not the MPAA and so tied up and confused by unauthorized access, you might look at that information and realize that putting it on AMC's website was probably the mistake. That's not where people look for stuff these days. Yes, they made it free, but they didn't make it convenient, meaning they didn't put it in a form that some portion of consumers want, and watching it directly on AMC's website appears to take a large group out of their natural flow. That's something that Hollywood could learn from, but it never does. It just points the blame finger.

However, the data continues to be fairly overwhelming that the "piracy problem" is a problem of Hollywood's own making. It could solve it if it wanted to, by focusing on making more content more widely available in more convenient ways and prices. Yet, instead, it wants to blame everyone else and order them around to "fix" a problem of it's own making.

Filed Under: authorized access, availability, convenience, copyright, hollywood, infringement, movies, piracy

The Difference Between Plagiarism And Copyright Infringement

from the not-a-purely-academic-question dept

Plagiarism is a complex and emotive issue, as previous Techdirt posts on the subject have shown. Perhaps because of that complexity, people often seem confused about the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement. The palaeontologist Mike Taylor has put together a short post with this handy explanation of how it works in an academic context:

First, plagiarism is a violation of academic norms but not illegal; copyright violation second is illegal, but in truth pretty ubiquitous in academia. (Where did you get that PDF?)

Second, plagiarism is an offence against the author, while copyright violation is an offence against the copyright holder. In traditional academic publishing, they are usually not the same person, due to the ubiquity of copyright transfer agreements (CTAs).

Third, plagiarism applies when ideas are copied, whereas copyright violation occurs only when a specific fixed expression (e.g. sequence of words) is copied.

Fourth, avoiding plagiarism is about properly apportioning intellectual credit, whereas copyright is about maintaining revenue streams.

The post goes on to present some hypothetical cases that illustrate the concrete differences between plagiarism and copyright infringement, again as far as the academic world is concerned. There's also this handy summary of the central issue:

Plagiarism is about the failure to properly attribute the authorship of copied material (whether copies of ideas or of text or images). Copyright violation is about failure to pay for the use of the material.

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

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, plagiarism

NBC Universal Funded Study Shows, Yet Again, How Infringement Is Hollywood's Own Damn Fault

from the been-through-this-already dept

While we already discussed the MPAA's questionable new study trying to pin the blame for infringement on Google, MPAA member NBC Universal has released its "Digital Piracy Universe" study as well. This study was done by NetNames, the company formerly known as Envisional, which basically released a very similar study two and a half years ago. Matt Schruers, over at CCIA, does a nice job explaining some of the more questionable aspects of the methodology. However, we'd like to focus on something a bit more basic: the study's own numbers don't seem to support what NBC Universal seems to think it does. More specifically, as we noted with the last study, the results actually suggest piracy is Hollywood's own damn fault. This isn't just our interpretation either. The guy who wrote both studies, David Price, basically said the same thing right before SOPA died (he argued that the bills were a bad idea).

Once again, it's not difficult to see why the problem is Hollywood's with one simple chart: Basically, in the US, where Netflix has come up with a model that many people find to be reasonably priced and convenient enough, the rate of things like BitTorrent usage falls in comparison. Getting beyond just protocols, if we look specifically at "streaming" we see the same basic thing: In the report, Price explains that the YouTube content is predominantly non-infringing. So the vast majority of streaming is legitimate, not infringing. And that's what happens when you have services like Netflix and YouTube that are focused on providing what consumers want in a convenient package.

It seems that a reasonable take away from this report is that rather than worrying about piracy, these companies should be focusing on getting more authorized content available in a more convenient fashion.

