My Little Pony LX: 60 Ponythreads? That's an Academy record!

[Thanqol]

So I saw the Letter de Lancie wrote to accompany the documentary release. I myself have no plans to ever pirate the documentary.

On the other hand, I also feel like there's some serious hypocrisy going on at the same time. Scroll back up to the top of that EQD page. Pinned to the very top of the blog is a link that takes you to Youtube copies of each Season 3 episode. Can they really turn around and condemn pirating the documentary at the same time?

Like it or not this fandom is pretty much built on piracy and free content available over the internet. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and Hasbro has more of my money than they would if I hadn't found free pony content on Youtube, but this sudden discovery that video costs money to make just seems like they're shocked, shocked, to discover there's piracy in an internet fan community

They're not shocked. They're asking us nicely not to do it and giving us a friendly warning that they will exercise their right to take it down if they see it up. They explained that it has to be this way so that they can present it to film festivals and have it played in real cinemas. They're not condemning anyone.

I would, admittedly, like all the de Lancy songs put online so I had them in one place, but otherwise I think it's a reasonable position. If I ever released a book or movie that's about the same approach I'd take.

[otakuryoga]

No, I think that just raises even more questions.

i never said it didn't raise more questions....

but it answers why they farm rocks
and why there are so many gems so easy to find

[Anarion]

They're not shocked. They're asking us nicely not to do it and giving us a friendly warning that they will exercise their right to take it down if they see it up. They explained that it has to be this way so that they can present it to film festivals and have it played in real cinemas. They're not condemning anyone.

I would, admittedly, like all the de Lancy songs put online so I had them in one place, but otherwise I think it's a reasonable position. If I ever released a book or movie that's about the same approach I'd take.

Eh, you probably wouldn't host a kickstarter to get your book or movie going though. It's weird right now because kickstarter is not an investment into the venture, it's just a donation, but people still feel like their contribution to the project means that the project should be done somewhat according to their wishes. And I'm pretty sure that the collective donors would want a free version of the documentary, not a $13 price tag and no YouTube access.

[Eakin]

They spent too much money and they are thinking that a friendly request that reeks of hypocrisy will be received better than a request for more money. We'll see if they end up being right.

They're not shocked. They're asking us nicely not to do it and giving us a friendly warning that they will exercise their right to take it down if they see it up. They explained that it has to be this way so that they can present it to film festivals and have it played in real cinemas. They're not condemning anyone.

I would, admittedly, like all the de Lancy songs put online so I had them in one place, but otherwise I think it's a reasonable position. If I ever released a book or movie that's about the same approach I'd take.

I should clarify. It's not de Lancie or the filmaking crew I'm accusing of being hypocritical, it's EQD and anyone else in the fandom that treats downloading or streaming episodes of MLP:FiM and downloading or streaming this documentary as in any way morally distinct. As far as I know the former has never pirated anything MLP related.

Bronies being able to stream MLP episodes or download them cost the people who make the show money. You can't say that's 100% OK but it's not OK to do the same thing to a film about MLP fans. Especially when those same MLP fans put up the initial capital for the documentary in the first place.

[Anarion]

Bronies being able to stream MLP episodes or download them cost the people who make the show money. You can't say that's 100% OK but it's not OK to do the same thing to film about MLP fans. Especially when those same MLP fans put up the initial capital for the documentary in the first place.

It is entirely unclear whether Bronies downloading and streaming episodes cost the show any money whatsoever. I would argue that in fact it was profitable for Hasbro, which is why they allowed it to go on for as long as they did (and continue to allow it to go on in some ways, even if they have cracked down on YouTube now).

Consider: it only costs Hasbro money if the people watching via the Internet were going to watch on their TVs and/or buy DVDs instead. Now, certainly there were some people who would have watched the show on TV if it weren't streamed, and that does lower the show's ratings a bit, which translates to lower ad revenue. But I also think there were many more who would never have watched it at all if not for the free Internet viewing. I'd bet you that a significant fraction of the group that would never have watched at all if not for the Internet went on to buy toys, clothes, or other merchandise. The fandom also brought the show a lot of hype and news, which in turn leads to more toy sales and higher viewership.

