Our Crowdfund For Our Paper Exploring NFTs Will Be Ending Soon

from the heads-up dept

Last week we announced that we wanted to write a paper exploring the NFT phenomenon, and specifically what it meant with regards to the economics around scarce and infinitely available goods. To run this crowdfund, we're testing out a cool platform called Mirror that lets us mix crowdfunding and NFTs as part of the process (similarly, we're now experimenting with NFTs with our Plagiarism by Techdirt collection).

We were overwhelmed by the support for the paper, which surpassed what we expected. The "podium" feature -- which gave special NFTs to our three biggest backers -- has closed with the winners being declared, but the rest of the crowdfund will remain open until this Thursday evening. We also offered up a special "Protocols, Not Platforms" NFT for the first 15 people who backed us at 1 ETH or above. So far, ten of those have been claimed, but five remain.

Filed Under: crowdfunding, nfts, paper, protocols

Kickstarter For Hand-Drawn Video Game Manuals Shuts Down Due To IP Threat

from the book-burning dept

You may recall that about a year ago we discussed one man's attempt to digitize the game manuals for really old games. Notably, that project didn't appear to face any threats over copyright laws by the normal companies -- Nintendo, Konami, etc -- though that almost certainly was partially the result of the project not being a commercial endeavor, but a simple attempt at art preservation that would clearly be covered by fair use. But the overall point is that there is a thirst for this sort of thing, especially when you realize that some of these game manuals are endangered species, close to being lost for all eternity.

Well, apparently there is at least one company out there that is not so keen on letting something similar to that go forward if it means anyone is going to collect money over it. A Kickstarter for hand-drawn recreations of the sorts of video game guides that were popular decades ago, which far exceeded its initial goal, voluntarily shut itself down after facing unspecified legal threats.

Near the end of a staggeringly successful Kickstarter campaign, Hand-Drawn Game Guides was cancelled. Philip Summers, the individual behind this campaign, cancelled his Kickstarter due to legal pressure from unknown parties. In a statement released on Hand-Drawn Game Guides' Kickstarter, Summers says:

"Tonight I pulled the plug on the Hand-Drawn Game Guides Kickstarter. Yes, for exactly the reason you think it’s for. I had hoped that I could successfully navigate any legal trouble, but alas I wasn’t able to do so."

Summers made it clear elsewhere that none of this was unforeseen, nor is he particularly angry about it. The source of the legal threats was never specified, but it's clear that Summers is facing some kind of copyright or trademark threat by one of the gaming companies that owns the rights for the games he's creating new manuals/guides for. It could be one of many companies, of course, though it won't surprise regular readers here to learn that I very much suspect it's Nintendo. If it is, the company can certainly argue it has a valid copyright claim on these manuals, assuming it has the relevant IP rights for them. But, as is always the question, why does Nintendo or whichever company made these threats feel the need to go this route?

Summers started his campaign seeking $20k, but ended up amassing over $300k in pledges for the project, all for hand-drawn video game guides for very old games.

Summers' guides deal with IPs by Nintendo, including The Legend of Zelda and Metroid. Just recently, Nintendo issued a cease and desist for Metroid Prime 2D, a game starring Samus Aran and based on the Metroid series, and not long ago they hit The Legend of Zelda: The Missing Link a fan-game that bridged Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. Contra and Ninja Gaiden guides backers could have purchased, so legal pressure Konami, Koei Tecmo, or Nintendo is possible but not confirmed by any party. As we've seen previously, fan-made projects ending due to legal reasons is nothing new for the industry.

This campaign aimed to bring guides of retro video games to the masses, which were completely hand-drawn and went over the workings of each title. This included tips and tricks, maps of dungeons and other levels, and more.

If there is an actual threat in any of that to any of the named companies, I am failing to see it. Instead, I only see the desire for total control over intellectual property playing out in such a way so as to destroy an otherwise wildly successful Kickstarter by someone who is obviously a very big fan of retro video games and the guidebooks of the past. And if that doesn't sound like Nintendo, I don't know what does.

For now, Summers and his publisher are making it clear that the project isn't necessarily 100% dead, asking backers to stay tuned. But in the meantime, the funding for the Kickstarter has been canceled, all because someone had to kill the fun.

