Console Emulation and ROMS: Ethically Grey Waters in Classic Gaming

The more articles I write, the more I find myself leaning toward certain subjects. This makes a lot of sense, because while I may continue watching a science fiction series or continue playing a particular tabletop roleplaying game, I can (or should, rather) only write about it once. Video games, on the other hand, are a topic that due to the sheer number of different titles I play, usually generate possibilities for new articles faster than I can write them, because I never wanted these pages to be primarily about video games. There are many, many websites writing on that topic, and while I am happy to share my thoughts on the subject, I'd like this site to also be about other things. That said, rather than forcing an article about a different topic when games are on my mind, I'll write about what I'm into, and one of those things at the moment is playing console classics of years gone by on a hardware emulator for PC.

Many difficult NES games are being rediscovered in emulation, some
emulators having cheats built in, almost all allow saving at any time.

At the most basic level, an emulator in this context is a piece of software that allows a modern PC to execute instructions as though it were another piece of hardware, typically a game console. Though there are emulators for computers of years gone by and even calculators, Arcade cabinets and home video game systems are the most popular use of this particular kind of software. The actual games for these platforms are also software, Read Only Memory (or ROM) that is stored on a chip or disc (CD-ROM/DVD-ROM). The original ROM data, if on a chip, may have been housed in a cartridge or slotted into an arcade systems mainboard. This data can, with specialized equipment be "dumped" to a file that creates an image of the same data that can be stored on any device that normally holds files (CD, DVD, PC Hard Drive, USB Thumbdrive, etc...) The ROM file can be read and loaded by an emulator that translates original graphics, sound and controller input to the equivalent on the PC they are running on.

When I got started in video game emulation over 15 years ago, it was mostly for NES, Super NES, Sega Genesis and classic Arcade Games. There was never a question then in my mind regarding the ethics of use of commerical ROMs in this sort of software, as the vast majority of the titles could not be purchased from the original publishers even if someone would want to. Many of these games would be unplayable with the original cartridges due to the advanced age of the systems, and I'd purchased more than a few of them at original retail price. Things are changing, as emulators are released for more and more modern systems, and some of the classic software is becoming available for download for a small fee in the Nintendo Store, Xbox Live, and even for tablet or mobile phone platforms. The original copyright violations, while strictly non-commericial (no one got paid for any of this,) were technically illegal, and the traditional rationalization weakens as many of these games can be purchased now.

Legend of the Mystical Ninja, or Ganbare Goemon was once only available like
this, but now it can be purchased for the Wii.

The hardware emulators themselves are not illegal pieces of software, and they are freely distributed online. There are legitimate uses of this software, and games are being developed by hobbyists for consoles long since abandoned commercially for the newest model by their developers. Popular software includes MAME (Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator) for Arcade games, FCEux, NEStopia and Nesticle for the Nintendo Entertainment System, Project 64 for the N64, Fusion or Kgen for Sega Genesis and SNES9x for the Super Nintendo. Not all of these emulators are still in development and some may support certain ROMs better than others or allow features like online or LAN multiplayer. There are even emulation programs for the last generation and current generation of game consoles, though frequently many features are missing, don't work correctly or require an incredibly powerful PC for basic operations. One of the advantages to using an emulator over the original hardware is the ability to save at any moment you like, instead of relying on save slots or checkpoints to take a break.

The ROMs themselves were once freely available on websites for download, with proprietary titles like Mario or Zelda games taken down when video game companies became aware of their existence. Certain popular ROM websites would go through years of battling with video game publishers' legal departments, with the eventual takedown of many of these communities as the eventual result. In those early days, for every site that fell to cease-and-desist orders, sternly worded warnings to the offenders' ISP and the like, two more would pop up. Now, websites claiming to offer ROMs are frequently scam or attack sites, full of advertising and with few, if any games. Like MP3s and Pirated Film and TV, the images of the games themselves have moved to peer-to-peer filesharing networks and there is little hope of their availability ever going away. An army of lawyers and lobbyists could literally spend years trying to legislate and litigate these files away, but every time a means of file transfer shuts down, another opens.

Legend of Zelda - Majora's Mask in Project 64 windowed mode on a desktop.