So, I'd personally argue that giving the show away was the most profitable decision Hasbro could have made, at least until a couple of months ago and the difficulty of international deals.

[Soras Teva Gee]

The very very very arbitrary lines on where pirating comes into play isn't limited to Bronies and tend to be about the same anywhere.

[BlasTech]

Wait, streaming the movie is costing us money? Wow, I didn't know I was getting royalties from this!!

Way I read that letter, JDL's request didn't seem that unreasonable to me. They need the movie off Youtube in order to be able to distribute it via festivals or cinemas to a wider audience.

Hasbro, on the other hoof, already owns its own distribution channel through the Hub, so they can afford to turn a semi-blind eye to things like youtubing the episodes since it won't impact their ability to show them within the States where their primary target demographic resides.

While it might impact the distribution overseas, I suspect someone has weighed up those difficulties against the cost of hindering their reach to their primary non-target demographic in us net denizens.

[1dominator]

Confucius says, pirate everything!

[Anarion]

Wait, streaming the movie is costing us money? Wow, I didn't know I was getting royalties from this!!

It's not costing us anything. I also agree that DeLancie's letter makes a reasonable request.

What I was pointing out above is that when you crowdfund a project, there's a certain ambiguity in the status of the donors. They're not investors, not really, but I think many donors on kickstarter feel that projects should be tailored to their expectations and it's not really great to upset a lot of people who are also the ones that just gave you a lot of money. And, in this case specifically, I think most of the donors would have preferred a free distribution channel for the movie.

[Soras Teva Gee]

It's not costing us anything. I also agree that DeLancie's letter makes a reasonable request.

What I was pointing out above is that when you crowdfund a project, there's a certain ambiguity in the status of the donors. They're not investors, not really, but I think many donors on kickstarter feel that projects should be tailored to their expectations and it's not really great to upset a lot of people who are also the ones that just gave you a lot of money. And, in this case specifically, I think most of the donors would have preferred a free distribution channel for the movie.

I poked at Kickstarter's guidelines one time and suddenly their "it must be a defined project" one makes a lot of sense no? Once you go adding things suddenly even a budget that exceeded expectation stops being there.

[Anarion]

I poked at Kickstarter's guidelines one time and suddenly their "it must be a defined project" one makes a lot of sense no? Once you go adding things suddenly even a budget that exceeded expectation stops being there.

Indeed. Though that condition is mostly to avoid securities regulation. Kickstarter would go out of business if they allowed you to invest in ongoing ventures and had to start filing with the SEC. That crap is expensive.

[Eakin]

It is entirely unclear whether Bronies downloading and streaming episodes cost the show any money whatsoever. I would argue that in fact it was profitable for Hasbro, which is why they allowed it to go on for as long as they did (and continue to allow it to go on in some ways, even if they have cracked down on YouTube now).

Consider: it only costs Hasbro money if the people watching via the Internet were going to watch on their TVs and/or buy DVDs instead. Now, certainly there were some people who would have watched the show on TV if it weren't streamed, and that does lower the show's ratings a bit, which translates to lower ad revenue. But I also think there were many more who would never have watched it at all if not for the free Internet viewing. I'd bet you that a significant fraction of the group that would never have watched at all if not for the Internet went on to buy toys, clothes, or other merchandise. The fandom also brought the show a lot of hype and news, which in turn leads to more toy sales and higher viewership.

So, I'd personally argue that giving the show away was the most profitable decision Hasbro could have made, at least until a couple of months ago and the difficulty of international deals.

You present a persuasive case, but I won't disagree that hardcore bronies having free access to every episode of the show ever made isn't costing them, in online purchases via iTunes if nothing else. And these are also most likely the people who are on EQD and know about the documentary at all.

If EQD didn't know and like de Lancie, there'd already be a link to a Youtube video of the documentary right next to the episode links and the comments would be defending the decision based on it somehow improving de Lancie's draw to various cons and whatnot.

