Miksi waretamme?

2010 October 29

Kolumni on julkaistu Purjeessa 5/2010.

Finreactorin ja parin muunkin tiedostonjakotuomion jälkimaingeissa on paikallaan kysyä, miksi ihmiset lataavat tekijänoikeudella suojattua materiaalia.

Ihmisillä on polttava halu niin hankkia kuin jakaakin kaikkea. Villi tiedostonjako on lisensoitujen kaupallisten palveluiden ohella vain yksi tapa saada haluamansa. Jos laillista ja helppoa keinoa hankkia esimerkiksi tv-sarjoja ei ole, se tehdään laittomasti. Tässä ei ole mitään omituista: kun virallista tarjontaa ei ole, syntyvät mustat markkinat.

Mitä teen, kun haluan katsoa brittiläisen Doctor Who -tv-sarjan viidennen tuotantokauden toisen jakson heti ja hyvälaatuisena? Tätä ei BBC tarjoa. Entä jos haluan kuunnella Alivaltiosihteerin jonkin Radio Mafiassa soineen sketsin? En saa, vaikka haluaisin maksaa.

Mediateollisuuden edustajat ihmettelevät usein sitä, miksi nykyiset palvelut eivät kelpaa: “Mikseivät jotkut ole valmiita maksamaan nettikaupassa edes euroa musiikkitiedostosta?” Suomessakin jaksetaan ihmetellä sitä, miksi useammat eivät käytä jo olemassa olevia esimerkiksi äänitteiden nettiostopalveluita.

Syy epäsuosioon on se, että nämä palvelut tuppaavat aina olemaan myöhässä, ja ne pilataan usein kopiosuojauksilla ja huonolla käytettävyydellä. Lobbarit ihmettelevät nyt yksittäisten musiikkitiedostojen myyntiä, vaikka sellaisten palveluiden olisi pitänyt olla kaiken kansan saatavilla reilut kymmenen vuotta sitten. Taas ollaan myöhässä. Musiikin saralla nyt on Groovesharkin ja Spotifyn streamauksen aikakausi.

Kerta toisensa jälkeen huomataan, että korkean profiilin viihdeteollisuuden ulkopuoliset harrastelijat luovat parempia palveluita kuin ne, joilla on käytettävissään tuotekehitykseen paljon rahaa.

Luovan alan markkinat ovat kysyntävetoiset. Tärkeintä ei ole, että tuottajat saavat uuden rahastuskanavan, vaan että kansalaiset saavat haluamansa kulttuurinautinnon mahdollisimman helposti. Uudet, toimivat ja helppokäyttöiset musiikin kuunteluun ja videoiden katseluun keskittyvät palvelut eivät ole tiedostonjaon “tappajia” vaan sen suurimpia kilpailijoita.

Ihmiset eivät hae viihdettään sieltä, mistä sen saa halvimpaan hintaan, vaan sieltä, mistä sen saa helpoiten. Piratismi ei ole ongelma eikä syy rangaista kuluttajia, vaan seuraus viihdeteollisuuden omasta hitaudesta ja välinpitämättömyydestä.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

2010 August 20
by Joonas Mäkinen

Adam Foote posted the following on Facebook and encouraged people to share it. This is here so that people outside Facebook can read it.

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Re-post this if you believe love makes a marriage. 

Good grief, listen to this man!

2010 June 10
by Joonas Mäkinen

This spontaneous blog entry is just to remind you about hope that is always there. To never give up if you really need something.

As a teacher, I’ve ran into students who have succeeded and failed. I’ve seen good and bad students. And you know what? The best students of mine have been those who have been brave enough to fail. Brave enough to fail and learn from it.

In many cases, “failing” doesn’t bear any real negative consequences. If it’s about trying to get the ball into the goal or solving a mathematical equation, there is nothing harmful that can come to you from failing. Such cases should be treated as worry-free zones, where one can freely try out things without being scared of (nonexistent) bad consequences.

Learn from this man, Nick Vujicic:

Satunnaisten uusien asioiden autonominen pikakurssi

2010 June 4
by Joonas Mäkinen

Olen luonnostani hyvin utelias ja kiinnostunut monista eri asioista. Tavallisesti yhdestä mielenkiintoisesta asiasta päätyy helposti moniin muihin, mutta joskus on terveellistä yksinkertaisesti hypätä tuntemattomaan.