Filed Under: crowdfunding, hand drawn video game manuals, manuals, video games
Companies: kickstarter

Patent Troll Sable Networks Apparently Needs To Learn A Lesson: Cloudflare Wants To Destroy Another Troll

from the never-fight-a-patent-troll-war-against-cloudflare dept

In The Princess Bride, the character of Vizzini famously says: "Ha ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is 'never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well-known is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line.'" I don't know if it's surpassed either of those yet, but quickly moving up the list would be "Never try to patent troll Cloudflare." Apparently, the patent troll Sable Networks has just made exactly that blunder.

About a decade ago, the online retailer Newegg pioneered the strategy of attacking back on patent trolls. The entire patent trolling business model is based on the fact that it is almost always cheaper to settle a patent trolling case than to fight it and win. A full patent trial will cost over a million dollars easily, and sometimes multiples of that. But many patent trolls file a ton of lawsuits, hoping to settle each for well less than what it takes to fight in court. It's a true extortionate scam. Newegg, however, took the long view, and recognized that if it refused to give in and refused to settle, eventually the trolls would realize that it simply wasn't ever worth suing Newegg. Newegg even made "Never Settle" t-shirts to advertise its strategy to trolls. And, eventually, it worked. Though it did involve a few costly patent trials, patent trolls mostly learned to steer clear of Newegg.

A few years ago, Cloudflare got its first patent troll lawsuit, and decided to take Newegg's never settle strategy and kick it up a notch or three. Instead of just saying it wouldn't settle, Cloudflare set out to completely destroy the patent troll who sued it (an operation called Blackbird Technologies). In response to the lawsuit, Cloudflare launched something called Project Jengo, in which it sought to crowdsource prior art not just for the patent used against Cloudflare, but every single patent in Blackbird's portfolio -- and to hand out cash awards to those who found such prior art. It also went after the lawyers at Blackbird for violating legal ethics rules.

Cloudflare's campaign against Blackbird was a huge success. The company easily won in court and Blackbird became a shell of its former self. Prior art was discovered on some of its patents, the firm filed way fewer troll lawsuits, and it appeared that its staff had dwindled.

Patent troll Sable Networks perhaps should have researched all of this before suing Cloudflare over a sketchy patent that Cloudflare doesn't infringe on. However, Sable Networks chose poorly.

Sable Networks and its lawsuit fit neatly within the same troubling trends we were trying to address the first time we launched Project Jengo. Sable is taking ancient, 20-year-old patents and trying to stretch those patents lightyears beyond what they were meant to cover. It has already sued over a dozen technology companies targeting a wide range of different products and services, and by extending its claims to a company like Cloudflare suggests it may next try to stretch its claims to people that merely use routers … namely, anyone that uses the Internet.

We think Sable’s choice to bring these lawsuits on such a tenuous basis should come with some risk related to the underlying merits of its patents and its arguments, so we are sponsoring another prior-art contest seeking submissions to identify prior art for all of Sable’s active patents. We are seeking the help of the Cloudflare community to identify prior art — i.e., evidence that the patented technology was already in use or known before the patent application was filed — that can be used to invalidate Sable’s patents. And we will make it worth your while, by offering $100,000 to be shared by the winners who are successful in finding such prior art.

Again this time, we are committing $100,000 to be split among entrants who provide what we determine to be the most useful prior-art references that can be used in challenging the validity of Sable’s patents. You can submit prior-art references as long as Sable’s case is pending against us (Sable Networks, Inc. v. Cloudflare, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00261-ADA (W.D. Tex.)), which means until Sable drops the case fully (and with prejudice — meaning Sable can’t re-file later), there’s a settlement, or the case has been resolved by the court and all appeal rights are exhausted.

Every three months for two years or until the case ends, whichever comes first, we will select winners from the submissions to date, and give out a portion of the $100,000 as awards. Once the case ends, we will select final winners from all submissions and award the remaining funds.

Once again, Cloudflare is not just looking to invalidate the four patents Sable asserted against Cloudflare, but all 10 patents Sable currently holds.

The blog post also details the ridiculousness of the lawsuit at issue. Sable Networks picked up the discarded patents of Caspian Networks, a failed router company (that was previously known as Packetcom). As Cloudflare notes, once the current owners of the company decided to go patent troll, they pulled out the usual trolling playbook:

In the first round of litigation, Sable filed, and later promptly settled, eight lawsuits asserting infringement of Sable’s router patents. The defendants in those cases (including Cisco and Juniper Networks) provide a range of Internet services, but they all at least manufacture and sell network equipment.