You're also tearing me up because I think keeping MLP freely available and f&#k the law and the property rights of those who own it would be the best way for the brony communtiy to grow and stay healthy. That doesn't make it right, but it is sorely tempting.

Confucius says, pirate everything!

Perfectly valid philosophy. My objection is to those who want to split the difference they've drawn between "media owned by people we like" and "media owned by people we don't know well enough to care about."

It's not costing us anything. I also agree that DeLancie's letter makes a reasonable request.

What I was pointing out above is that when you crowdfund a project, there's a certain ambiguity in the status of the donors. They're not investors, not really, but I think many donors on kickstarter feel that projects should be tailored to their expectations and it's not really great to upset a lot of people who are also the ones that just gave you a lot of money. And, in this case specifically, I think most of the donors would have preferred a free distribution channel for the movie.

The kickstarter issue muddies the water even further. All I'll say on that is that the gap between what donors lhink their rights should be via kickstarter and what they are, those are very, perhaps unsustainabley different things

[Soras Teva Gee]

Indeed. Though that condition is mostly to avoid securities regulation. Kickstarter would go out of business if they allowed you to invest in ongoing ventures and had to start filing with the SEC. That crap is expensive.

You are a font of fascinating knowledge. Do you happen to know what the policy is if one doesn't need all ones budget anyways?

[Admiral Squish]

So, just watched the new pony episode. Was out of town, or I never woulda missed it in the first place. Definitely liked it.

Spoiler

Show

I like discord becoming a regular character. But I think this episode would have been better done as a two-part. It felt a bit rushed, honestly.

[Anarion]

You are a font of fascinating knowledge. Do you happen to know what the policy is if one doesn't need all ones budget anyways?

For Kickstarter? I don't know their particular policy details, no. I do know that they were discussed when congress debated the inventively named JOBS Act last year, which changed the rules for crowdfunded businesses. And the discussion was basically that the new federal regulation didn't apply to Kickstarter because Kickstarter is just hosting presales with t-shirts and stuff as prizes.

I don't know the details of the JOBS act though. I'm aware that it draws a distinction at ventures under $1 million, which require less financing. I also think that a crowdfunded venture has a cap it can take from an individual donor, maybe about $5000 (but I could be wrong on that number). I believe that if the venture breaks either the size or individual donor cap, it has to do full filings with the SEC as though it were doing a regular initial public offering of its stock (a process that requires employing a law firm for several months at a rate of ~$500/hour).

edit:

So, just watched the new pony episode. *Spoilery things*

Pssst, we're still using spoiler boxes on that until Tuesday.

[Thanqol]

Perfectly valid philosophy. My objection is to those who want to split the difference they've drawn between "media owned by people we like" and "media owned by people we don't know well enough to care about."

From a business perspective, it's increasingly becoming the case that that difference is where all the money is.

You know the phrase, the Customer is King? In the Internet Age that's wrong. In the Internet Age, the Customer is God. With the technology we have and the pervasiveness and potency of filesharing paying for almost any media becomes strictly optional. If a customer becomes sufficiently irate with any distributor then they are willing and able to simply take what they want and give nothing in return. Morals and ethics aside, this is the capability 21st century customers have, and it's terrifying.

So, when payment becomes optional, the reality is that you're not asking for payment - you're asking for donations. And this is what the smartest businesses have realised - you can't DRM customers out of things, you can't twist their arms or keep it a secret, and doing so often turns your customer base against you. Nobody likes paying an ass, not even for high quality stuff, and being disliked is a death sentence in the new model.

Running a pitch for donations is very different to running a business where you have any power in the relationship. You have to be liked, and be prepared to go a long way establishing a brand name and likeable persona before you try to capitalise on it. Then you can use that likeability and fan loyalty to politely ask people not to steal from you and it works.

Does it suck for a creative type to have to put out huge amounts of free content before they've built up enough reputation to ask politely for money? Yes. Is there a more viable business model in an environment where consumers have such an immense amount of power? Not that we've discovered yet.