Aloitin pienen projektin, jonka tarkoituksena on tutustua jollain tasolla satunnaisiin, minulle uusiin asioihin. Kyselin niin Facebookissa, Twitterissä kuin henkilökohtaisestikin ihmisiltä ehdotuksia aiheiksi, joihin lähtisin tutustumaan kunnolla omin päin. Halusin näiden olevan minulle ennestään vieraita asioita.

Kiitos kaikille ehdotuksista. Lisää ideoita saa jättää mielellään vieläkin. Näillä näkymin tutustun ensin seuraaviin asioihin:

  • koirat ja agility
  • didgeridoo
  • korean kieli
  • Ruotsin perustuslakiuudistus.

Sanonpahan nyt vain, että tästä tulee erittäin mielenkiintoista! Bloggaan jokaisesti aiheesta erikseen lisää ja kerron niistä sekä opiskelijan näkökulmasta että lukijaa opastaen. (Jos onnistuu välittämään tietoa eteenpäin ja opettamaan, voi olla varsin varma, että on oppinut asian itse hyvin.)

Jos olet jonkin yllä mainitun alan harrastaja/asiantuntija, niin kuulisin mielelläni sinulta henkilökohtaisista kokemuksista!

Lähden näin aluksi viikonloppuna tutustumaan koirien agilityyn Stadi Games -tapahtumaan. Laitan tutustumisen käyntiin siis vapaaehtoistyöllä ja käsinkosketeltavasti. Kirjaopiskelukin on tärkeää, mutta eiköhän konkreettiseen toimintaan mukaan lähteminen ole varmempi tapa pitää yllä kunnon kipinää. :)

A Flattering Intermission

2010 May 30
by Joonas Mäkinen

So, I decided to put an old YouTube video of me playing the MacGyver theme on the piano up for Flattering. Enjoy.

That sincerely motivates me to actually start putting up videos on my own channel

“I’m Batman”, so you, DRM, can scram!

2010 May 11
by Joonas Mäkinen

Although I missed the date and my chance to greatly honour it, somewhere in space-time it is still the 4th of May or the international Day Against DRM. (Also, don’t forget Star Wars Day.) This means I’m going to rant about some recent gaming experiences I’ve had. Being a mediocre DC comics fanboy and having watched quite a lot of Batman and Batman-related TV series and films during my life, I finally (in the winter) felt compelled to purchase Rocksteady Studios’s Batman: Arkham Asylum, the first Batman franchise video game I’ve really played – or thought worth playing – since Batman on the NES. It turns out the game’s quite awesome and all my gratitude goes to the developers. You have my trust, even for making a sequel.

I’m Batman

For a short subjective review (just to get it out of the way and to get to the actual topic) I’ll briefly discuss a few elements of the game. Playing the game was delightful for me mostly because of two things, and one of them is purely nostalgic. What initially got me excited about the game was how much it appreciated the canon. Not that this is how things absolutely should be with every video game or film but it helps the player get more out of the story when he or she already knows something about the characters. What definitely delivered a couple of geek orgasms was that the game employed a familiar crew of voice actors known from Batman: The Animated Series, which is one of my favourite cartoons of all time. (Plugging in another Star Wars reference, do remember that Joker is voiced by Mark ‘Skywalker’ Hamill.) Having all those familiar characters with their familiar voices coming alive in a new format felt really special and rewarding, and being able to interact with them in 3D made them so much more tangible and enjoyable.

Another thing I want to point about the game was its visual smoothness of action. Character animations were top notch and fighting scenes seemed to flow so well that taking down Joker’s minions was definitely not like playing Mortal Kombat and striking a high punch or a low punch after another. Whereas I congratulate the animations, it is even a bit silly that it they worked so well that I forgot that I’m watching character animations in a video game. And me being an old game modder and all-analysing technology geek, that sure takes a lot. This was also the first game I played that incorporated PhysX technology, but who gives a damn? Another technological feature that all players enjoy is that task switching actually works swiftly, and taking a little break to check emails on the desktop doesn’t crash the game.