Elsewhere, the report highlights how focusing on the "infringement" part, rather than the "providing better authorized offerings," is a silly game to play. It talks about the closure of MegaVideo, a leading player in streaming video, as a part of the Megaupload seizure. While shutting Megaupload had a ripple effect among cyberlockers, it looks like streaming video just continued to grow and grow. In fact, the report notes that people seem able to adapt pretty quickly when their preferred source disappears. Of course, anyone who's been watching the space since the closure of Napster should already know that:

Video streaming, both as a legitimate and illegitimate practice, is simple to engage with and deeply embedded in typical user routine. Video streaming bandwidth consumption of all kinds has exploded over the last few years, increasing by over 170% between 2010 and 2012 in North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Infringement through video streaming has increased even more dramatically: the amount of bandwidth devoted to infringing video streaming has grown by more than 470% over the same period, despite the loss of well-known hosts such as MegaVideo.

This demonstrates clearly how quickly online piracy can react to system events such as site closures or seizures. User behaviour is modified, often in moments, shifting from locations or arenas impacted by events to others that offer a comparable spread of infringing content via a similar or different consumption model. The practise of piracy itself morphs to altered circumstances, with use of video streaming and bittorrent escalating as direct download cyberlockers fell away.

So, uh, a study sponsored by NBC Universal more or less admits that the company should focus on doing more to make authorized content available, and that focusing on shutting down sites it considers rogue sites is unlikely to have significant long-term impact. Now, will NBC Universal actually follow what the data suggests?

Filed Under: authorized services, competition, copyright, file sharing, infringement
Companies: envisional, nbc universal, netnames

Kevin Spacey: Give Users Control, What They Want, When They Want It, At A Fair Price, And Stop Worrying About Piracy

from the well,-duh dept

It appears that Kevin Spacey gets what so many of us have been saying for over a decade: piracy isn't so much a problem as it is a statement of demand from users. And the way to "beat" piracy is to do a better job of offering fans what they want, in a manner they want it, at a reasonable price. Spacey recently gave a talk in Edinburgh in which he discussed the success of House of Cards, the "TV show" that he released via Netflix with all episodes coming out at once. First he discussed the ridiculous hoops that regular networks wanted them to go through, having to first film a pilot and go through the hell of "pilot season" that every network does each year, but then he made the same basic point that many of us have been making for so long: Here's the key part:

Clearly the success of the Netflix model, releasing the entire season of House of Cards at once, proved one thing: the audience wants the control. They want the freedom. If they want to binge... we should let them binge.... And through this new form of distribution, we have demonstrated that we have learned the lesson that the music industry didn't learn: give people what they want, when they want it, in the form they want it in, at a reasonable price and they'll more likely pay for it rather than steal it. Well, some will still steal it, but I think we can take a bite out of piracy.

Ignoring the misleading use of "steal," he's making exactly the right point. Nothing (absolutely nothing) does away with all copyright infringement. But if you can get a huge number of people to give you money, it doesn't matter. And the best way to get more people to give you money (and, in fact, to give you more money) is to give people more of what they want. That includes good content, but also convenience, ease of use, and reasonable pricing.

He goes on to say a few more things worth listening too, including the fact that people want good stories, whether they're in movies, TV shows, video games or something else, and the entertainment industry has a real opportunity to deliver it.

The clip is five minutes long and worth watching. The point, as we've been saying for years, is not to justify "piracy" or infringement, but to show that the "piracy" problem might not be a problem at all if you can give people a good reason to buy. Spacey did that with House of Cards, and it's good to see more people realizing that piracy isn't the problem, but the symptom -- and the solution is a combination of good content, innovation, and recognizing that you need to treat the fans right, rather than as criminals.

Filed Under: control, copyright, fans, house of cards, infringement, kevin spacey, piracy
Companies: netflix

Once Again: Just Because You Can Search For Infringing Content Via Search Engines Doesn't Mean Many People Do

from the weird-obsessions dept

In case you've missed it, the legacy entertainment industry has a weird and almost entirely uninformed infatuation with Google. As far as I can tell, this is based almost entirely on the following correlation: "we used to be making a lot more money, they're making a lot of money now -- therefore, they must have taken "our" money." I've yet to see anything even remotely approaching a more reasonable explanation. A few months ago, at a conference, someone I know got to ask a lawyer representing a company that has sued search engines over copyright infringement just how much money he thought search engines made from infringement, and his answer was "around 50%." This isn't just wrong, it's delusional. Two years ago, we went through some internet traffic data to show that so-called "rogue sites" get very little traffic from search engines. About 15% of their total traffic came from search, and the rest via other sources. And, even when the traffic came from search engines, it was almost never for someone directly searching Google or Bing for a certain song or movie. Rather the top searches were... for the site itself. That is, lots of Google traffic to The Pirate Bay is based on people doing a search for "pirate bay."

