Every talk I saw was amazing. All the sessions are making their way onto YouTube, and are all worth checking out. I posted some of my personal highlights on Twitter, but if you missed them, here are my favorites:

Jonathan Zittrain's introductory keynote was thoughtful and inspiring. Jason Scott's solo talk on the Mysterious Mr. Hokum is a crazy story of a pre-Internet scammer. Flourish Klink's panel on fangirl culture was eye-opening, a glimpse into a massive subculture of the web I know far too little about.

The most entertaining, hands down, was Craig Allen's behind-the-scenes story of the Old Spice campaign, with a surprise Skype cameo by Isiaiah Mustafa.

The most underseen and misunderstood session was Wonder-Tonic's pitch for Localoffrly.biz, a douchebag startup turned into comedy performance art. (Bonus points for actually launching a site.) Hard to believe, but some people in the audience weren't sure whether it was a joke, and started to get frustrated when they stopped the gamified talk between each "level." Brave.

And, of course, Chris Poole's solo talk, which ended up inspiring my Wired column that was published last Wednesday. I reprinted it below, hope you enjoy it.

Early this month, the Internet invaded the MIT campus for ROFLCon III, the biennial two-day conference that brings together the subjects of net memes with those who study and adore them.

Among the meme celebrities -- Tron Guy, Paul "Double Rainbow" Vasquez, Antoine Dodson, Scumbag Steve and Chuck Testa all attended -- were those who are deeply invested in the future of Internet culture, both emotionally and financially. Founders of community sites like Reddit and 4chan, academics studying memes, and the cottage industry that's capitalized on them, most notably the Cheezburger Network's Ben Huh. And, of course, the whole audience participated in their propogation.

From the moment I boarded the plane to Boston there was an undercurrent of change running through the conference. I sat next to Whitney Phillips, a University of Oregon doctoral student speaking on a panel about her research on troll culture. She'd attended every ROFLCon since 2008, and realized that she'd have to revise her thesis in the next month -- the meme landscape is in a transitional period, but it's not clear what it's transitioning into. She echoed something I heard repeatedly over the weekend: "It just feels different."

It felt apropos that this was the last ROFLCon, with the organizers "putting this trilogy to bed and riding out into the sunset." Or, at least, until "we can figure out how to continue doing it great justice."

The Internet is still spawning memes at an accelerated rate -- and they'll never go away. But there are some major shifts under way that may fundamentally change the way they're created.

Every meme, like folklore, shares two common characteristics: It must show reproduction (the ability to be copied) and variation (the ability to mutate).

These days, memes spread faster and wider than ever, with social networks acting as the fuel for mass distribution. But it's possible we may see less mutation and remixing in the near future. As Internet usage shifts from desktops and laptops to mobile devices and tablets, the ability to mutate memes in a meaningful way becomes harder.

From the Interest Web to the Social Web

Over the last few years, we've seen a fundamental shift away from discussion forums and other niche communities to social networks and aggregators. In a 20-minute talk at ROFLCon, 4chan and Canvas founder Chris Poole characterized this as a shift from the interest-based web to the friend-based web.

Poole is concerned that the web is losing its emotional depth, a richness that comes from lurking, failing and learning before finding your place in a community. The difficulty gave it more meaning, and the resulting communities added far more value to the web than they extracted.

Now, aggregators like 9GAG and Cheezburger are ridiculously popular, but memes rarely originate there. Unsourced images are posted and watermarked by their new hosts, muddling their origins and diluting the context of the original image. As Poole said, "It's hard to feel emotionally invested in 9GAG."

To me, this is part of the natural expansion of online community. Reddit users hate 9GAG for stealing their memes, but 9GAG is popular because it's easier to use, making it more inclusive to Facebook users than Reddit's sprawling subgenres and somewhat esoteric community norms. It's the same reason that, for years, 4chan users hated Reddit for stealing their memes and bringing them to a community that was much easier to understand.

Unlike social networks, each successive community doesn't seem to cannibalize its predecessor, but instead simply finds a larger, newer audience. The original community stays largely the same, which feels like stagnation relative to the "next big thing." With each new site, the mainstream base and shared knowledge we call "Internet culture" converges into a mixed cultural heritage.

But there's one potential risk that affects the cultural production of memes.

Meme Mutation

Ever tried using 4chan on a iPhone? It's completely impossible to upload images from an iPhone or iPad, immediately limiting your contribution to the community to commenting alone. Sites like Reddit let you post a URL, but modifying and uploading images to a public URL from a mobile device is, for the moment, not easy.

Also for the moment, it's extremely rare for mobile apps to allow community remix and sharing. In fact, I could only find two iOS apps that supported posting your own remixes to a public community space: Mixel and Make Pixel Art. (If you know more, leave them in the comments.) All others only support sharing to your contacts or your own social network, but not the public, unmediated space that memes thrive in.