But despite the great execution of specific scenes and the amazing Batman writer Paul Dini being onboard, the storyline left me a bit disappointed. You see, Joker is a criminal mastermind and such vast plans as taking over the whole Arkham Asylum is definitely not a small deal. Thus, knowing Joker’s character I was constantly expecting him to outsmart me, the player. During the game I kept myself in an excited state, waiting for the next twist in the storyline. Whenever Batman found out something about Joker’s plans, my default thought response was: “Naw it’s can’t be this simple. We’re talking about the Joker, and he always has an ace in his sleeve.” Unfortunately, after playing the game halfway through, Batman’s speculations about Joker’s plans were indeed pretty accurate, and I was disappointed to find out that there was, in fact, nothing new and surprising to find out. The developers’ depiction of Joker’s beautiful insanity was brilliant, but even they couldn’t match his level of scheming. It is time to see what they come up with in the sequel.

Why so serious?

Pardon the overused movie quote, but it seemed really appropriate here: Whereas the devs did a great job and the game itself is entertaining, it is now time to damn the publisher and all the consumer-hindering extras to the deepest pits of Hell. With the joy of having a 100/10 internet connection, it took me a mere 15 minutes to download and install the 8 gigabyte game. Setting it up to be playable took an extra hour. From a consumer’s point of view, this is frickin’ serious.

I’ll progress through various layers of DRM. First we have Steam, where I bought and download the game from. It is a digital marketplace for video games (with occasio-regular awesome sales!) and I would be able to get Arkham Asylum by other means so that it doesn’t incorporate Steam if I wanted to do so. While Steam can work as a launch pad for games and I use Steam’s services even inside the game via an overlay, it does not make itself a mandatory component of the game. I simply found it convenient to buy and download the game through Steam and it was what I wanted to do. What I by no means wanted to experience was Windows LIVE.

I’m not sure if I was even told anywhere that when buying Arkham Asylum I’d also be getting obligatory bundled software with it, so I was also a quite shocked when, as I launched the game and got to the title menu, I was interrupted by Windows LIVE user interface coming visible from the top of the screen. (The name’s apparently officially written with an em-dash before LIVE but I’ll skip that for now.) Well, I knew Microsoft had these kind of gaming services for players, especially when it comes to Xbox gaming, so I sort of accepted them offering their gaming platform for me. But they didn’t stop here: logging on to their system was mandatory. In other words, I was forced to register myself and sign in to their online system to play a single-player offline video game that I had bought! I was dedicated to play the game, so I went through all the hassle, almost just to see how far they’d be willing to go.

By default, when I started this and did some clicking in the UI inside the game, it opened me an Internet Explorer window. IE is not my default browser. I don’t like this, being forced to use a browser I do not trust just because I want to play a game I paid 25 euros for! (Would’ve been 50 without the sales.) The number of unnecessary applications I’ve been forced to use so far to get to play my game was now already three.

Sort of fortunately I could use my ancient login details from the times when MSN Messenger was still cool. Nevertheless, for this procedure I had to retrieve old passwords via email for my existing LIVE ID account and then connect it my newly created Windows LIVE gaming account, which I also had to set up right there. A lot of profiling and many emails later, I finally had a working Windows LIVE account, ready for playing. (Oh, and Microsoft: I don’t want an Xbox newsletter, I’m installing a PC game!)

After all this, I was told that in order to continue, Windows LIVE would have to update itself. With no knowledge of what they were going to install on my computer and being desperate about getting to play my game, I allowed it. This required me to close the game and actually reboot my computer. After going through all this, I supposed that all was clear. Well, I forgot the most obvious things that were still to come. I had to register the game with its cd key that I got from Steam. After writing it down on a piece of paper I launched the game and gave my cd key to Microsoft, hoping they’d be happy now. Fortunately they were, except I had to give the cd key twice and there was also a separate online activation program for the game. Phew.

So, let me recap: Setting up the game took around four times longer than downloading and installing it. In order to play a game I had legally bought, I had to use four unnecessary pieces of software (three of which I didn’t want to), give a cd key twice, register myself and my games to Microsoft, make a gaming profile, close and reopen the game many times, browse the internet using an unwanted browser, check my email, install forced updates to external software, reboot my computer and then log in to their system. Microsoft, this is not smart. Your system does not make playing easy or enjoyable. In fact, it hinders the experience and for playing the game it is completely unnecessary.

I suppose I’m just fine with cd keys, but ever since separately activated software like Windows XP came to be, things have gone worse. There should be no need for internet connection for offline single player games.