The folks over at CCIA (disclosure: we've done some work with them and continue to do work with them and may possibly do work with them in the future) have taken our and some others' analyses and put out a document showing that this weird obsession with piling on search engines is, at best, counterproductive and, at worst, destructive. It is, in large part, a response to the RIAA's silly attack that Google isn't "demoting" certain searches fast enough. But, as the CCIA paper notes, much of the RIAA's analysis is based on the results of searches that include specific keywords like "free download." However, as CCIA's Matt Schruer's notes, those kinds of searches are very, very, very rare:

Consider an example used in the RIAA memo: “free bruno mars mp3.”  While this result may return results that point to infringing content, data from Google Trends indicates that strikingly few people are actually running that search.  A worldwide tally of search results through last week, comparing “bruno mars” (for reference) to “free bruno mars mp3” is available here.  Bruno Mars is orders of magnitude more common, and at periods of time, no one seems to have searched for “free bruno mars mp3” anywhere on the planet.  This is not entirely surprising: extensive research by BAE Detica indicates that the majority of infringement “business models” don’t depend on search engines at all.  Sites like Isohunt and the Pirate Bay shrugged off [1] [2] the threat of search demotion, announcing that they receive little traffic from search engines.

You can see the search he discusses here: We had mentioned this same sort of thing a few months ago when Authors Guild boss Scott Turow freaked out about Google searches for "Scott Turow free e-books," and pointed out that it doesn't look like anyone is actually doing that search.

Schruers explains why he thinks the RIAA and others like to focus so much on the searches that no one does. Because it gives them something concrete they can point to, even if it's got nothing to do with the actual world they're dealing with.

Sometimes called the “lamp post effect”, this bias is usually attributed to researchers, and refers to biases resulting from data-gathering where the data is most easily gathered.  The principle is best illustrated with a joke related by David Freedman in Discover Magazine:

Late at night, a police officer finds a drunk man crawling around on his hands and knees under a streetlight. The drunk man tells the officer he’s looking for his wallet. When the officer asks if he’s sure this is where he dropped the wallet, the man replies that he thinks he more likely dropped it across the street. Then why are you looking over here? the befuddled officer asks. Because the light’s better here, explains the drunk man.

We look where it is easiest to look.  By definition, one of the easiest places to look for something online is a search engine.  If one uses terms like “torrent” and “free download”, it is possible to find search results that linking to infringing content.  Because search results are easily observed, the streetlight effect tells us, this is where the observation occurs.  As a result, some will fixate – like this RIAA memo – on infringing search results, notwithstanding the fact that pirates tend not to use general-purpose search engines for finding infringing content.

I'm curious if all of those who seem to support the claims against search engines can point to even a single shred of evidence that search engines actually lead to greater infringement. We've yet to see anything that supports it at all. Yet the risk of putting increasing pressure of search engines to modify their results to please one particular industry or (much worse) to increase liability on them for not making their results appease certain industries, can be quite dangerous to a free and open internet. Search engines aren't responsible for what people find online. They're simply reflecting what people are looking for. If lots of people really are looking for certain kinds of content, it seems like the better response, rather than blaming search engines, is to look for better ways to deliver that content.

Filed Under: infringement, liability, search

Latest 'Think Of The Children' Scaremongering: Pirated Films Might 'Disturb' Them

from the don't-look-now dept

Just last week we heard how Russia has extended its "think of the children" law to include copyright infringement. That was a classic case of function creep, but here's a more direct invocation of "the children" in order to attack unauthorized downloads of files, this time in the UK:

One in five young film fans (18%) admit they have been disturbed by the movies they have watched on pirate websites and two thirds (65%) wish they had checked the film's official age rating first.

