Categories
General Politics/Government

Where Were You On September 11th, 2001?

10 years ago, I was up early finishing math homework at the desk in my dorm. It was due for that morning’s class, and I had procrastinated during the weekend. It was my junior year of college, and I didn’t know that classes would be canceled that day.

I had two roommates in an apartment-like dorm. The one I shared a bunk with was still asleep, but the one who was usually secluded in his room came out and told me to turn on the TV news.

I watched a building with smoke billowing out of it, and there was some speculation that a plane had accidentally flown into it. No one knew if it was an attack. Shortly after, I saw live reports of the second plane flying into the World Trade Center buildings, and it was clear that it was no accident.

Our neighbors across the hall knocked on the door, and we all watched the news in silence. Footage of the planes slamming into the buildings repeated, and news anchors provided what info they could, even though no one knew what was happening. Occasionally someone would say something, but we were otherwise numbed and unable to speak.

My other roommate appeared and asked what was going on since so many people were in our living room. I remember feeling a bit guilty that I didn’t think to go wake him up. He did a literal double-take when he saw the TV footage.

People were reported to be jumping out of the burning towers, which eventually fell as well. The Pentagon was attacked, and we heard the relatively good news that one plane crashed in a field instead of hitting its intended target. One neighbor said it looked like the fall of Rome, and I remember being bothered by the statement at the time but in a way I couldn’t put to words. It was all horrific, and the footage was on constant repeat.

I remember my mother called me, which was difficult since the phone lines were tied up. Everyone was calling everyone, it seemed. “Where are you?”

“I’m at school.”

“What are you doing there?!”

“Mom, I live here.”

Even people who live in the Chicagoland area sometimes think that all of Chicago is Downtown Chicago. Even though I was miles away from downtown, my mother probably thought I was hanging out near the Sears Tower, which I’m sure everyone thought would be a potential target.

I knew of only one person in New York, a prominent QBasic game reviewer, and I was relieved to find out he was safe.

The school set up some TVs in the cafeteria, and I spent part of the day with friends there. Eventually I realized that I was getting fatigued by the news on repeat. It was a lot to process and take in. There was so much death and destruction, and while I was aware that people might be used to such attacks in some places in the world, it was the first time I can remember seeing such an attack so close to home.

I recall the face of Osama bin Laden appearing on TV, with people speculating about his involvement, and I remember thinking that we don’t know who did it, and yet now everyone in America who looks remotely Middle Eastern will be suspected of being a terrorist. I was reminded of “The Siege,” a movie starring Denzel Washington, Bruce Willis, and Annette Bening. There is a scene shortly after a terrorist attack with talk radio personalities arguing that we should deport all Arabs, since we “know” they’re the ones responsible. Everyone was afraid of everyone, and I worried it was going to happen in real life.

One Muslim friend of mine reported being on a crowded El that week and wondering why no one would take the seat next to her, until she realized it was because everyone was afraid of her. If you knew her, you’d realize how laughably absurd it is to be afraid to sit next to her, and yet that was the climate of fear the country was in.

I remember going to class downtown the next day, and while waiting for the elevator, a friend asked me if I was nervous. I said I wasn’t, because I figured the day after an attack is probably the safest time to be anywhere. In the days that followed, though, I was incredibly aware of the fact that the Sears Tower was mere blocks away, and I couldn’t help but imagine how terrible it would be to stand where I was and witness it burn and fall.

There was a lot of ugliness on September 11th, and at times you couldn’t believe that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself the way the media and politicians went on, but I remember some things that weren’t horrible. While I didn’t know anyone who had died in the attacks, and I don’t think I knew anyone who knew anyone either, there was a lot of goodwill and love. I remember a number of us were being turned away when trying to donate blood because so many people were trying to help. It seemed every other person had shirts proclaiming that they hearted New York. Everyone was a New Yorker. The outpouring of support from the nations of the world included statements like “We are all Americans.”

With so much support, goodwill, and strength, how could the attacks possibly compare to the fall of Rome?

In the years to follow, I remember recounting the day with friends every so often, and I realized that “Where were you on September 11th?” was going to be a question along the lines of “Where were you when John F. Kennedy was killed?” A friend said his alarm woke him up because a radio personality was saying that if you’re just tuning in, you’re waking up in World War III, which he initially dismissed as some alarmist version of what might likely be a relatively benign event. Another was interviewing for a job and saw the flags at half mast upon arrival.

In all of these stories, it seems as if time stands still for the person when he/she realizes what happened. Priorities become reevaluated. And there is always this feeling that it was an unreal experience, as if this remembering was not of the past but of a bizarre dream.