So, publishers, please tell me: Why do you use DRM and make playing your games so difficult? It won’t stop any pirates, it doesn’t work and it costs a lot of money which is then eventually payed by your own customers who directly suffer from your ignorant scheming. I simply cannot see any reasonable financial benefits for alienating potential buyers away from your products.

Inspired by the idea of forcing warning labels about DRM, I created a Facebook group dedicated for the ideal. Feel free to join.

Anonymitet på nätet

2010 May 6
by Joonas Mäkinen

Det finns en grundläggande skillnad mellan anonym och pseydonym, och många människor förstår det inte. Speciellt på nätet har skillnaden blivit väldigt mycket större än det var före internettiden. Förut kunde det vara mycket svårt i alla fall att lösa vem det faktiskt var bakom en pseudonym av exempelvis en låtförfattare. Nuförtiden kan var och en hitta lättare den äkta människan som smeknamnet skyddar. Att kontra det här väljer många att bli anonyma.

Att vara anonym betyder att man inte vill ge sitt namn i sitt skrivna eller muntliga meddelande, och människor kan ha några orsaker för att hålla sin anonymitet: det möjliggör att människor kan koppla av, att ett namn inte alls krävs och det underlätter att ge respons. I detta fall är det naturligtvis lättare för människor med starka åsikter att uttrycka sig. Särkskilt på nätet är det allmänt att det tar mycket tid att registera sig på webbsidor eller tjänster, så det är möjligt att det är snabbare att göra saker utan ett namn.

På nätet finns det även webbsidor där hela kulturen och interaktionen mellan besökarna är baserad på anonymitet, så att det skapar ett område utan censur och möjliggör kommukation som inte kunde vara möjlig när man måste använda sitt namn. Anonymitet kämpar mot självcensur och gör det lättare för människor att framkalla nya idéer utan att bli rädda för hotande kritik eller dom på grund av vissa åsikter. Det är också, till exempel, mycket lättare att berätta om sina problem anonymt och följaktligen få bättre socialt stöd.

Under historiens gång har människor använt också pseudonymer när de inte har velat ge sitt namn. Skillnaden med att vara anonym är att man kan bilda en helt ny identitet och sedan kan olika meddelanden anknytas till pseudonymen. Ibland är det också så att det borde vara tekniskt möjligt för alla att utreda den äkta personen bakom pseydonymen, men det här kan inte krävas.

Att använda pseudonymer på nätet är en helt annan värld. Pseudonymer som används på diskussionsfora, bloggar, spel och andra nättjänster finns inte nodvändigtvis för att skydda internetanvändarnas reella identitet, men på nätet är den riktiga identiteten. Många människor på nätet är kända bara genom sina pseudonymer. Det aktuella förnamnet eller familjenamnet behövs inte. Det finns ingenting konstigt med det, men det här samtalsämnet kan vara väldigt svårt att förstå för människor som inte har bekantat sig med internets traditioner.

Människor som vill vara absolut anonyma kan göra just det trots normala bestämmelser. Om man vill behålla sitt privatliv – för ondska eller godhet – hittar man alltid ett sätt att arbeta utan hänsyn till lagen. (Det finns ju lagar som förbjuder vanliga och lagliga försiktighetsåtgärder för personlig integritet. I Storbritannien är det till exempel i praktik förbjudet att kryptera sina personliga meddelanden eftersom man måste ge upp krypteringsnycklarna om polisen så kräver.)

Att vara anonym är ju inte alls försummelse, och det vill säga att jag vill fråga: Varför borde man använda det egna namnet? Det är inte alltid så att människor speciellt vill vara anonyma, men ibland skulle det krävas insats för att använda ett namn. Det är möjligt att orsaken till att vara anonym är fruktan men vi får inte anta det. Alla är oskyldiga om annat inte har bevisats.

Det har blivit allt svårare att vara godkänd anonym när man vill ge en åsikt om någonting, och en möjlig orsak till den här paniken och ”antianonymitetshysterin” är ju allmän okunnighet. Människor kan till exempel bli förvirrade och blanda begreppen anonym och psedonym med ett riktigt falskt namn. Att använda ett falskt namn innebär att man behandlar affärer så att andra tänker att man är någon annan. Det här är ett identitetsbrott. Att använda en pseudonym eller att vara anonym handlar inte om det. Människor bör inte bestraffas för deras rätt att vara anonyma på grund av andra människors okunnighet. Anonymitet är inte illa fast människor ju kan vara sådana.