[Anarion]

Is there a more viable business model in an environment where consumers have such an immense amount of power? Not that we've discovered yet.

I've heard suggestions for some kind of aggregated tracking system combined with a tax on hardware. That is, maybe add a few dollars (or more, I don't know the amount) onto all sales of computers, routers, modems, cables, and so forth, then make a pool of money. All media is free, but we come up with some way to track usage statistics (easy on something like YouTube, hard as hell when we're talking about dispersed downloads), then money is paid out from the pool based on relative popularity of content.

The two problems are
1. Any kind of aggregated tracker is horrendous to try and implement from a technological perspective and
2. Lady Gaga will be replaced by people that release cute videos of cats.

But if you get over those two problems, it is somewhat reasonable as a theory.

[Thanqol]

I've heard suggestions for some kind of aggregated tracking system combined with a tax on hardware. That is, maybe add a few dollars (or more, I don't know the amount) onto all sales of computers, routers, modems, cables, and so forth, then make a pool of money. All media is free, but we come up with some way to track usage statistics (easy on something like YouTube, hard as hell when we're talking about dispersed downloads), then money is paid out from the pool based on relative popularity of content.

The two problems are
1. Any kind of aggregated tracker is horrendous to try and implement from a technological perspective and
2. Lady Gaga will be replaced by people that release cute videos of cats.

But if you get over those two problems, it is somewhat reasonable as a theory.

Two words to explain why this is the worst idea of all time:

Spam. Bots.

[Anarion]

Two words to explain why this is the worst idea of all time:

Spam. Bots.

Yes, I raised that same question to the professor who suggested the theory. That would fall under the category of problem 1: a technical solution for this thing is absolutely horrendous.

Edit: Well, his response was a bit more complex than that. He suggested that tracking doesn't have to be number of downloads or hits on a website that could be spammed. It could be reporting software on computers (which raises terribly frightening privacy issues) or require some kind of anti-spam measure like captcha codes. It could also be done through a small selection of randomized paid volunteers the same way that they currently do TV ratings, which are pretty statistically accurate.

[Thanqol]

Yes, I raised that same question to the professor who suggested the theory. That would fall under the category of problem 1: a technical solution for this thing is absolutely horrendous.

No, the technical solution is feasible, provided everyone agrees on the new standard.

Good luck getting China to agree, man.

[Anarion]

No, the technical solution is feasible, provided everyone agrees on the new standard.

Good luck getting China to agree, man.

Edited in a couple of other points in the above post.

And yes, China is not exactly happening. Of course, they're also not subject to U.S. copyright law and the status of their international treaties is dubious at best. So, it's not like it would be getting any worse, is what I'm saying.

[Thanqol]

Edited in a couple of other points in the above post.

And yes, China is not exactly happening. Of course, they're also not subject to U.S. copyright law and the status of their international treaties is dubious at best. So, it's not like it would be getting any worse, is what I'm saying.

It would be getting incredibly worse because there's an enormous pool of US Taxpayer money being collected from overpriced hardware that is going to be distributed directly to Chinese spambots.

That is infinity worse.

[Eakin]

From a business perspective, it's increasingly becoming the case that that difference is where all the money is.

You know the phrase, the Customer is King? In the Internet Age that's wrong. In the Internet Age, the Customer is God. With the technology we have and the pervasiveness and potency of filesharing paying for almost any media becomes strictly optional. If a customer becomes sufficiently irate with any distributor then they are willing and able to simply take what they want and give nothing in return. Morals and ethics aside, this is the capability 21st century customers have, and it's terrifying.

So, when payment becomes optional, the reality is that you're not asking for payment - you're asking for donations. And this is what the smartest businesses have realised - you can't DRM customers out of things, you can't twist their arms or keep it a secret, and doing so often turns your customer base against you. Nobody likes paying an ass, not even for high quality stuff, and being disliked is a death sentence in the new model.