I wish I had a good moral or point to tell. Maybe if I was a better writer, I could turn my story into a point about the dangers of fear, about how terrorism is about terror, and when we allow ourselves to be afraid, the terrorists have done their job. Maybe I could even throw in the well-known quote by Benjamin Franklin on those who deserve neither liberty nor safety. But in the end, it was a horrible morning involving a lot of suffering and death and destruction, and this article was merely my memory of it.

Categories
General Personal Development Politics/Government

The End of the World

According to some people, the rapture is scheduled to occur today, with the end of the world to follow shortly. I don’t normally write about religion or politics on this blog, but I’ll relate a story I was told in high school that really impacted me. I am probably remembering parts of it wrong, but I think the basic gist is still there.

There were three priests playing pool. One of the priests asked the others, “If you knew that the world was going to end in the next 10 minutes, what would you do?”

One priest answered, “I’d go to the church and lead the people in prayer. I’m sure there will be plenty who are afraid or lost, and I would want to be there with them to pray for forgiveness and strength.”

The next priest said, “I’d go home and pray alone, as Jesus suggested was best in the gospel according to Matthew. I’d shut myself in my room, and I’d pray for forgiveness and strength.”

The two looked at the third priest and asked him what he would do. He replied, “I’d finish this game.”

Categories
Game Development Games Politics/Government

Last Day to Vote!

Today is the last day to vote for the 2011 IGDA board! Did you vote yet?

I voted

Check out the 2011 candidates to get your last minute votes in!

This post was scheduled to be published at a time when I will not be able to access the computer. I’ll respond to comments when I return at the end of the month.

Categories
Games Politics/Government

Depictions of Violent Death in Games

Fight Club

Opinion: The “Virgin Mary” of Video Games? is a piece at GameDev.net by Lew Pulsipher, a board game designer and game design educator, which analyzes the predominance of games that depict violent death.

He links to a short post by John Sharp in 2009 which asks the following question:

If representations of Mary are used as evidence of the centrality of Christianity in the culture of the Italian Renaissance, what does the preponderance of guns say about our culture, and more specifically, the cultural form of games?

Pulsipher argues that guns are too specific, especially when you consider the vast majority of games set in a fantasy environment in which there are no modern weapons, and posits that a large number of games depict violent death.

He doesn’t question why it is so. He doesn’t demand the game industry account for itself. He and Sharp both simply question what it says about our culture that our entertainment is so violent.

And they’re not the first ones to ask this question, and it isn’t just games. Why We Watch: The Attractions of Violent Entertainment is a book from 1998 that explicitly analyzed not how violence in our entertainment affects us but why we specifically look for it.

There’s an article on video games by Jeffrey Goldstein in this book that mentions Mortal Kombat. If you recall, there were two versions released for home consoles at the time. The Sega Genesis version had all of the blood and gore included, but the Super Nintendo version was toned down.

Although there were more Nintendo than Sega game systems present in U.S. households, the bloody Sega version of Mortal Kombat outsold the less violent version by about 7 to 1.

The article goes on to discuss the distinction between aggressive behavior and aggressive play, and it says that there are 25 possible reasons for an appeal to the latter ranging from biological to psychological to social reasons. One reason children war play or enjoy violent media is surprisingly out of a need to seek out justice. After all, it is more enjoyable to see a film about a violent criminal who is caught and brought to justice than it is to see one about an unresolved murder.

And again, the book that this article comes from is from 1998, so the questions asked aren’t new. I do think, however, that there aren’t many answers that have been provided since then. There is, of course, the notable exception of Everything Bad is Good for You by Steven Johnson. Johnson argues that the content of the video games isn’t as important as the form. That is, the systems of the game provide the appeal and benefit rather than the actual content.

But it doesn’t explain why a bloodier Mortal Kombat sold so much better than a toned-down version, although marketing could have much to do with it. And it also doesn’t explain why video games tend to focus on conflict and violence as themes, especially if they don’t need to do so.

So what does it say that most video games are violent? Pulsipher says he doesn’t know and would like his article to stir up some discussion. Goldstein mentioned a number of possible explanations, but he admitted that there isn’t much research to indicate what may or may not be the case. Hasn’t there been any more thoughts on it? Are depictions of violence in video games indicating a problem or a cultural bias in learning, or is the content unimportant?

To put it another way, what would it say about our culture if violent depictions in video games were incredibly rare? Would it indicate that gamers are more civilized? Would it mean people weren’t gaming anymore?