Interestingly, all of those cases were settled just before Sable would have had to do two things that would have actually put its legal claims to the test: (1) respond to an administrative proceeding before the US Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) challenging the validity of its patents; and (2) attend a hearing before the district court where the judge would have determined the proper interpretation and scope of the patent claims. So Sable filed cookie-cutter cases against eight defendants, waited for the defendants to respond, then settled the cases before meaningfully litigating its claims or facing a binding court or administrative ruling, which may have addressed, or likely undermined, Sable’s overly-broad assertion of those patents.

Shortly after settling the original eight cases earlier this year, Sable turned around and filed six new lawsuits against a new batch of technology companies, this time including Cloudflare. Unlike the earlier named defendants, Cloudflare is not in the business of making or selling routers or switches. Sable’s infringement claim therefore is not a close one, and now it’s picked a defendant that is eager to fight back.

Cloudflare's blog post about this also lays out how these patent troll shakedowns work, and note that after a previous decline (thanks in part to some key Supreme Court cases and the impact of patent reform from Congress a decade ago), it appears that patent trolls are on the rise again:

Patent trolls like Sable proliferate because of a distorted incentive structure fueled by the astronomical costs associated with defending against even bogus patent claims. According to the 2019 Report of the Economic Survey by the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the median litigation cost for defending claims of patent infringement brought by a non-practicing entity through trial and appeal was staggering $4,500,000 for big cases (i.e., cases with more than $25 million at risk). Even for small cases that had less than $1 million at stake, the median defense cost was $750,000.

Knowing that most defendants will settle at a percentage of their expected litigation costs long before infringement claims see the inside of a courtroom, patent trolls see only upside from each additional lawsuit they file. Their business model is built around filing as many lawsuits as possible regardless of the strength of their legal claims, because they know most defendants will pay to settle before the merits of their case are put to the test. They therefore take vague technology patents issued years ago and apply them as broadly as imaginable to new technologies and new companies. Most of these trolls are non-practicing entities who don’t have their own products in the marketplace but merely exist to extract a tax on other companies.

After declining in numbers for a few years, patent lawsuits were up last year about 12% over 2019, and increased activity by non-practicing entities buying patents suggested even further growth among such lawsuits in the future. The Electronic Frontier Foundation observed similar increases in patent troll filings in 2020, highlighted a case where one patent troll decided that the middle of a pandemic was a good time to sue a company that makes COVID-19 tests, and noted that “some patent owners actually saw the rise of the COVID-19 health emergency as a business opportunity.” This trend is showing no signs of slowing down — according to a recent report, there was a 43.3% increase in patent litigation in Q1 of 2021 compared to the same period a year ago, and non-practicing entities had their busiest Q1 since 2015, fueled by the litigation finance industry that is flush with capital.

If you think you can dig up some prior art regarding this particular patent troll, you might be able to score some cash at the same time, and help take down a pure, unadulterated evil: blood sucking companies who are exploiting a system for money, while contributing absolutely nothing to innovation, but rather taking away from actual innovators. And, on top of that, you can help send a message to other patent trolls that maybe their "easy money" won't always be so easy, and that there can be some serious consequences to such a shakedown.

Filed Under: crowdfunding, never settle, patent trolling, patent trolls, prior art, project jengo, routers
Companies: caspian networks, cloudflare, sable networks

Woman Who Refused To Wear Mask At Starbucks Wants Half The $100k In Tip Money Barista Got From GoFundMe Campaign

from the wear-a-mask dept

I know you've heard this before, but just so we're all clear: wear a fucking mask, people. It's truly not that big of a deal. I wear one at work any time I am not seated in my office. It's crazy easy and you can even get a little fun out of it by wearing a personalized one like our Techdirt masks.

But, if you're not going to wear a mask, don't also be an insufferable jerk like Amber Gilles. Amber got really mad when a Starbucks barista named Lenin Gutierrez refused to serve her because she wasn't in a mask. She decided to take a picture of Gutierrez and post it on Facebook, complaining about it. When the internet saw the post, it did its thing.