It's not surprising, then, that the only memes that seem to originate on smartphones are text-based -- autocorrect fail, iPhone whale, and texts from last night.

It feels like we're on the verge of a breakthrough to unleash the creative potential of these devices, but mobile developers are limiting our options to mild tweaking, at best. Instagram's filters made the simplest cosmetic changes, and you weren't able to modify anybody else's work. Draw Something let you draw, but only with a single person and no shared history. Where's the Canvas, Polyvore, deviantArt, and YTMND of the app world?

In the absence of good remix apps, image macro generators like Meme Generator and Quick Meme have filled the gap, making it possible to instantly generate a new meme from a mobile browser in seconds. No tools, or time investment, required.

This is incredibly empowering, but also limiting. Your imagination, and the scope of the meme's breadth, is limited to the capabilities of the meme generator.

It's reasonable to think the shift from desktops and laptops to mobile and tablets will continue, especially for the new generations of young Internet users that typically generate memes. If the app ecosystem doesn't grow to accommodate it, we may see remix participation drop, largely substituted by the lightweight interaction of likes, favs and comments and lightweight prebuilt memes from generators.

In his talk on Saturday, Poole said, "Memes are the instruments with which we play music. The way things are going, we're going to lose our song."

Memes may not go away, but I'm worried we may lose the concert venues where the music is performed -- the quirky, difficult communities that foster creative expression and make it meaningful.

There are millions of cover songs on YouTube, with around 12,000 new covers uploaded in the last 24 hours. Nearly 40,000 people covered "Rolling in the Deep," 11,000 took on "Pumped Up Kicks," 6,000 were inspired by "Somebody That I Used to Know."

Until recently, all but a sliver were illegal, considered infringement under current copyright law. Nearly all were non-commercial, created out of love by fans of the source material, with no negative impact on the market value of the original.

This is creativity criminalized, quite possibly the most popular creative act that's against the law.

I don't think it's an act of civil disobedience; nobody's making a statement. Most people don't know that cover songs need a synchronization license, and even if they did, trying to get one is a confusing and expensive proposition. Unlike the mechanical licenses used to release a cover song on an album, video sync licenses don't have an affordable flat rate and require the publisher's explicit permission.

Even as YouTube forges agreements with publishers to handle the synchronization rights for cover songs, it's nearly impossible for musicians to tell whether their songs are covered or not.

This week, I set out to answer a seemingly simple question: when are YouTube cover songs legal, and how can we do this better?

Conflicting Information

Even trying to determine if a cover song is legal can be confusing for most musicians. There's no shortage of answers online, but most of them are conflicting. Publishers, musicians, and lawyers all give different answers, none of which are totally accurate. Even YouTube's own FAQs are incomplete, made inaccurate by recent settlement agreements.

Like any area of copyright law, there's no shortage of armchair lawyering on blogs and discussion forums about cover songs. A common belief is that cover songs fall under the "fair use" provisions of the Copyright Act, but the question of whether a non-parody cover song could fall under fair use is untested in the courts. Despite this, over 60,000 cover songs on YouTube cite "fair use" in their title or description. (Whether uploaders actually believe that or are preemptively using it as a defense is anyone's guess.)

Content ID detects one of Adrian Holovaty's cover song

While they happily encourage fans to upload covers, YouTube makes it clear that users must have the rights to all content they upload. "We tell users they must own the copyright or have the necessary rights for any content they upload," said a YouTube representative. "It's ultimately their responsibility to know whether they possess the rights for a particular piece of content."

Their only specific guidance for cover songs is in their Copyright FAQ, which says, "Recording a cover version of your favorite song does not necessarily give you the right to upload that recording without permission from the owner of the underlying music."

But this answer isn't fully accurate. YouTube's negotiated blanket synchronization licenses for its users from thousands of publishers, most notably the settlement with the National Music Publishers Association last August. This agreement allowed publishers to opt-in to a program that let them take a cut from a $4 million advance pool and up to 50 percent of the advertising revenue from any cover song they own the rights to.

Frustratingly, we have no idea which publishers have signed on. The NMPA doesn't publish the list, making it impossible to figure out whether your song is covered by the agreement or not. (I contacted the NMPA, but a spokesperson confirmed that information appeared to be unavailable, but was looking into it.)

Begging for Forgiveness

In reality, the only way to tell whether a song is legal is to risk breaking the law and losing your YouTube account -- by uploading the video and waiting for copyright notices.

In the last few months, YouTube has quietly expanded Content ID beyond original recordings to detect cover versions and live performances using the underlying melodies. A YouTube representative confirmed with me, "Content ID's technology allows us to identify works in an original sound recording, or in a cover version (by identifying the underlying melody of a song), using information provided to us by the publishers."