Does violence in video games stop appealing to gamers as they mature, or is it a certain type of person who specifically doesn’t enjoy games which feature violence heavily in their themes?

Do you know of further research which indicates what violence in our cultural artifacts means? Are games inherently good for exploring themes of violence, struggle, and survival, or is it simply easier for game designers to focus on such games?

(Photo: Fight Club by Polina Sergeeva | CC-BY-2.0)

Categories
Game Design Game Development Geek / Technical Linux Game Development Politics/Government

LD#15: My Time Lapse

Categories
Game Design Game Development Geek / Technical Linux Game Development Politics/Government

LD#15: Mineral Miner – Final Entry

CavernGameFinal

I did it! I submitted my entry just in time for the end of the competition, too! And it is the first time since LD#11 that I’ve submitted a game with audio, no matter how jarring!

You can download the GNU/Linux version here: Mineral Miner for GNU/Linux: 1.2MB

I’ll try to have a Windows port up as soon as possible. Mineral Miner for Windows: 2.1MB

Controls:
Use the arrow keys to move around.
Press the space bar to jump into and out of the front of your tank.

Collect all the minerals and return to the exit to finish the level.
You can only hold one set of minerals at a time. Return the minerals you collected to your tank to collect more.
Watch out for monsters! If you get too close to a monster lair, a monster will come out and attack you. You’ll have to find a way to stop them from coming out.

Congratulations to everyone who participated and finished a game in 48 hours!

Categories
Geek / Technical Marketing/Business Politics/Government

Do Patents Stifle Innovation?

The Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution states that Congress shall have the authority to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”, and it specifies how Congress shall do so: “by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” See my article on what an indie needs to know about copyright for a primer on the topic.

Copyright, trademark, and patent laws were created to provide the latter in the hopes that it encourages the former. While anecdotal claims have been around for some time which insist that patents are stifling innovation, especially in the realm of software development, the prevailing view is that patents are good for innovation. Of course, that claim is also anecdotal.

Dr. Andrew W. Torrance and Dr. Bill Tomlinson simulated different types of patent systems, using PatentSim, which sounds like an MMO based around owning and utilizing patents. Based on their simulations, using different patent models, they found that the data “suggest that a system combining patent and open source protection for inventions (that is, similar to modern patent systems) generates significantly lower rates of innovation (p<0.05), productivity (p<0.001), and societal utility (p<0.002) than does a commons system.”

Read about the study at Patents and the Regress of Useful Arts.

Changing the US Patent system is tough, especially since so many businesses exist with an interest in keeping the status quo, but if promoting the useful arts and sciences can be more effective by NOT continuing with current practices, it sounds like “securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” was an erroneous assumption on the part of the Founding Fathers.

Categories
Geek / Technical Politics/Government

Another Abuse of the DMCA

Jay Barnson of Rampant Games reported on yet another abuse of the DMCA. This time, the abusers are car manufacturers.

Modern cars are equipped with computers, which means repairs and auto work now require more than just hitting your engine with a hammer. It seems that in order for non-dealership service shops to fix your cars, they need to circumvent the encryption of your engine.

And of course, according to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, circumventing “technological protection measures” is a felony.

The DMCA was passed under the impression that artists and authors would produce more creative works since without these protections they had no incentive in the modern age. What we’ve seen is security researchers barred from discussing research on computer security, which also discourages said research in an age when we need such research the most. What we’ve seen is Wal-mart, Best Buy, and a number of other major retail companies use the DMCA to prevent comparison shopping websites from posting uncopyrightable prices. What we’ve seen is the removal of public domain works from sites such as The Internet Archive. For a list of abuses as of 2003, see the Electronic Freedom Foundation’s list of abusive DMCA subpoenas and takedown demands.

The DMCA doesn’t require the accuser to demonstrate proof. No judge needs to be involved to allow overreaching takedown powers. If the accuser sends a notice to an ISP, the ISP needs to take steps immediately or be found at fault and liable for damages. If you upload a video you made to YouTube, and Viacom or 20th Century Fox sends a DMCA notice to YouTube accusing you of uploading THEIR content, you can defend yourself…after the fact. Most likely you will find that your video has been removed, even if it was completely original and under YOUR copyright. Imagine if Microsoft or EA managed to get your game removed from your servers by sending a DMCA notice to your ISP.

And now apparently the DMCA is being used to lock-in service work for car dealerships. Seriously? In this case, it doesn’t even involve a copyrighted work! It also discourages hobbyist car mechanics from tinkering with their cars. It’s disgusting.