I've struggled with how my many years as an emulation hobbyist fits in with my feelings on piracy and intellectual property. It doesn't feel ethically the same to fire up Super Mario Brothers on an NES emulator as, say, downloading a cracked copy of Dead Island and running it on my PC would. It clearly isn't legal, and most likely isn't really any more ethical than any other form of piracy, but it occupies a part of my geek life, knowing that the entire Atari 2600 library is about 2.5 MB, and every game released for the NES could fit in a tiny corner of a flash drive. PC Gaming got me to stop pirating with Steam, TV and Films did the same with Netflix and other streaming content services. I'm sure that solutions for convenient, reasonably priced and legal alternatives to any sort of content people might pirate will take people like me and convert us into customers, without restrictive DRM or litigation. I'm just not sure where emulation fits into all of that. What do you think? Sound off in the comments.

The Man Behind the Mines, Markus “Notch” Persson.

There's been a lot of news lately about the creator of Minecraft, best known online by his nickname “Notch.” As a developer, he's one of the respected pillars of video game culture for being all around decent to his many fans, and with some of the studios out there, the bar isn't set particularly high with regard to customer service. (Yes, I'm talking about you, Sony, EA and Activision.) With the possible exception of Valve's Gabe Newell, I'd go so far as to say that Markus Persson is the best loved industry figure by the vast majority of geeks. With his name in the news a little bit, it seems as though right now is the perfect time to talk about why.

Seeing as how I wore a similar hat and coat throughout college,
I also approve of his fashion sense.

Notch is the founder of Swedish game studio Mojang, and his phenomenal rise to success with indie smash hit Minecraft is well known. (I've even written about it once already.) As a designer and game developer with King.com, Notch had a “day job” working on titles like Wurm Online. What he really wanted to do was to branch out on his own and create something that he could support, and even sell himself. Inspired by Infiniminer from Zach industries and the roguelike game Dwarf Fortress, the combination of procedurally generated block-mining with crafting and monsters in a roleplaying-like setting got him started on Minecraft. Soon after, he quit his full-time job to work on it, a decision that paid off. The success of millions of sales from what started as a personal design project allowed Persson to found Mojang as a company, and to hire a few employees.

As months have gone by, the company has grown, and continued to update their flagship product while working on a follow-up game, an online collectible card game with board gaming elements called Scrolls. Much of the news these last few weeks has focused on Scrolls, as a controversy around the title of the upcoming release erupted online. Bethesda Softworks, the studio behind the Elder Scrolls series of roleplaying games, has had a pretty good relationship with Notch and Mojang. They've been complimentary of each other's work, as Mojang employees are huge fans of Bethesda games and vice-versa. The positive relationship between the companies made it extremely surprising when Notch got a letter from a Swedish Attorney's office demanding that the use of the word “Scrolls” be eliminated from the title of the new game or a lawsuit would be forthcoming.

Yeah, I was just about to confuse this logo with one for Skyrim.

Cue the torches and pitchforks. It is ludicrous that anyone could confuse “Scrolls” with :The Elder Scrolls,” or that use of a single word shared between titles constitutes infringement. Bethesda has been taking a beating in the press over the legal bullying of a much smaller company run by a highly popular developer. In fairness to Bethesda, they are owned by a media conglomerate called ZeniMax that aggressively defends the copyrights associated with their companies, and some of this can be boiled down to a simple overreaction. Copyright law is murky at best, and claiming to know for certain what is legal and what is not is a great way to get into a pointless and frankly boring debate without hope of resolution. What is clear, however, that where there is a case of infringement, a company is required to defend their intellectual properties in court, or forfeit the right to do so later.

While Notch hasn't kept quiet about the situation, he isn't exactly fanning the fires of the angry mob. He's been forthright about the whole thing, saying on his blog that it is “partly lawyers being lawyers, and trademark law being the way it is.” He'd offered before the lawsuit to make assurances that every possible step to avoid confusion between the franchises would be taken, including a promise to never put any words in front of “Scrolls” in the title upon the game's release and in any possible future expansions. Today, (August 17^th) Notch further made light of the situation by proposing a “trial by combat” between Bethesda and Mojang, with Quake 3 as the battlefield. Winner take all. I somehow doubt ZeniMax media will go for it, but I appreciate the nod to Tyrion Lannister implicit in the offer.

Casterly Rock approves of this proposal.