YouTube hasn't talked much about its melody matching technology, but it was in the news recently after a drunk Edmonton man belted "Bohemian Rhapsody" in the back of a police car. After the Content ID identified the song, EMI initially decided to take the video down, but soon changed its mind and authorized it with advertising.

Adrian shared a screenshot of his copyright disputes page.

Everyblock founder Adrian Holovaty is well known on YouTube for his acoustic guitar covers, which have amassed millions of views. I asked him if Content ID identified the melodies in any of his videos. So far, seven of his videos were identified, with all but one rights holder choosing to leave the video online and collect the revenue. Only one video his cover of the Village People's "YMCA," was taken down by the songwriter, leaving Adrian with a "copyright strike" on his account. YouTube's policy allows three strikes before the account is terminated and all videos removed.

The Flaws in the System

The system's not perfect, though. Unscrupulous individuals are routinely using Content ID to claim content they don't own to harvest ad dollars from unsuspecting users. For example, two of Adrian Holovaty's disputed tracks are Django Reinhardt songs from the 1930s, claimed by an obscure company named "Social Media Holdings."

Other copyright claims may be accidental, as material they don't actually own finds its way into the Content ID database, like this poor guy who's received eight consecutive claims from companies claiming to own George Romero's public domain Night of the Living Dead.

And Content ID isn't immune to false positives, like the bird calls misidentified as music. Worse, for all these case, disputed Content ID claims bypass the DMCA process for counter-claims entirely, as I wrote about in February.

How can a musician decide what's legitimate or worth fighting?

Still, YouTube's Content ID is pushing publishers and rights holders into the modern age. It's an ingenious approach for an otherwise dysfunctional copyright system that's too hard for amateurs to navigate, making money for everyone involved while still allowing free creative expression.

The Need for Change

But there's something strange about this begging-for-forgiveness approach to copyright. It's like driving without traffic signs, only finding out you broke the law when you're pulled over.

The real question: Why is it illegal in the first place?

Cover songs on YouTube are, almost universally, non-commercial in nature. They're created by fans, mostly amateur musicians, with no negative impact on the market value of the original work. (If anything, it increases demand by acting as a free promotional vehicle for the track.)

The best solution is the hardest one: To reform copyright law to legalize the distribution of free, non-commercial cover songs.

Copyright law was intended to foster creativity by making it safe for creators to exclusively capitalize on their work for a limited period of time. Cover songs on YouTube don't threaten that ability, and may actually prevent new works by chilling talent that could go on to do great things.

As we've seen with countless breakout artists from YouTube, budding musicians have built their careers from cover songs that evolved into original material. Karmin, Pomplamoose, Julia Nunes, Greyson Chance.... Even Justin Bieber started with covers of Chris Brown and Nee-Yo before getting discovered.

Now, the next generation of budding pop stars are covering Justin Bieber, with about 216,000 of them so far. It's all part of the virtuous cycle of culture: We take from it, build on it, and then give back in return. The law should help that along, not hinder it.

Update: I originally published this column over at Wired on May 2. The woman I spoke to at the NMPA confirmed the list of publishers appeared to be unavailable, but promised to look into it. I haven't heard back, so I followed up again. I'll update here if I hear anything.)

Just so nobody else ever has to do this, here's the data, culled from Google News reports and YHOO stock quotes. Download as a CSV.

Context: Super Mario Summary reworks every level of Super Mario Bros. on a single screen, turning a side-scrolling platformer into a devious, addictive puzzle. Amazingly, it was built in only 48 hours by Swedish developer Johan Peitz as part of the Ludum Dare game competition. Read his postmortem of making the game.

As I said, "I thought I was giving them a shield, but turns out I gave them a missile with my name permanently engraved on it."

This week, Twitter announced their Innovator's Patent Agreement, an open source contract intended to guarantee patents will only be used defensively, even when sold. The IPA seems to directly address the issues raised in my article.

Adam Messinger, Twitter VP of Engineering, wrote that, "With the IPA, employees can be assured that their patents will be used only as a shield rather than as a weapon."

Every one of Twitter's existing patent filings, including Loren Brichter's famous pull-to-refresh patent, will fall under this agreement later this year.

Still, the IPA isn't perfect, and it needs work to protect the intentions of designers and engineers. Instapaper founder Marco Arment pointed out that the contract's definition of "defensive" is overly broad, allowing an unethical company to initiate a lawsuit for a range of reasons without requiring the inventor's permission.

Hypothetically, if Yahoo had adopted the IPA, would it have prevented them from later suing Facebook for patent infringement? Maybe not. Facebook's threatened several startups over trademark name issues in the past, including Lamebook, Placebook, and Teachbook. If any of them were also users, customers or affiliates of Yahoo, then Yahoo could bypass the Patent Agreement and file a patent lawsuit. (Though, if they did, the inventors could choose to sublicense their patents directly to Facebook.)