While almost half of children and teens (42%) admit to being aware of rules in place at home designed to restrict what they can and can't look at on the internet, the research commissioned by The Industry Trust for IP Awareness, in partnership with the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), shows a quarter (25%) download or stream movies from unofficial sources, which offer no guidance on age ratings.

Now, there are a heap of issues with this. For example, what exactly does "disturbed" mean in this context? Some films are deeply disturbing, but in a good sense ("Schinder's List", for example, rated "15"), because they bring new but troubling knowledge: does "disturbing" include those? Or only the "bad" ones -- in which case, how is "bad" defined? Unfortunately, I can't find the original research to explore that, or even to see how the questions were framed (always a critical issue for such surveys.)

But leaving aside all those methodological questions, there is a key flaw with this "for the children" argument, which is that we don't know what percentage of children who watch legal downloads and DVDs are "disturbed" by what they see. That's a key number, because it needs to be lower than the one pertaining to pirate sites if the latter is to have any relevance. It might be, for example, that children are more disturbed by their parents' cinematic library than by what they search out for themselves online; after all, such searches are likely to be based on recommendations from their friends, or on what children read on other sites -- in other words, an informed choice with plenty of context.

What's interesting here is how the currently-fashionable "think of the children" trope is being deployed as part of a campaign against piracy. As such, it's part of a long tradition of trying to frighten people away from unauthorized downloads by suggesting that they fund terrorism, are packed with malware or make your hair fall out (OK, I made up that last one.)

So here's a suggestion. Instead of resorting to scaremongering, which never works anyway, why doesn't the British film industry try offering a range of good online products at fair prices? After all, it seems to be working elsewhere....

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

Filed Under: children, copyright, downloading, infringement, think of the children

Time Warner CEO Says Having Game Of Thrones As 'Most Pirated' Is 'Better Than An Emmy'

from the starting-to-realize dept

Because it's so popular -- and so pirated (in part because you can't view it legally online if you're not an HBO subscriber via cable/satellite) -- the question of Game of Thrones and piracy is a story that just never dies. Many people have argued that it's ridiculous that there are no legal options for cord cutters, and that just leads to more infringement -- and, in turn, that's resulted in people arguing that a good part of the show's popularity is likely due to infringement. Of course, for those associated directly with the show, it seems like they're a bit conflicted about this. Director David Petrarca first said that unauthorized downloads were great because they added to the cultural buzz that made the show thrive... and once that story got attention, he quickly walked it back, suddenly saying he was opposed to unauthorized watching. And, bizarrely, we've even seen the US ambassador to Australia argue that stopping infringement of Game of Thrones is a major priority.

Well, Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich might want to chat with Jeff Bewkes, CEO of Time Warner (owners of HBO), who just pointed out that unauthorized watching leads to more subscribers and is "better than an Emmy."

Yes, in response to a question about whether the network kinda-sorta regards the extensive theft of HBO's flagship show, Game of Thrones, as a compliment, Bewkes said, "I have to admit it, I think you're right." The much-discussed fantasy series is HBO's most popular, and "if you go to people who are watching it without subs, it's a tremendous word-of-mouth thing," the exec told investors. "We've been dealing with this for 20, 30 years—people sharing subs, running wires down the backs of apartment buildings. Our experience is that it leads to more paying subs. I think you're right that Game of Thrones is the most pirated show in the world," he said. "That's better than an Emmy."

Of course, plenty of people have been pointing out for years and years and years that infringement is a signal of unmet demand, so it's nice to see them catching up. Of course, now let's see if Time Warner still backs the next ridiculous and draconian copyright enforcement expansion...