Jag påstår att de som vill vara anonyma inte alls är så oärliga som de som oroar över anonymitet. Jag tänker att just de som vill ta bort anonymitetsskyddet har något att skämmas över. Om man självt inte har gjort någonting illa borde det inte finnas någonting att vara rädd för. Man kan kämpa mot lögner med sanningen.

Många människor, särskilt politiker, vill tydligen döda anonymiteten. Till exempel: Sydaustraliens regeringen bestämde tidigare att det är olaglig att diskutera politik och valfrågor på nätet anonymt inför valet. Sånt händer överallt, också i Finland. Några ministrar har stängt kommenteringstjänster i sina bloggar efter att människor har haft möjligheten att kommentera anonymt.  Den förra ordföranden för Opinionsnämden för massmedier (JSN) har oftast velat blockera chansen att skriva på diskussionsfora antingen anonymt eller till och med genom att skriva under pseudonym. Han ville också göra det så att administratörerna för webbsidorna bör ta ansvar för vad besökarna skriver.

Det här bevisar att han inte känner internet eller yttrandefriheten, som de säger att JSN vill försvara. Yttrandefriheten handlar inte alls om behov eller obehag. Det finns inte ett meddelande som har större rättighet att existera än något annat. Det spelar ingen roll vem – anonym eller nej – säger, och det spelar ingen roll om någon blir arg. Det måste vara möjligt att diskutera också om känsliga saker, fast det är obehagligt.

Helt nyligen krävde Finlands migrationsminister Astrid Thors och nuvarande ordföranden för JSN Risto Uimonen ansvariga redaktörer för internetfora. Den här omöjligheten samt viljan att avhålla människor från att diskutera anonymt eller under pseudonym kan ju väl döda det som internet är bra för: att möjliggöra växling av idéer, små och stora, utan att vara rädd för att meddelandet kan tas bort bara eftersom någon inte gillar det. Internetdiskussionerna behöver ingen städning, men det som ju kräver en stor förändring är människors världsbild och inställning till internet. Det måste förbli tillåtet för alla att uttrycka sig fritt, vare sig med namn eller utan.

Some Thoughts on Hypocrisy

2010 April 27
by Joonas Mäkinen

I stumbled across a Pirate Party UK’s text about Labour and Tories being hypocrites on copyright, as the two aforementioned parties have inappropriately (illegally) used and modified material created by the BBC. The accusations made me advance a bit further in my earlier thoughts about hypocrisy and how that term is widely used simply for slander, as a measure of ruling out people’s opinions — never mind if they actually make sense.

I would like to point out that hypocrisy itself should not be used as a final verdict to anyone. Giving a person the status of a hypocrite does not, in fact, bear much useful information at all. It merely tells that, compared to certain time frame in the past, the person’s expected opinions, advice or actions have changed. This may come as a surprise to others, but changing one’s mind is not necessarily a bad thing nor does it absolutely imply that there is something fishy going on.

No discussion should end by name-calling. Instead, we should aim at finding out the reason behind all this. Very often the case is that the one using the word hypocrite holds a grudge and the mere notion of someone using the word should be considered alarming. The neutrality of discussion with no excess bias may have been compromised. In some cases hypocrisy is not used that much as a tool for mockery, but the word is instead implying another, deeper issue. This, I believe, is the more desirable situation, which ought to be investigated further.

Realising the real issue behind the word can be tough, but the topic should be brought up clearly and discussed in the open. In the Pirate Party’s case, hypocrisy is merely a vehicle for pointing out someone’s ignorance — in this case, bringing up the controversy that the parties which have actively pushed through tougher copyright legislation, are, in fact, quite oblivious of the system in general. Here the lawmakers are given the status of a hypocrite to subject their competence to wider criticism, and fortunately this worry is quite valid. Without having a reason for their selection of words, it would be just useless mockery.