Markus Persson also recently celebrated a moment in his personal life with his fans, as he got married on August 13^th, and announced a special offer for anyone who still hadn't yet purchased Minecraft. On the weekend of his wedding, a 2-for-1 sale was available on the game, one copy purchased for yourself, and one for “someone you wub,” according to the site. Personally engaging the fan community and attempting to provide some additional content even when personal obligations and the time sink that comes with a one man operation turning into a multinational game studio continues to endear him to geeks. Events like this have converted many users who have pirated minecraft, which has no DRM besides an onscreen acknowledgement that the user is playing with a pirated copy, and lack of access to official update servers.

Notch has been forthcoming about his views on pirating games, indicating his beliefs that major game studios are approaching the problem using ineffective and potentially harmful strategies, while making it clear that he doesn't believe piracy is OK. A member of the Swedish Pirate Party, he's come out publicly saying that “pirated games do not translate into lost sales,” a position that is at odds with most of the gaming (and other media) industries. Though the piracy numbers on Minecraft are high, value is continually added to the game, and the fanbase is engaged on a personal level so that pirates can be converted into customers. As for the pirates that refuse to pay anything, no matter how small, for content, expensive and ineffective tools like DRM won't be a part of Mojang's strategy. In general, those schemes tend to frustrate legitimate customers while doing nothing to stop piracy, and Notch knows it.

Soon to be no longer the scariest thing in Minecraft. I might recommend
Googling "Endermen" for a preview of one of the upcoming monsters in 1.08.

Finally, Mojang has also been in the news about the current release of a mobile edition of Minecraft, the upcoming “Adventure Update,” and the upcoming full release of the transition from Beta to full game at the recently announced MineCon convention in Las Vegas this November. 1.08, the next update and most likely the last content update before the full release of Minecraft, promises to add a LOT of rpg, exploration and combat-type content. A redesign of dungeons, rewards, the combat system, new monsters and NPCs with their own villages are planned for the release. The most significant major content overhaul since the “Halloween Update” that added the Nether or “Hell” dimension, many fans of the game (including me) are eagerly awaiting an official release date. I'm sure that when the time comes, I'll be loading up the game and ready for a full review.

"New Media" and Scarcity: A Geek's Perspective

I've read hundreds of articles on how information technology and access to greater amounts of content with fewer barriers is changing all forms of media, and written a few myself. Recently, I've encountered concepts online that ring true with my experiences these last six months. The “old way” of making a profit for large media companies, from the record, game and film industries to those who report the news, is based on certain assumptions about scarcity. If there are a small amount of companies producing quality content, then those that have the capacity to do so may charge whatever they want. Even if there is a lot of content out there, most of it won't be very good, and access to the best content has traditionally been artificially limited by an army of corporate middlemen. In decades past, if you wanted to watch quality TV or movies, you had your choice of a few studios and networks. Want to read the news? Maybe you have a handful of newspapers to choose from, or you are back to the TV networks.

Things have changed, but a lot of big companies don't want to hear it.

What changed? The barriers to creating and distributing content of all types have come crashing down, and the sheer amount of music, news, movies and programs... even books is massive. Even filtering out all but the best 5 or 10 percent of content produced in each of these categories there is still a lot. Currently, there are so many sources of quality content that the capacity for people to absorb and enjoy it all (or even most of it) is completely overwhelmed. We can see what that did to scarcity, with regard to supply and demand. The demand for amazing content has remained a constant, but technology has increased the supply to a point where old models for business don't make sense anymore. News agencies attempt to set up paywalls in front of their content while competing with sites that offer the same information for free. The piracy issue gets out of hand when businesses clinging to a dead strategy insist on erecting “walls” around content to create artificial scarcity so they can maintain their profits. People see this, and they see an illegal but convenient way to get the same content for free.

Am I saying that there's no such thing as scarcity anymore? Far from it. Supply and demand functions as it always has. What's changed is that it isn't the content that is scarce anymore. The available attention span of the average consumer is what is scarce, and as technology improves, the supply of quality content competing for a little bit of that becomes effectively infinite. What would happen if every person had instant and free access to all the best games, movies, music, television and news programs? I can say from experience that the Paradox of Choice kicks in. When presented with too many options, people become paralyzed with indecision. With content, this works a little differently. When presented with too many “good” options for what to do or watch, I've found myself bored by all of them. The brain can't process which of the hundreds of choices is the most satisfying one psychologically, so the default answer that kicks out is: none of it.

Companies love "New Media" as a buzzword, but on how to actually make
money from it without falling back on dead strategies? That's a little fuzzier.