So apparently after the DMCA gives all of these absurd powers away, we need laws to patch up specific abuses. Researchers can do research under an exception. If you’re blind and want to be able to listen to ebooks? You need an exception. Now there is a Right to Repair Act on the way to allow people to take their cars anywhere they want for service. Where’s the Right to Repair Act for everything else?

The public loses again.

Categories
Geek / Technical Marketing/Business Politics/Government

Simplifying Copyright for the Modern World

Thanks to Scott Macmillan of Macguffin Games, I learned about an article by Cory Doctorow called Digital Licensing: Do It Yourself.

Doctorow suggests a fascinating idea: self-service licensing. Let’s say you create a game, and someone wants to create plush toys of the characters and sell them online. Technically, it’s illegal unless they get your permission. Disney, for instance, would want you to negotiate an agreement with their expensive lawyers…which requires you to hire your own expensive lawyer. Unless you’re a huge manufacturer and intend to sell to hundreds of thousands of customers, it’s not worth the expense and effort.

But you’re an indie. You don’t have an army of lawyers on staff. Your staff might consist of just you, in fact. So if someone wanted to make a plush toy out of your video game characters, and you had no problem with people doing so, even for commercial gain, but wanted to make sure you were protected, what could you do?

Your options used to be sticking your head in the sand, risking the dilution of your trademark, giving permission but worrying about what legal rights you might accidentally give away, or preventing people from making what are essentially derivative works without your consent. But why not just give them consent? After all, it isn’t your core business, and they’re taking all the risk. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could make an agreement with them without having to negotiate over the course of weeks or months?

Doctorow suggests some general wording that covers your obligations to your own trademarks and rights while also allowing others to understand what they can and cannot do and how you expect to be paid from their profiting off of your works.

The key part is simplicity:

Complexity is your enemy here. Two or three sentences are all you want, so that the idea can be absorbed in 10 seconds by a maker at three in the morning just as she embarks on an inspired quest to sculpt a 3D version from your logo using flattened pop-cans.

The secret to simplicity here is in the license fee, the payment schedule, and the enforcement regime.

What’s exciting is that such simplified, self-service licensing opens up potentially multiple market research opportunities! Someone can make plush toys and determine if they sell well WITHOUT you needing to invest in it. They carry the risk, and you can earn royalties if it works out for them. Someone else can do paper-craft, or craft some earrings, or create a movie, or make a painting, or any number of possible derivative works, carrying all the risk of seeing if there is a market for these things, and if it turns out that there is, you always have the option of doing something bigger with them.

Without self-service licensing, you have to dictate everything yourself. You need to prevent everyone from doing fun crafty things based on your work, but you also only have so much time to dedicate to your own business, which means less time to do anything that could potentially create new markets based on your work.

When I was younger, I drew pictures of Super Mario Bros characters. I tried to sell them at a garage sale and also at a shopping center. Now, keep in mind, I was a child trying to sell pictures I drew, and I had no idea that I was infringing on Nintendo’s copyrights and trademarks. Nintendo wasn’t going to do anything to me because they didn’t even know I existed. But if I had done it today, you could imagine that I would be using eBay or some website, which means the entire world could find me. Suddenly, my personal little craft is just that much more dangerous. Nintendo could shut me down if they wanted to. A lot of the creators of Nintendo-themed woodwork and art are only getting away with it because Nintendo hasn’t pointed their legal team at them. But if Nintendo had a self-service license, it would simultaneously protect their trademark while also allowing fans to create and sell crafts on a small scale. My Nintendo-themed drawings could be sold, legally and without harm, and Nintendo gets a small cut of any revenues I get.

Now, Nintendo might not care too much about the relatively small amount of money that would come their way through such a system, but what about you? Do you have fans that would love to create works based on your game? Wouldn’t it be nice if they were given a simple, safe way to do so? One that would give them peace of mind that they wouldn’t get sued by your company on a whim, and that also lets them kick back some extra money towards you?

And even if self-service licensing doesn’t appeal to you (although I would strongly suggest reading Cory Doctorow’s article to see a much better explanation since it might change your mind), the idea of simplifying your licenses in a Creative Commons way would only help. Copyright is confusing, and most people don’t know what it is, let alone why they should pay attention to your EULA. Why provide 37 sections of legalese when you could tell them what you expect in 4 plain-language sentences?

Categories
Geek / Technical Marketing/Business Politics/Government

2008 Global Software Piracy Study

The Business Software Alliance, which is made up of mainly larger software companies and claims to be the “voice of the world’s software industry and its hardware partners on a wide range of business and policy affairs”, sponsored research by IDC. Their findings were released in the 2008 Global Software Piracy Study.