A stranger in Orange County, Matt Cowan, said he wanted to donate a few dollars to the barista in tip money, so he started a GoFundMe. As the photo on Facebook filled with hundreds of thousands of interactions and comments from people supporting the barista, the tip money eventually hit more than $100,000 to be donated to the barista. Lenin said he plans to use that money to further his education and also follow his dreams of dancing.

It should have ended there: a nice little story about the kindness of strangers responding to one self-important dolt. But Amber Gilles claims that the real reason she refused to wear the mask is because medical conditions exempt her from the requirement. I'd normally point out that medical exemptions don't necessarily remove a business' right to refuse service by policy, but instead I think I'll give you the deets on Gilles' proof of her condition.

She went on to describe the symptoms that prevent her from wearing a mask, saying “One of them I get shortness of breath, dizziness and it messes with the heartbeat. And I do have asthma as well, and I do get mask-acne. So there’s several things going on and not only that but it doesn’t even work.”

She provided KGTV with two documents to prove her medical exemption. One is a pelvic exam from 2015 with results that say “probable exophytic fibroid arising from the anterior wall of the uterus measuring 2.9 cm size,” and “simple 2.5 cm left ovarian cyst.” A second piece of paper is a handwritten note with letterhead from a San Diego chiropractor who she asked not be named. The handwritten note reads “Amber has underlying breath conditions that prevent her from wearing a mask or any type of facial covering whatsoever. Please contact me if have any questions.”

I shouldn't have had to do this, but the Mayo Clinic's list of symptoms for uterine fibroids includes absolutely nothing about breathing. And no offense to chiropractors out there, but I somehow don't think your scribbles mean Starbucks can't require a mask to be serviced.

But the real upshot of all of this is that Gilles would like half of that GoFundMe money, please.

Gilles said she now wants half of that money.

“It was discrimination and everybody is OK with it and enabling and rewarding that behavior,” said Gilles.

That's obviously not how any of this works. She could consider suing Starbucks, but she'd lose. Suing an employee for sticking to company policy doesn't somehow mean you get half of a gift given to him by strangers. Also, lawyers are expensive, but Gilles has a plan for that.

Gilles said she's spoken to a few lawyers about taking her case for getting half of the money but said they're all expensive so she started her own GoFundMe to try to raise money.

Here's hoping that the Starbucks barista is going to ask for half that money, too. It's like a crowdfunding Inception!

Filed Under: amber gilles, covid-19, crowdfunding, entitlement, lenin gutierrez, masks
Companies: gofundme, starbucks

RomUniverse To Attempt To Crowdfund Legal Defense, Which Isn't Going Well At All

from the lie-with-infringers... dept

We recently discussed Nintendo's lawsuit against RomUniverse, part of a longstanding war on ROM sites that seems less than absolutely necessary given just how much cash the company is raking in from its retro consoles and titles. Several commenters pointed out that RomUniverse, while proclaiming that it's a source for those who long ago purchased Nintendo games to preserve those purchases, also engages in plenty of other less than ethical behaviors. This includes offering up books and movies alongside the ROMs, for which it can't really make the same claims. In other words, while Nintendo itself might not be the best paladin to slay RomUniverse, it's not as though the site is on the side of the angels.

Given all of that, you would expect the operator of RomUniverse, Matthew Storman, to try to limit the damage here. That certainly doesn't seem to be Storman's plan, however, as he has both publicly stated he will fight the suit and is attempting to crowdfund his legal expenses.

The operator has added a donation option to the RomUniverse homepage and also launched a crowdfunding campaign on GoFundMe, setting a goal of $100,000 to assist with the defense.

“RomUniverse.com was founded in 2009 under the notion that users like you should have easy access to the content that you purchased and the ability to relive those childhood moments. It is because of this, that I am asking for your help,” Storman writes.  “Now I know what you’re thinking, this one person is going to take on one of the largest console/gaming manufacturers in the world? And the short answer is YES,” he notes.

To be clear, he's probably wrong. There is a multitude of risk factors here. For starters, ROM sites have always operated on the wrong side of copyright law. Even if we would advise companies like Nintendo that they should leave them alone, they certainly don't have to. RomUniverse can put up as many banners as they like stating that downloads should only occur if the user has purchased an actual physical cartridge previously, but that doesn't suddenly make offering the copyrighted game content not copyright infringement.