Does this mean that as the price of content trends lower and lower, that people will inevitably be bored with everything regardless of the quality? I don't think so. More is clearly not always better, but that doesn't mean that the optimal solution is to have less content created. What I personally like is different from what someone else does, and the trick is to provide “filters” for people to see only what matches their personal tastes best. Recommendations based on preferences isn't new on the internet. Reddit and StumbleUpon, two massive portals for content sharing have become incredibly popular doing just that. Recommendations and filters on their own are not, for now, something that people are willing to pay for. However, many people seem willing to endure advertisements on sites that help them “filter out” more choices, and donations to the communities created around these recommendations and filters keep quite a few people employed.

People are used to this. Offer content for free, or for such a low price that it psychologically isn't all that different from free, and offset costs (and turn a profit) with advertising. That's the model that first made television and radio successful. The companies that will be most successful in the coming decades won't be the dying dinosaurs that thrash about with litigation and political pressure to hang on to the way things used to be. The new success stories will be the companies that help people decide what kind of content they want to be exposed to, and build a community around that. Those communities are valuable to targeted advertising for physical goods, and loyalty to a community that someone is proud to be a part of can reap the benefits of paid sponsorship, donations and merchandise sales. The most successful webcomics know this already. How long will it be before other types of content follow suit?

Will how we choose what to watch, read or listen to be determined by companies
that show us how to filter out what we don't like?

I'd be interested to see what happens when books, movies, television and games come around to and fully embrace these ideas. The free-to-play movement in gaming is an example of these principles gaining ground, with online games being provided for free, with optional micropayments for additional content or “extras” financing the game in terms of profitability. News aggregators and portals have optional paid memberships or sponsorships, and most sites offset the costs of users that choose to pay nothing with advertisements. How long will it be before streaming audio and video fully embrace the inevitability of a changing marketplace, and how will it all work? We're seeing early experiments with sites like Pandora and Thesixtyone for music, and I'm certain that TV and movies will follow suit shortly. The voluntary reduction of choices based on reviews, recommendations and personalized content filters may soon be considered more valuable than the content itself.

I wonder if a world that has completely transitioned from an old business model to this newer one would look at our current debates on media piracy, paywalls and Digital Rights Management as comically quaint. Who will be the big companies to reap the profits from a changed market, and what new challenges will a business face if the market accepts the new way of doing things as the default, rather than desperately clinging to a sinking ship? Maybe this discussion is moot or already out-of-date, and I've overlooked sites and services that are new, or just new to me. If you have an opinion about all this, or more information, please... sound off in the comments.

Netflix Streaming – The Controversy and the Price Hike

From the very beginning of my period of unemployment, I've had to stretch my entertainment dollar as far as it will go. Gas prices the way they are, this also means that a lot of my entertainment (aside from the occasional movie or social engagement with friends) has to also be delivered to me, rather than having me fire up the Ford to go to it. In my wild and reckless youth, I'd have had a simple solution. I'd have pirated until my (1 TB) hard drive could take no more. As I've grown older, and hopefully wiser, I've approached what little media piracy I engage in with a personal ethical code. Something has to be: unavailable in the format I need it in when I need it for a reasonable price in order for me to pirate. I've long said that if a fair-priced and convenient legal alternative is available, I'll use it in order to support another solution to the piracy problem aside from random thuggish lawsuits. I've talked a lot about Steam, and how it reduced my game piracy to almost nothing, but for TV and movies... it has been all about Netflix.

This is what I asked for. A fairly priced, convenient alternative to piracy.

A little over a year ago, I decided that a Netflix subscription might be right for me when I was investigating the options on this PC, which is a Media Center computer with a few hardware modifications to allow for gaming. Exploring what I could do to play movies and watch TV on my new-ish computer, I first noticed Netflix streaming. I'd considered Netflix before, but I really don't watch nearly enough DVDs to make it seem worth the price. I prefer streaming digital content when I can get it. Browsing the offerings on Netflix streaming, and seeing that it was included with the “1 movie out at a time” option, made it a no-brainer. I set it up right before we moved in here, and Netflix was waiting for us before we'd unpacked a single box.