I take issue with a few parts of the 25 page report. For one thing, there is still a claim that every illegally downloaded piece of software corresponds to a “loss” for a software vendor. The report itself uses quotes around the word “loss”, which indicates to me that even the IDC can’t just outright claim they are real losses. A simple mental exercise will demonstrate how false it is. Do you know someone who downloads software illegally? If not, pretend you know someone who has downloaded hundreds of games, productivity software, and office software illegally. Now, tell me, if this person had to pay for each and every piece of software, would he or she have the money to do so? Most likely, the answer is no. Software isn’t like a physical product that can be returned, such as a car, so if this person were to be caught, I have a hard time believing that uninstalling the illegal software would restore these supposed “losses” to the software vendor.

The way they legitimize the claim that each pirated copy is a loss? By showing a strong correlation between piracy rates and the strength of the software industry in a country. Except I don’t think anyone doubts that losses occur overall, which is all that correlation shows. You could look at it as each pirated copy of software contributes to the whole, and the whole correlates with a weak software industry, but it is hardly a 1:1 causation.

But what’s even more bizarre is how software piracy “losses” seem to go up or down depending on currency exchange rates! Yes, the BSA claims that because the USD went down, piracy “losses” went up. Can we use triple quotes on that word?

It is fascinating to see how Russia, China, and even Brazil are lowering their piracy rates by a large margin, which corresponds with job increases, although it isn’t clear if there is a causation one way or another in those cases. It seems that developing countries are the ones where the largest increase in software piracy is occurring.

There is a section in which the study lists factors that help to lower piracy. A couple of these factors are described using words like “have been paying off” to indicate that we should expect that such factors were being used and were measured in their effectiveness. Most, however, use words like “will lower piracy” or “can have an impact”, which indicates to me that these are more wishful thinking and not necessarily based in any numbers. Most telling: one of those latter factors is Technical Advances, specifically Digital Rights Management (DRM).

At the end, the BSA lists their blueprint for reducing piracy. Most of the items are about stronger copyright laws and better and heavier enforcement of the laws. I’m not so sure I like a group of the larger, multinational software companies dictating how copyright laws should work better for them and less for smaller indie shops and micro software vendors, or for citizens at large. We live in a world where thousands of unique videos are created and uploaded to YouTube every minute. People create and have the protections of copyright, and haven’t had to worry about stricter enforcement, and I fear that stricter enforcement will be like trying to hold onto water more tightly. The bigger companies will survive if people are pushed to pirate software and other media more often, but the smaller companies and individuals might not. The BSA doesn’t have as much to lose, or “lose”, as the smaller companies do, yet they act as everyone’s voice. It worries me.

The one item I agree with and would love to push for: increase public education and awareness. Except I don’t like where the BSA’s focus lies. They seem to want to focus on educating the public about how valuable software is so that they won’t pirate it. They want to inform people that they should only obtain software legally. Basically, let’s teach the “consumers” how to consume the right way.

I want to see more people understand what copyright law is and how it helps them as creators. Again, more people create more new copyrighted works per minute today than they did decades ago. And most probably don’t even realize they own the copyright! Why? Because copyright law isn’t set in a single statute. It’s distributed through court case decisions, and only larger companies that can afford expensive lawyers can even hope to wield copyright effectively. It’s way too confusing for the average person, even though the average person is holding more copyrights than they know what to do with. THAT’s why there is a perception that copyright is a tool used by big business. Because only big business can hope to understand it well enough to use it! I think if more people understood how THEY can wield copyright to their advantage, they’ll respect the copyrights of others. If the BSA wants to treat smaller copyright holders as if they don’t count as anything but the general public of years ago, they shouldn’t be surprised when there is some grumbling from public’s ranks. We’re creators, too. You don’t hold a monopoly on copyright law. It’s ours, too, and it is not there to protect you or your business models.

Efforts by the Creative Commons to simplify copyright licenses is more of what I would like to see software developers do. I’d also like to see more focus on smaller companies and the effect of illegal downloads on THEIR bottom lines. Most people don’t care about the “billions” of “losses” that they can’t comprehend. They care about Joe Software Developer, who they see shopping with them at the grocery store. Let’s see his face in interviews, rather than some guy in a suit representing Microsoft, Apple, and Adobe.

If you would like to learn more about what copyright is and how it affects you, please see my article on What an Indie Needs to Know about Copyright