Filed Under: copyright, game of thrones, hbo, infringement, jeff bewkes, piracy
Companies: time warner

Comcast NBC Universal Already Moving Past Six Strikes; Trying New Malware Popups Urging Downloaders To Buy

from the that-seems-like-a-bad-idea dept

The "six strikes" Copyright Alert System (CAS) is barely under way and already Comcast/NBC Universal are looking to go beyond it with malware-like popups that show up as you download a piece of content, pushing you to buy it (well, "license" it) via an authorized source. Variety has the details at the link above, though late in the article it seems to suggest that this is all really coming from the NBC Universal side, not the Comcast side, which shouldn't come as a huge surprise:

While Comcast knows the solution is feasible, the company’s engineers haven’t formally begun work on it. The project is being worked on in tandem with engineers at NBC Universal, the content side of the conglomerate.

That certainly sounds like something cooked up on the NBC Universal side of things. The offering here sounds ridiculous and intrusive:

As sources described the new system, a consumer illegally downloading a film or movie from a peer-to-peer system like Bittorrent would be quickly pushed a pop-up message with links to purchase or rent the same content, whether the title in question exists on the VOD library of a participating distributor’s own broadband network or on a third-party seller like Amazon.

This highlights a few key points:

• For all the fuss about the six strikes system and how important it was, it sure sounds like yet another expensive disaster in a long line of expensive disasters by the legacy entertainment industry in its quixotic quest to stamp out infringement. They still don't get that this isn't an education problem, nor is it an enforcement problem. It's a service problem. And being creepy and spying on what people are surfing on isn't going to make people feel particularly warm and fuzzy about moving on to buy something.
• Popups are a bad idea. As in really, really bad. First off, it just pisses people off to get any sort of popup. Second, the only way to do this is by effectively spying on all trafffic -- i.e., some sort of deep packet inspection/malware-like setup monitoring everything you do. Anyone who doesn't think that doesn't open up opportunities for abuse and security vulnerabilities hasn't been paying much attention.
• As many people warned, you knew that the legacy entertainment industry would never believe that the six strikes program was "enough." They have huge staffs of "anti-piracy" people who need to stay employed, so you had to know they were cooking up more. But, no matter what plan is agreed to, there's always going to be mission creep as they try to get more and more and more.
• Any system that involves spying on the activities of users is going to be a non-starter. Creeping the hell out of people isn't a way of encouraging them to buy. It's a way of encouraging them to want nothing to do with you.
• My favorite part: the system would include affiliate links within the alerts in an attempt to drive extra revenue and to encourage other ISPs and sites to participate. I guess it's better than pressuring companies with a stick, but the affiliate link carrot just feels sleazy.

In the end, as we've been saying all along, the way to deal with infringement is by offering users a good reason to buy. That means providing them with more value -- whether it's direct value from purchasing authorized versions or something like a connection (e.g., so that people want to support the content creator directly). Anything that involves trying to pressure people just turns people off. It's the difference between setting up a store so that it's friendly and inviting, and filling a store with pushy salespeople who keep scolding you. One system attracts customers, the other attracts disdain. Why the legacy guys always go with the "disdain" path is beyond me.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright alert system, deep packet inspection, infringement, malware, popups, six strikes
Companies: comcast, nbc universal

As Russia Expands Its 'Think Of The Children' Laws To Copyright, Agency In Charge Investigated For Infringement

from the the-French-have-a-word-for-it dept

Last week we wrote about how the Russian equivalent of SOPA had been amended in order to ban swearing online. Although that was worth noting for its entertainment value, probably more important is the fact that the same law -- originally brought in to take down sites about drugs, suicide and child pornography -- has also been widened to include copyright infringement, as TechWeekEurope reports:

the law has been extended to include intellectual property, such as films or TV shows (but interestingly, not music). Under the new rules, copyright holders can contact the website and demand for illegal content to be removed, or request a court order and complain to Roskomnadzor. The website is then required to block the access to files within 3 days, and keep them inaccessible until the court decides on the case.

If the website owners refuse to comply with the order, Roskomnadzor will order ISPs to block the whole site.