Running a pitch for donations is very different to running a business where you have any power in the relationship. You have to be liked, and be prepared to go a long way establishing a brand name and likeable persona before you try to capitalise on it. Then you can use that likeability and fan loyalty to politely ask people not to steal from you and it works.

Does it suck for a creative type to have to put out huge amounts of free content before they've built up enough reputation to ask politely for money? Yes. Is there a more viable business model in an environment where consumers have such an immense amount of power? Not that we've discovered yet.

I won't disagree with your premise that file sharing and consumer power is more or less absolute (though it may not always be if the foundations of internet anonymity come under assault, and the way things are moving I would count on that assault happening sooner rather than later)

I might raise issue with your claim that all DRM is censorship and will turn your fans into a ravenous horde devoted to your demise. I think it can be done well, see Valve and Steam as example A.

The documentary ran it's pitch for donations with the fandom, complete with EQD plug, and did quite well. About five times as well as expected, in fact.

How many times has EQD run letters from the DHX Media crew along the lines of "if you don't buy the episodes on iTunes, we won't get paid as much!" Answer: never. That would be exactly equivalent to what they ran here, but know what would happen if they did? "Eww, I don't want to be bothered to download iTunes, that's worse than Nazis!" or "LOL I'm broke so I should get what I want without having to pay for anything!" They never will. After all that would cost them traffic.

TL;DR, You can't claim the moral high ground when your business model depends on you being neck deep in a moral tar pit.

God, I want to go pirate the documentary just on principle now. Good thing I have absolutely no interest in it.

EDIT: Skimmed the above discussion while I was pacing my room ranting and raving before distilling my madness into something moderately coherent; I wouldn't count on the internet staying as free as it is forever if I were you. I think a crackdown built into its very architecture is vastly more likely than getting the 'international community' to agree on anything.

[Anarion]

It would be getting incredibly worse because there's an enormous pool of US Taxpayer money being collected from overpriced hardware that is going to be distributed directly to Chinese spambots.

That is infinity worse.

I'm not following that one. That's only true if you make a bad system that allows spambots to alter the aggregated statistics. There are other ways of doing it that would distribute the money to the people who made works of high quality that people like, though I agree that a technical solution that prevents interference of spam bots is really hard.

[Thanqol]

I won't disagree with your premise that file sharing and consumer power is more or less absolute (though it may not always be if the foundations of internet anonymity come under assault, and the way things are moving I would count on that assault happening sooner rather than later)

I wouldn't, for practical reasons more than anything else.

I might raise issue with your claim that all DRM is censorship and will turn your fans into a ravenous horde devoted to your demise. I think it can be done well, see Valve and Steam as example A.

I raise you EA and Always-Online as example B. Almost all DRM is cracked within 72 hours of launch. The trick is to have a business model that is more convenient than going to the pirate sites.

How many times has EQD run letters from the DHX Media crew along the lines of "if you don't buy the episodes on iTunes, we won't get paid as much!" Answer: never. That would be exactly equivalent to what they ran here, but know what would happen if they did? "Eww, I don't want to be bothered to download iTunes, that's worse than Nazis!" or "LOL I'm broke so I should get what I want without having to pay for anything!" They never will. After all that would cost them traffic.

This is pure hyperbole and speculation.

TL;DR, You can't claim the moral high ground when your business model depends on you being neck deep in a moral tar pit.

God, I want to go pirate the documentary just on principle now. Good thing I have absolutely no interest in it.

Your argument is faulty and incoherent and your conclusions are suspect.

EDIT: Skimmed the above discussion while I was pacing my room ranting and raving before distilling my madness into something moderately coherent; I wouldn't count on the internet staying as free as it is forever if I were you. I think a crackdown built into its very architecture is vastly more likely than getting the 'international community' to agree on anything.

That's the argument against a potential crackdown. Countries don't want to agree on standards, which perpetuates the free-and-open status quo. And believe it or not, the pro-free internet lobby is incredibly powerful.

I'm not following that one. That's only true if you make a bad system that allows spambots to alter the aggregated statistics. There are other ways of doing it that would distribute the money to the people who made works of high quality that people like, though I agree that a technical solution that prevents interference of spam bots is really hard.