I wasn't really surprised when I got the first e-mail with a small price increase. What I'd been getting was a value that was, really, too good to be true, so I wasn't really surprised or angered by that first tiny price increase. More recently, however, I got the e-mail that so many people got stating that September 1^st, those of us used to a single DVD and unlimited streaming would have to either choose one or the other, or get hit with a 60% price hike. Like so many others, I sharpened my pitchfork and got my torch ready. So many people are regularly disappointed and mistreated in their business relationships with big companies that it feels like a real betrayal when something like this comes from a company that most of us consider “one of the good 'uns.” Before shooting my mouth off online, however, I decided to do a little research into why this happened.

Recent customer reaction to the controversy found on Reddit.

It appears that Netflix has had some troubles recently, victims of their own success. As compared to a lot of the big media multinational corporations, it is still a fairly small company. In the period of the last few years, though, the streaming option has become so popular that during peak usage hours in the US, Netflix streaming accounts for a higher percentage of all used bandwidth than any other program, product or service. Those big corporations have taken notice of the popularity of streaming video, and they aren't happy that a little upstart company has a foothold in the market and is offering it cheaper than, say, they might choose to price it. The large companies responded as they usually do, by screwing over Netflix in order to run them out of the market so that competing video streaming services can be launched. Several studio contracts with Netflix either just ran out or are about to, and the renewal of those contracts is, in many cases, either off the table entirely or at 10x the previous licensing fees.

I'm still angry, but most of my ire is now directed at the studios that are forcing this showdown to happen. Netflix is taking a beating in the scandal, with irate customers canceling at a rate polls suggest will approach 50% of the current users. Trapped between offering fewer streaming options and raising prices on their service, the company is in a bad spot. If this controversy is the beginning of the end for Netflix, their loss would be a tragedy. I've dealt with the customer service at Netflix as well as the departments at Comcast, Sony, and several other potential players in the upcoming streaming content wars. I have 100% satisfaction with all of my dealing with Netflix on customer service issues, and a terribly spotty history with the giants that want to take its place.

If you're really looking for a villain in all of this...

Personally, the question of what to do isn't a difficult one for me. I'll drop the DVD option, pay a little less on my bill and use the streaming. When content options disappear and only show up on an inferior and more expensive competing service, I won't have a single ethical problem with turning to piracy. I will not reward companies who bully smaller corporations and threaten/pursue legal action against the public with my business. When corporations behave in this manner, I'm not even seeking justification for illegal behavior, they've made it personal. Millions of customers have turned their ire toward Netflix, which after a little bit of online research, seems to be a case of misplaced aggression. Me, I feel plenty aggressive, but Netflix only gets a very little bit of that. The rest is reserved for Time/Warner, Sony, Comcast and the major TV networks.

Portal 2 Countdown is almost there! But is it really important?

It seems that Valve has made a lot of hype over their little announcement in about 3 hours after this blog post is being written. I have read many theories already as to what the announcement might be, so I really wonder if any of them are true. All of the theories I've read sound believable and possible, but I also think that they may be a bit too imaginative.

Half Life 3? - We all know that's never coming... :/

Half Life 2: Episode 3 - Maybe...

Portal 2 : Early Release - This is a maybe, as well; a lot of people think this will be what is happening, and I like the idea, but I'd rather have HL2: EP3 or HL3, but that's just being imaginative, I'm guessing.

Portal 2: Demo - This is a very likely case, seeing as how many developers release demos just a few days before the release of the game.

Something Else: We all know that if it's something else, we'll be mad; however, it may be the only possibility. The game looks awesome and we want to play it, but it can very easily be anything they're announcing.

Plus, the ENDINGS and ENDING SONG have been leaked... Some are saying that they are fake and just part of the arg, but this is not the case according to moderation at Steampowered.com having edited a person's comment saying 'we do not comment on piracy' - basically confirming that these are the true endings. PLEASE do NOT watch them unless you already do NOT want to buy the game, you'll ruin it for yourself and for others... plus it's piracy, according to Steam's employees - so it is probably the same to Valve.

KEEP READING MY BLOG FOR MORE ON THE LATEST WITH PORTAL 2

http://www.aperturescience.com/a/b/c/d/g/h/abcdgh/

http://spn.tw/r5cP2

  

A Second Look at Software Piracy, and digital content delivery through Amazon.com, Netflix, iTunes, etc...

 Just yesterday, a friend of mine was talking about this blog and he made reference to my post on illegal downloading and the ethics of piracy, here. He talked about how my article made him think about media piracy and that the debate affected his feelings about his own actions. This got me thinking. Did my last article on the subject really reflect my attitude or behavior on the subject?