This is a textbook example of how to bring in broad censorship in easy stages. First, pass new Web blocking laws "for the children", which no politician would dare object to; then, once the machinery for blocking certain sites is in place, simply broaden it to other, more contentious areas -- such as alleged copyright infringement. As the same story explains, over 1700 Russian Web sites went dark last week in protest at the new law, and 88,000 people signed a petition calling for the law to be repealed (original in Russian), just short of the 100,000 needed for the petition to be considered by the Russian parliament, so nothing much will happen on this front now.

Meanwhile, a film distribution company lost no time using the law to file against Vkontakte, Russia's equivalent of Facebook. Although the case was thrown out because it lacked certain corroborating documents, it seems likely that it will be submitted again. Others will doubtless follow suit. Amusingly, though, the body responsible for implementing Russia's extended SOPA law, Roscomnadzor, looks like it might have fallen foul of the new rules itself, as TorrentFreak explains:

The problems date back to July 9, 2013 when a technology audit at Roscomnadzor offices led officers from the Economic Crime unit and the Interior Ministry to seize five computers suspected of containing unlicensed software.

According to preliminary information from local law enforcement agencies, two of the seized computers contained unlicensed copies of Photoshop but apparently the problems don't stop there as unlicensed software from Microsoft, Corel and Autodesk was also found.

This is reminiscent of the French HADOPI body also being found to have infringed copyright multiple times. Both cases emphasize just how widespread such unauthorized use is around the world, and why harsh punishments like Web blocks are completely disproportionate when even copyright enforcement bodies find it hard to comply with the law.

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

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, protect the children, russia, sopa

Just Kidding, Square Enix Still Hates Its Biggest Fans

from the what-was-i-thinking? dept

Human beings are creatures of habit. As such, we generally feel most comfortable when we're in familiar surroundings and when things typically turn out as we expect. With that in mind, I realize some of you readers may have found yourselves in an unfamiliar and distressing new world when I wrote about a Final Fantasy fan film that appeared to have Square Enix's tacit approval for a Kickstarter project. The makers of what looks like a fantastic web series mentioned on their Kickstarter page that they had proactively gone to Square Enix to make sure they knew what was happening and that the trailer for the series actually made an appearance on the company's website. "What the hell is this all about?", you must have thought. "What's next, cats and dogs living in harmony? Pepsi admitting that Coke is totally better? What are we going to do!?!?"

Well, rest easy, because Square Enix's legal team is here to remind you that they still totally hate their biggest fans and all is just as wrong with the world as it ever was. You already know where we're going with this, so here are the claims from the DMCA takedown notice they sent over the Kickstarter project.

· The project itself is in infringement of our copyrights and should be removed in its entirety from Kickstarter.

· The project itself admits it is an unofficial fan project in its title “Final Fantasy VII: The Web Series (Unofficial Fan Project).

· The description of the project itself claims to use the copyrighted characters and events of Final Fantasy VII.

Not only did the projcet admit it on Kickstarter, they admitted it to you guys when they reached out to let you know what they were doing. And they made a point to secure music licensing. To go the DMCA route rather than finding an amicable way to properly license this with them would be bad enough, but to know what the filmmakers were doing and let them get this far only to dash their project on the rocks of your legal team is downright sadistic. The project's page is now down, noting that there is an intellectual property dispute, which means prospective backers can't contribute any longer.

Via their Facebook page, the team let their fans know that they're still trying to get something worked out with Square Enix and managed to deliver the message with a touch of irony any Final Fantasy 7 fan will appreciate.

Ladies and Gentlemen!

You will have noticed that the Square Enix legal team have taken an interest in our project. We're in the process of opening up discussions with the team regarding the ongoing status of our project and hopefully the continuation of our Kickstarter campaign. We'll keep you up to date on any envelopments.

"These days, all it takes for your dreams to come true is money and power."
- President Shinra

Here's hoping Square Enix muzzles their legal dogs and does the right thing by their fans, because it would be a shame to see one of the most popular games ever taint its reputation by being DMCA bullies over a harmless fan film.

Filed Under: fan films, final fantasy, infringement
Companies: square enix