Add to that the possibility that the owners of the other types of media RomUniverse makes available might see all of this going on and decide to get their own piece of the lawsuit pie and this huge Nintendo lawsuit could suddenly morph into a multi-plaintiff apocalypse for RomUniverse. That's all the more so possible given Storman's public statements.

And, finally, if RomUniverse is really relying on crowdfunding to power its legal defense, it seems that nobody bothered to show up to its fundraiser.

On the GoFundMe page, Storman notes that he’s not “greedy” or a scammer. He merely wants to defend his rights and those of others in this “unknown” landscape. In the meantime, the site remains online.

While some people may have donated to the site directly, thus far, the crowdfunding campaign on GoFundMe hasn’t gained any traction. After two days, the donation counter is still at $0.

For perhaps other reasons, the page for the GoFundMe for RomUniverse now returns a "Page Not Found" splash page. RomUniverse's site now is soliciting direct donations instead.

There are enough clouds on the horizon here that Storman should probably go into damage control mode.

Filed Under: copyright, crowdfunding, matthew storman, roms, video games
Companies: nintendo, romuniverse

New Mexico City Starts Crowdfunding Effort To Pay For Its Stupid Defense Of Constitutional Violations

from the self-righteous-but-not-self-sufficient dept

Is it good for governments to supplement their normal crowdfunding efforts (taxes) with something more voluntary? That's the question posed by this great Legally Weird post, which provides a number of examples of city governments asking citizens to dig a little deeper to pay for government things.

Whether or not they can is an unanswered legal question. No one appears to have challenged any of these efforts on policy grounds. Considering giving is completely voluntary, the efforts are usually harmless and underfunded. Whether or not they should engage in crowdfunding is a much more interesting question, although most answers will probably boil down to whether or not the person answering agrees with what the funds are being raised for.

Government crowdfunding efforts have been initiated to pay for park trash receptacles, to remove a Confederate statue, and to supply a public defenders' office with a much-needed cash infusion. Then there's the case that the Legally Weird post leads with.

The city of Bloomfield, New Mexico is asking citizens to pay its legal fees for it. The crowdfunding effort created by Brad Ellsworth, the city's finance officer, hopes to raise enough money to finish paying the $700,000 the city owes to the ACLU.

When we ask rhetorically why governments pursue highly-dubious litigation using public funds, this is the sort of thing we're talking about. The city came out on the losing end of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of two Bloomfield Wiccans who disagreed with the city's placement of a Ten Commandments monument on the city hall lawn.

The city argued the separation of church and state was intact because the monument was paid for and created by private citizens. It even contained a disclaimer to that effect on the monument itself. The case eventually made its way to the Tenth Circuit Appeals Court, which found in favor of the ACLU. The court said that permanent monuments erected on city property are government speech, even if they're privately-funded.

The city countered the monument wasn't permanent. It said those providing the monuments needed to re-apply for prime city hall lawn position every 10 years. The court said there was no meaningful difference between ten years and permanent when the city placed no limit on renewals. The city petitioned the US Supreme Court, but the top court saw no reason to take up the case.

Fortunately, the city's residents didn't have to pay for this litigation. The Alliance Defending Freedom provided the city with pro bono legal services, saving taxpayers a considerable amount of money. But the city lost, and it now owes $700,000 to the ACLU.

Obviously, the city never prepared for this eventuality. The city has until 2021 to pay this debt off and has decided to make its first payment of $233,000 to the ACLU this year, using city budget funds. Its crowdfunding effort asks anyone -- city residents included -- to cough up the remaining $467,000. Its GoFundMe page contains a very self-serving statement that portrays the city as a fierce First Amendment warrior, rather than a participant in a project that violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

In an effort to protect and defend private citizens' First Amendment rights, the City of Bloomfield opposed the ACLU's efforts to remove a former Ten Commandments historical monument from the front lawn at City Hall. The Ten Commandments historical monument sat alongside several historical monuments, including the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and the Gettysburg Address. With overwhelming public support, the City of Bloomfield opposed the ACLU's efforts by appealing all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Unfortunately, the District Court ruled in favor of the ACLU and the City of Bloomfield was ordered to remove the Ten Commandments historical monument, which has since been completed. The Ten Commandments historical monument now resides on property owned by the Bloomfield First Baptist Church.  