It is important to me to be genuine to the people who spend a part of their day reading the things I put here, and sometimes it is difficult to do that without violating one of the rules I have crafted for myself on the internet. The most important one is: “Don't be a dick.” A large component of that rule means that I conduct myself online largely the way I would if I were at a large party with strangers. Quickest way to piss people off at a party? Talk about your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) or your politics. I made the mistake of arguing both in my early years on the internet, and then I saw the religious and political debates on social media sites and in forums. I thought about how those debates made me feel about my friends, family and acquaintances. No one ever really gained any points with me in those flamewars, but some people lost a few. I don't want to “play to the middle”, disguising who I am for appeal to a wide audience, but I also refuse to be a dick online.

See also: "The Greater Internet Dickwad Theory", Google it, now.

Talking about piracy drifts really close to politics for my tastes, so I think that I automatically filter myself when taking on a subject like this. Time for some honesty. There are times where I'm going to pirate something even if I hold to my belief that piracy isn't OK. If a mainstream property is unavailable using a convenient delivery system, at a price that is reasonable for the value provided to me, and the primary entity deprived of compensation is a large corporation, I am likely to pirate. I'm pretty sure that this isn't at all clear with the opinions I presented in that last article. I understand I may take (and deserve) some heat for this, but if this makes you mad, ask yourself a question. If there was no such thing as a public library, would it be possible today to open one, or would it be shut down by Big Content as a “state sponsored copyright infringement center?”

Now, if there is a method of getting that same content that is relatively inexpensive, easy to use, free of intrusive DRM, adds some value and provides compensation directly to content creators, or some combination of the above, I jump at it. Steam for video games, Netflix streaming for TV and movies, various services for music that don't start with “i” or end with “Tunes”, not only do I pay for media despite being out of a job, but I pimp those services without any monetary compensation. Comic Book Publishers and Ebook publishers take notice. THIS IS WHAT YOUR CONSUMER WANTS.

Also, this. If fan art and sales figures are to be believed, your consumer wants this.

The lawsuits and blatant misuse of copyright law as a weapon (most people don't even know that the purpose of copyright law was originally to keep big companies from stealing the little guy's idea and selling it, not to sue college students and grandmothers for unlawful copying of media for personal use) all sickens me. It is destructive and utterly ineffective in putting the genie back in the bottle. My favorite analogy in big content's war on piracy is that of a sinking warship desperately trying to save itself the only way it knows how: by firing its cannons at the ocean. New business models will make some people and companies wealthy, and others obsolete. No amount of poorly-written legislation or frivolous litigation will change that.

Companies that understand and adapt to new business models and consumer wishes can make a lot of money (and some are.) In general, people are willing to pay for delivery systems, but hate paying for content, and will tolerate advertising to subsidize prices until ads intrude on content. Netflix understands this, as do gaming companies that offer free content updates to legit customers or subscribers, and this model has had a lot of success. If a service offers convenience, but overprices digital goods, such as iTunes or Amazon, they can make a lot of money, and anger a customer base that is willing to jump ship to the first viable alternative that presents itself. This, of course, also factors into the “ethical calculations” people do when deciding whether or not to pirate.

I want one of these bad. Almost up to "would punch a baby" bad... but only if the baby was a jerk, talking about religion and politics.

On the subject of Amazon, it has been noted that I profile an awful lot of products that are for sale on Amazon, and many bloggers have made a few dollars from referrals, but I haven't done this. This is not an ethical “line in the sand” that I've refused to cross. I live in the city of Chicago, state of Illinois, and our state government instituted an internet sales tax, which caused Amazon to refuse to do business in this state. This locks that possibility away from this site. I actually really like a few things Amazon has done to push their business model into new directions, and I think the Kindle is really cool (though I don't own one yet.) The notion of a partially ad-subsidized Kindle to bring the device price down (as lampooned here by Penny Arcade) is the kind of innovation I applaud. I feel the same way about Amazon as I do about Apple. Great devices, overpriced and terrible content delivery, $15+ for an ebook is obscene, and the issues with iTunes and why geeks hate it is a whole other article.