So people can be called hypocrites simply because of  a grudge and this does not contribute to advancement in discussion. Hypocrisy may be used as a pathway to present ignorance, and while this does lead to further processing of the topic, it may put some people out. All in all, the probability of using the term “properly”, without sparking a fight is in my opinion so low that everyone should be careful not to use the word too lightly, or at least not to make the accusation too serious. If you have encountered some additional motives for calling someone a hypocrite other than grudge and pointing out ignorance, please let me know in the comments below.

What calling someone a hypocrite very easily does do, is something very harmful. Everyone, friends and foes, can give valuable input to any context. By encouraging people to ignore someone based on purely (poor) rhetorical slander, the whole topic is subject to a potential loss of useful points of view or other information. Everyone should be heard. For example, if I was to obtain more information about the effects of smoking on health, I could listen to academic experts (fairly neutral, not ignorant), cigarette companies (not neutral, not ignorant), people who have never smoked (possibly ignorant and prejudiced), smokers (not ignorant, possibly prejudiced) and people who have quit smoking.

If a representative of one of the last two groups, people who have perhaps smoked for dozens of years, tells you not to smoke, would you call him or her a hypocrite and simply omit everything the person has to say? Aren’t these people exactly the ones who know the best? One smoker told me once from experience that if he was to choose between lung cancer and saving fifty thousand dollars, he’d pick the latter. I suppose simply calling him a hypocrite would not have made me look that clever. It’s better to concentrate on the words and not who said them.

In other news, I’m trying out Flattr. Check it out. I’ll blog more about it later.

Anti-specifications

2010 January 27
by Joonas Mäkinen

What do you THINK this is about?

The Hero of Time and the Streisand effect

2010 January 15
by Joonas Mäkinen

Every Internet-dweller should know about the Streisand effect. In fact, if there was a university major called Internet studies, that should definitely be covered quite in the beginning. By itself it would already be a wonderful subject for a thesis. In a nutshell, it refers to the seemingly uncontrolled surge of spreading of information resulting from an attempt to remove that aforementioned information from the Internet. If you are a celebrity who wants to take a photo of your house off some website, the louder you demand it, the harder you fail. Everytime the issue is mentioned a myriad more people get interested in it and soon the photo would be mirrored in thousands of places, now completely impossible to hide from the public. (Please do enlighten yourself more with the Wikipedia article about the Streisand effect.)

A little time ago I read about yet another unbelievable copyright issue from Slashdot: Nintendo sent a Cease & Desist letter to a group of filmmakers who had spent four years making a fan-made Legend of Zelda movie based on the story of the Nintendo 64 game Ocarina of Time.

Now, my reaction to this is irrelevant to the actual contents of the film (The Hero of Time), if it was good or bad. I support people making any sort of derivative works, and I believe Nintendo just shot its own feet here. By attacking their biggest fans in the name of intellectual property (which as a word is already a misnomer) big companies are giving themselves both bad reputation and actually directly affecting their own sales by denying free advertising. Surely this fan-made film wouldn’t even compete with anything Nintendo has produced.

No matter how idiotic these fan-hunts are and how many people put Nintendo in a boycott because of this, what follows from trying to stop the distribution of the film is a lot more interesting. After the case was Slashdotted, everyone wanted to see the film, even if they didn’t like it. The fact that Nintendo made a public case wanting to stop the distribution of the film made people all the more interested in it. Suddenly, there were download links everywhere and film started popping up on every major torrent tracker index.

The final result: The film got more viewers around the globe than ever, the crew got comments, critique (and perhaps even donations) by myriads. And what about Nintendo, who wanted to play the role the lawful good guy protecting its industry-lobbied rights? They definitely didn’t manage to kill off the distribution of the film and while trying they turned away many fans and customers. Not such a good deal.

OH, AND NOBODY IS GOING TO TAKE ANYTHING OFF OF THE INTERNET ON MY WATCH, SO HERE YOU GO, GALS AND GUYS:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5250999/The_Hero_of_Time_%282009%29___Soundtrack

Personally, I believe that when the Streisand effect happens due to strong demands, it is always a good solution. If there’s something you don’t want to get public, don’t release it in the first place, and if someone forced the information from you, don’t be an ass and make a public fuss out of it all by yourself. Most likely hoping to get that something back by just yelling long enough won’t work. And it doesn’t look that good either. (Scientology, I’m looking at you.)

Granted, Nintendo definitely in this case was not the most audible or aggressive entity to demand takedowns, but their motives remain unclear to me…