An unfortunate result of the City of Bloomfield seeking to defend its private citizens' First Amendment rights is that, because the City of Bloomfield lost the litigation, the City is required to reimburse the attorneys' fees and costs of the ACLU relating to the Ten Commandments litigation. The City owes $467,000.00 in attorneys' fees which must be paid by June 30, 2021. Given the overwhelming public support during the litigation, the City is reaching out to concerned citizens in an effort to help crowd fund the remaining balance owed in attorneys' fees. The City appreciates all of the support private citizens can offer.

To call the response "tepid" would be an insult to room-temperature tap water. More than two weeks into its campaign, the city has only managed to raise $1,775 -- 0.38% of its goal. Comments on the page suggest people aren't happy the city's attempt to stick citizens with the legal bill it racked up, especially after it apparently told residents this lawsuit wouldn't cost them a cent.

Sadly, the residents unwilling to donate to the city's crowdfunding effort will end up paying for this futile, stupid legal battle anyway. When this fails -- and it will -- the remaining balance will be paid off using tax dollars that definitely would be better spent on almost anything else.

Far too many municipalities are willing to use public funds to pursue dubious legal claims -- claims many residents likely don't support. And when they lose, that is added to the public's tab. Bloomfield's idiotic defense of Constitutional violations isn't an anomaly. The only thing that makes it stand out is its use of a crowdfunding platform to pay the legal bill. Otherwise, it's business as usual: the defense of unsupportable positions with the involuntary support of the public.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, bloomfield, civil liberties, crowdfunding, new mexico
Companies: aclu

The Gaming Platform Wars Are Beginning To Screw Up Crowdfunding Games

from the collateral-damage dept

We've talked a great deal of late about Epic Games' kicking off a PC gaming platform war with Steam through its own Epic Store. What the whole thing comes down to is that the Epic Store offers game publishers a revenue split that takes away half as much revenue from the publisher compared with Steam, coupled with a program for gobbling up 6 to 12 month exclusivity deals on many games that keep them off of Steam during that time period entirely. While Valve responded saying this would hurt gamers, and much of the public appeared to agree, Epic's Tim Sweeney has twice now spoken publicly about his plans, while also stating that what Epic is really after is a better gaming marketplace and to get Steam to increase its own revenue splits, promising to end the exclusivity program if its rival does so.

Many of our readers have noticed that I'm somewhat open to Epic's strategy here, although I'm not certainly buying into it fully. Many of those same readers have rightfully pointed out that, whatever Epic's longterm goals, the platform wars still aren't good for the gaming public in the immediate. They're absolutely right about that and one perfect example of how platform wars and exclusivity deals can hurt fans of PC games has shown up in the form of Shenmue 3.

Shenmue 3 was launched via a Kickstarter campaign way back in 2015. Like any Kickstarter campaign, there were different tiers by which one could support the product. Many of those tiers included day 1 Steam keys as a reward for supporting the game's creation. Then this happened:

Last month, the makers of Shenmue III announced that the game will be a timed exclusive to the Epic Store on PC, a move that angered quite a few people who had helped crowdfund the game. After all, when Shenmue III first launched on Kickstarter in June 2015, the developers had offered Steam keys as a reward option. When the game comes out in November of this year, however, Steam keys won’t actually be available. It’ll be on Steam in November 2020.

Those who backed Shenmue III in 2015 and wanted Steam keys for their efforts have a few options. One is to take an Epic Store key. Another is to switch platforms. A third is to get a Steam key one year after launch, once the exclusivity window is up. And a fourth, the developers said today, is to get a refund.

On one hand, yes, the developer is offering a refund to backers for its inability to actually deliver on the day 1 Steam keys it promised. That same developer has also announced, however, that tiers that backed the creation of certain gameplay elements within the game cannot be given a full refund since the gamemakers did in fact deliver on those gameplay elements. That obviously sucks for the Steam gamer: great, you made the thing in the game I wanted you to make, but I cannot play it where I play my games because you're not giving me the Steam key you promised me at the time you promised it.

And, on a higher level, it would be entirely understandable for a backer of this project that only wants to use Steam to say something along the lines of, "Screw you entirely you damned liars." After all, the game developer entered into an exclusivity deal with Epic having already made a Kickstarter deal with the actual backers of the game. That's pretty shitty.

