How to lose your fans

Slashdot is reporting an 8-year fan-created episode in the (long dead) King's Quest series has been shutdown by Activision.

The series started in 1984 under the auspices of Sierra On-line with King's Quest: Quest for the Crown and finished in 1998 with King's Quest VIII: Mask of Eternity. When Sierra (as Sierra Entertainment) faded away, and stopped producing KQ games with the cancelation of King's Quest IX in 2002, fans stepped in and started producing their own labour of love, King's Quest IX: Every Cloak has a Silver Lining.

Fast forward 8 years, and Activision (owners of the remnants of Sierra and its IP) have issued a cease-and-desist order, effectively burying the game. Vivendi, when they controlled the IP and before they had been swallowed by Activision, had allowed development to continue under a non-commercial licence (i.e., the fans couldn't sell it and not actually call it King's Quest IX), but apparently Activision is not willing to allow even that.

Let's be clear: Activision have every right to do this. They own the intellectual property rights over the King's Quest series, so they are perfectly within their legal rights to do this. But, from a business point of view, this decision is completely nuts. Activision have no plans to revisit the series, so it's not competing against an "official" product. And the people producing the game are fans -- you know, people who love the series and are prepared to put in some work to keep it alive. All Activision are doing here is stomping over people who now might think twice before buying any Activision product.

Let's hear a big cheer for the lawyers....

Update: From Techdirt, Activision are letting the game go ahead. Common sense prevails...

Stop the press! Common sense breaking out!

So the infamous Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act is having its implementation "delayed". I didn't vote for National -- I don't trust them -- but I'm delighted to see John Key et al take a step back from implementing a poorly thought out law that (a) won't do what it's supposed to do, (b) breaches the fundamental innocent-until-proven-guilty principle that underpins our entire justice system, and (c) props up an irrelevant business model for the recording and movie industries, who seem to be led by people too lazy or too stupid (or both) to find an alternative.

And who's to blame for this? The former minister, the "Hon." Judith Tizard, who put Section 92A back in, even though the select committee had taken it out, and lectured anybody who dared suggest it might be a bad law, and generally looks like the recording industry's stool pigeon.

And here's an interesting factoid. According to TorrentFreak, here are the top 10 most downloaded movies of 2008, along with their worldwide grosses (from Wikipedia):

1. The Dark Knight (US$1,001,082,160)
2. The Incredible Hulk (US$263,427,064)
3. The Bank Job (US$63,754,550)
4. You Don't Mess With The Zohan (US$201,780,186)
5. National Treasure: Book of Secrets (US$457,363,168)
6. Juno (US$229,911,304)
7. Tropic Thunder (US$188,056,525)
8. I Am Legend (US$585,349,010)
9. Forgetting Sarah Marshall (US$105,173,115)
10. Horton Hears A Who! (US$297,041,149)

Yup, piracy's killing the movie industry....

When will she learn?

J.K.Rowling is, once again, setting her lawyers on her biggest fans, this time a lexicon of the Harry Potter universe that wants to publish a print version of their website. As Tim Wu smoothly points out, there are many reasons why Rowling deserves to fail in her attempt (via Techdirt).


One day, Rowling -- and others who seem to turn to the lawyers at the drop of a hat -- will learn that they're only harming themselves and their IP. It's free promotion, for goodness sake!

Part of the problem, I think, is the litigious nature of Western society. Lawyers are ubiquitous, and the lawsuit is the primary tool in their toolbox. "When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Unfortunately for IP holders, not every so-called "infringing" item is a nail (i.e., something to be sued out of existence). The sooner they realise this -- and embrace the possibilities -- the better off society will be.

Reminds me of the old joke: What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

NB: I should point out not all lawyers are bad (especially the one that's my sister-in-law). Just the ones who look for opportunities to sue as the be-all and end-all of the lives.