I've started to roll out a few changes to this site, the first of which is the Facebook page for this blog (hit “Like” in the column on the right), where I'll host a few polls and other site-related extra content (maybe contests?) as I develop it. I also may work on the layout, so if things look a little stranger than usual, I am tinkering. Future possibilities include moving to a new domain name (a ways off) and adding the code to be able to reply to comments directly (probably soon). In addition to any comments about piracy and digital goods/content you might have, if there are things you like or dislike about the blog or its layout... sound off!

Yarr...

Since I talked a little about Digital Rights Management (DRM) yesterday, I figured I'd talk a little bit about a related issue that is a little more controversial. Pirates.

No, not these guys.

Though most geeks can agree that DRM is a Bad Thing, the ethics of piracy when it comes to movies and software is a little more murky, and there are a lot of differing opinions on the subject.  Sweden has seen the pro-piracy movement turn political, as they have their own "Pirate Party" in government now.  Here in the US, the RIAA, MPAA and several other acronyms have put pressure on our own government to take action against piracy.

These Guys.

Geeks are bitterly divided on the concept of intellectual property from "information activists" who believe that content is information and should be free, to the traditionalist thinking that says that piracy is stealing, same as ripping off a book, DVD or game from a store, and everything in-between.

I mention the in between, because I don't think you have to believe that piracy is properly stealing to have some ethical qualms about piracy.  Stealing takes something, depriving its owner from it and unlawfully transfers exclusive possession to someone else. Unauthorized copying and distribution doesn't deprive the owner of anything. If someone could make a copy of my car and drive off with it, leaving mine intact, would I call the police?  

I know that's a little Reducto ad Absurdum, and it leaves out some of the finer points.  I believe, personally, that while piracy is not theft, content creators deserve to be compensated and credited for their work.  I wouldn't like it very much if someone copied things I'd written for their own profit.  Non-commercial sharing of copyrighted works is unethical, but it isn't really theft. 

An old argument that doesn't work for me has been used by Big Content for years, the idea that if people copy and share, content will stop being profitable to make, and people will stop making it.  Sorry, but cassette recorders didn't kill radio, the VCR didn't kill TV or Movies and The Pirate Bay didn't stop the Movie Industry from posting record revenues these last few years.  People will create because they have to, and those who appreciate their work will show that appreciation by providing them with money. The people who lose out are the middlemen. The studio, producer, promoter, etc... 

The middlemen have seen the writing on the wall after decades of making piles of money on the backs of content creators, and they are prepared to spend some of their vast fortunes ensuring that their way of life doesn't change.  They will fail. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and the smart middlemen will find a new way to keep themselves relevant instead of leading the doomed charge against progress.  I've heard the current strategy described as "the sinking ship desperately firing their cannons at the ocean." I like that.

Though I believe all this to be true, I still don't pirate a lot of content. I'll go into details on why in a future post, but I believe that though piracy is wrong, treating it like traditional theft is also wrong, and ultimately foolish.  

Watch this space soon for my first guest blogger, Joel from A momentary lapse, who writes about movies so terrible, they are amazing.

Geek Wars - Our Own Culture Clash

In the geek subculture, there are a few things most of us can agree on.

Han shot first.

Bacon should have its own food group.

There Should Have Been Only One.

It is easier to enjoy Highlander and The Matrix if you insist there were never sequels.

And most of us really, really like The Goddamn Batman, and feel kinda icky about furries.

What about more controversial geek topics? Star Wars, or Star Trek? Consoles or computer gaming? Marvel or DC comics? Piracy: scourge of the struggling game content creator, or customer's (semi)legitimate protest over hyperinflated game prices and substandard content?

Pages and pages of geeks flaming each other have been written in internet forums, blogs, anywhere someone can make their opinions known. Geeks identify themselves by their feelings on these topics, and I think it is almost more about what they dislike, then defending or expressing support for their favorites. Namecalling, insults, and the inevitable decline from "civil discourse" to "invocation of Godwin's Law," it all happens too fast, and in the name of what someone does or does not find entertaining.

In the 1994 movie Witch Hunt, there's a quote that I think sums it up, "Let me tell you about the people... put ten of them in a room, and they may not elect a leader, but I guarantee they'll pick someone to hate." As intelligent men and women, we should be able to rise above needing to despise others for different opinions. We laugh at hardcore sports fans for getting angry at each other over which burly guys wearing what colors the other guy cheers for, but are we really above it all? Hell, in some ways, we're worse.

I'm going to do my part to accept other geeks, even if they don't like what I do.

Except furries. They still creep me out.