System A: Disregard all hardware outside the new network.

Problems: Must scrap every computer in existence. Dubious benefit.

System A: Allow non-networked computers access.

Problems: Spambots.

[Anarion]

That's the argument against a potential crackdown. Countries don't want to agree on standards, which perpetuates the free-and-open status quo. And believe it or not, the pro-free internet lobby is incredibly powerful.

I'd suspect a system-wide Internet crackdown would be unlikely for this reason. It could only happen if a whole bunch of countries agreed on how to do it. Businesses can't ever do it on their own, even if Google takes over the whole world because implementing a global standard of that sort would violate anti-trust laws. It's government agreement or everybody competing.

Edit:

System A: Disregard all hardware outside the new network.

Problems: Must scrap every computer in existence. Dubious benefit.

System A: Allow non-networked computers access.

Problems: Spambots.

That's too simplistic. As I noted above, two imperfect options are using statistical sampling like they do for TV ratings or to require captcha or similar human identifying technology for free downloads.

[PhantomFox]

Okay, so the fic idea that I had proposed for AJ earlier has rather caught my imagination. However, it provides me with a new challenge: genre shift. I'm switching from Slice Of Life to Mystery Drama.

Now, I've read my share of Agatha Christie over the years, but I'm not entirely confident in my abilities to copy the genre yet. What are some basic tips to creating a Mystery? My instinct tells me to work backwards, figure out how It Was Done, and then cover it up one piece at a time. That sound right?

[Anarion]

Okay, so the fic idea that I had proposed for AJ earlier has rather caught my imagination. However, it provides me with a new challenge: genre shift. I'm switching from Slice Of Life to Mystery Drama.

Now, I've read my share of Agatha Christie over the years, but I'm not entirely confident in my abilities to copy the genre yet. What are some basic tips to creating a Mystery? My instinct tells me to work backwards, figure out how It Was Done, and then cover it up one piece at a time. That sound right?

A reasonable, if somewhat cheap way to do this kind of thing is to come up with your preferred solution and then present the basic facts to your friends and family and write down all the ways they get it wrong.

[fizmat]

Running a pitch for donations is very different to running a business where you have any power in the relationship. You have to be liked, and be prepared to go a long way establishing a brand name and likeable persona before you try to capitalise on it. Then you can use that likeability and fan loyalty to politely ask people not to steal from you and it works.

In other words, it's the latest episode verbatim?

[Thanqol]

I'd suspect a system-wide Internet crackdown would be unlikely for this reason. It could only happen if a whole bunch of countries agreed on how to do it. Businesses can't ever do it on their own, even if Google takes over the whole world because implementing a global standard of that sort would violate anti-trust laws. It's government agreement or everybody competing.

Och, aye. Europe in particular has an incredibly strong human rights and internet freedom policy, America is the single biggest beneficiary of a free internet, China isn't going to compromise it's national security, and most other nations have more pressing concerns.

As easy as it is to imagine the cackling RIAA villains striking a terrible blow for internet censorship, if they could have done that they would have done it ten years ago before they lost hundreds of millions of dollars to said piracy. They're pushing, but plenty of others are pushing back.

That's too simplistic. As I noted above, two imperfect options are using statistical sampling like they do for TV ratings or to require captcha or similar human identifying technology for free downloads.

Even the end goal is dubious, because it rewards volume of hits. Gangam Style has about a billion hits, while RBD Presents has about 20,000 - and I don't think the former is 500 times better than the latter. If we're going to redistribute wealth from the citizens to hungry artists then we should distribute it to the artists who aren't already millionaires. This is a huge regressive tax on everyone to support the opulent lifestyles of a minority and their media engines.

It's a huge step backwards, is what I'm saying, when there's so much benefit to be had in adapting to the new media.

In other words, it's the latest episode verbatim?

Ha! Yes!

EDIT:

I'm going to hard stop myself here because we're way far off topic.