And, of course, those who want a refund don't even have a way to get one... yet.

More details on how to get a refund “will be announced in a following update,” the developers said, although they also warned backers that if they picked one of the tiers including in-game content that’s already been implemented into the game, a full refund won’t be available.

So whichever side you take in Epic's declaration of war on Steam, it cannot be denied that there won't be collateral damage.

Filed Under: crowdfunding, platform wars, shenmue 3, steam keys, video games
Companies: epic, valve

Journalist Barrett Brown Kickstarting Project To Engage In The Same Activities That Landed Him A Bullshit Conviction

from the good-for-him dept

It's not entirely clear what motivations lie behind Barrett Brown's Kickstarter project, but you have to imagine it has to partially be an extended middle finger to the DOJ.

Journalist Barrett Brown was tried and convicted on a handful of charges related to the act of journalism. He ended up with a 63-month sentence and a $890,000 restitution order -- some of which was tied to this activity.

[A] key part of the initial charges included the fact that Brown had organized an effort to comb through the documents that had been obtained from Stratfor via a hack. The key bit was that Brown had reposted a URL pointing to the documents to share via his "Project PM" -- a setup to crowdsource the analysis of the leaked documents. Some of those documents included credit card info, so he was charged with "trafficking" in that information.

Brown made his situation worse by threatening federal agents, but the prosecution originally stemmed from his sharing of Stratfor documents. The link-sharing charge was ultimately dropped, but the DOJ included it in the indictment, trying to turn sharing a URL into trafficking in stolen credit cards.

Compare that summation of the DOJ's prosecution with Brown's new "Pursuance Project."

Pursuance is open source software that provides a better way to organize online. It provides an integrated suite of digital tools, all designed to allow activists, researchers, journalists, artists, coders – anyone with talent and a little time – to collaborate on projects large and small, working within customized, evolvable entities called pursuances. (Think of a pursuance as a mission-oriented project/organization/group that people on the platform can join and contribute to.)

So… crowdsourcing knowledge/skillsets to engage in activism or journalism or whatever. This may include sharing access to leaked documents, much like those Brown was prosecuted for. But this won't all be out in the open. Steps will be taken to shield collaborators from those opposed to their efforts. Two-factor authentication will be baked in, along with "Tor by default." On top of that, pursuers[?] are given tools to keep The Man from surveilling their projects.

We're including a robust permissions system that allows you to invite people at various trust levels. At the minimum trust level, the person you've invited can only see and only work on the tasks you've assigned them; they can't see the rest of the task hierarchy, and they can't see who else is involved, thus limiting the possible damage done by malicious infiltrators.

This sounds very much like Brown wants to get back to the work he was doing before the federal government interrupted his life with trumped-up charges. More journalism, more collaborations, and a suite of tools to keep those who view investigative journalism as threatening locked out of the process.

Filed Under: barrett brown, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, journalism, pursuance project

Less Than One Week To Back Our Kickstarter For The CIA's Card Game; Also Reddit AMA Today

from the collect-it-all dept

So, we're now less than a week away from the close of our Kickstarter campaign for our version of the CIA's recently declassified training card game, which we've dubbed: CIA: Collect It All.

We've been working hard on our version of the game, filling in redacted cards, testing and tweaking certain variations and playtesting, playtesting, playtesting. The game is quite a bit of fun -- which is not something I'm used to saying about something the CIA initially created. The campaign ends next Tuesday, and we don't currently have any plans to print the game after we do this one big run, so if you're on the fence about it, now would be a good time to lean towards supporting it.

Since a bunch of people have had questions about the game, we thought it would be good to go on Reddit and do an AMA about the game. The three of us who have been working on the game -- myself and Leigh Beadon from Techdirt, and Randy Lubin from Diegetic Games -- will all be hanging out on Reddit doing the AMA starting at about 10am PT / 1pm ET today. I'll update this post with the link once it's live, but you should just be able to hit up the /r/IAmA/ subreddit and find it. That'll be the best place to have a discussion about the game, gameplay, design choices and the like (though we'll also answer questions here or on Kickstarter). So stop by and ask some questions and find out what it feels like to play the CIA's own card game. Update: Here's the link to the AMA.

Filed Under: card game, cia, collect it all, crowdfunding, game