These problems are correctable though, and Twitter should be commended for taking this important first step. In a deeply broken patent system, it's heartening to see an established company proactively try to work around its flaws. I hope agreements like these find wide industry adoption.

But this isn't a real fix. Union Square's Fred Wilson dubbed it Twitter's "Patent Hack," and that's exactly what it is -- it's duct tape to patch a broken system, but it doesn't solve any of the underlying problems.

The ideal would be patent reform, or if the system's beyond reform, the abolition of business method patents entirely.

Marco Arment wrote, "A truly innovative stance would be for a large technology company to avoid filing patents, and to lobby aggressively for progressive patent reform to make that a practical choice for every technology company."

Like I did last month, Marco vowed not to file any patents. "I fundamentally disagree that software patents (and many other types of patents) are a net gain for society, and I can't participate in that system in good conscience."

After all, if you only use them defensively, why do you need patents at all? Publish your work and establish prior art.

Sadly, prior art only works in an ideal world. As we've seen, the U.S. patent office routinely grants patents even when prior art exists. The recently passed reforms to the patent system, switching from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system, make this more likely than ever.

For the moment, avoiding patents entirely isn't a realistic legal strategy for large companies. Maintaining a patent arsenal won't ward off shell company-style patent trolls, but it can protect you from competitors by allowing cross-licensing settlements. But all of that feeds into the "cold war" mentality of stockpiling patents you never hope to use.

Until we have real reform or abolition, ethical tech companies are forced to play the patent game, but at least engineers and designers now have a way to rewrite the rules in their favor.

In 2008, I was hooked on one drug for my daily fix: Memeorandum, a completely automated aggregator that surfaces popular stories from political news sites, often within minutes.

As you'd expect, the universe of political blogs is largely split in two, with conservative and liberal blogs rarely covering the same stories or linking to the same sites. But it can be very challenging to tell their political leanings at a glance, especially with names like "Balloon Juice," "Weasel Zippers," or "The Volokh Conspiracy."

So, four years ago, I launched a project with Delicious/Tasty Labs founder Joshua Schachter to visualize the linking biases of various political blogs on Memeorandum by looking at their past behavior.

Using singular value decomposition, the linear algebra at the heart of your Netflix recommendations, we reduced the entire matrix of blogger-to-article relationships to a single dimension. Imagine a single line grouping like-minded blogs together based on the diversity of the stories they cover, with hardcore left- and right-leaning blogs on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Using those precalculated values, we load the data from Google Spreadsheets and color the links on Memeorandum, based on where they fall on the spectrum. The brighter the color, the more frequently they only cover stories by their counterparts.

This simple visualization leads to some interesting insights. Compare these two articles, which were trending on Memeorandum at this writing:

Seeing each site's potential bias provides the context for understanding how news is spread. Right-leaning blogs are eager to point out new evidence that George Zimmerman was hurt the day he shot Trayvon Martin, but left-leaning blogs aren't covering that story. Likewise, only left-leaning news sites appear to be covering the news of Ted Nugent's threatening remarks to the president, but conservative blogs aren't. This visualization also makes it easy to spot outliers, the sources that are breaking away from their past behavior to link to something beyond their usual circle.

This browser add-on is free and open source on Github. We've updated the data sources for the first time since 2008, and Memeorandum Colors now works natively in Chrome, in addition to Firefox.

You can try the browser add-on by following these simple directions.

Google Chrome

1. Click the memeorandum_colors.user.js link.


2. In the warning dialog at the bottom of Chrome window, select "Continue."


3. Visit Memeorandum and wait a moment for the links to color.

Firefox

1. Install Greasemonkey.


2. Restart Firefox.


3. Click the memeorandum_colors.user.js link, wait three seconds, and Install.


4. Visit Memeorandum and wait a moment for the links to color.

Four Years of Data

Along with this release, we now have four years of historical activity to work with. The collected scores are on Google Fusion Tables, and I've included a dump of the activity in Github.

Looking at historical activity can reveal some interesting trends, especially in how attitudes have shifted since the last election.

For example, Little Green Footballs is a long-running political weblog started by Charles Johnson, a web developer who aligned himself with the conservative right wing after the World Trade Center attacks. In late 2009, he publicly parted ways with the right.

That shift away from conservatism was reflected in his linking behavior at least a year before his public statement. If you look at the timeline below, you can see that Johnson started linking to a wider variety of stories outside the conservative conversation, until his activity was mostly neutral in early 2010. Now, his activity tends neutral but slightly favors articles popular in the liberal blogosphere.

Bias In Linking, Not Beliefs

Memeorandum was created by San Francisco developer Gabe Rivera, who followed its introduction with aggregators for media, celebrity gossip, and baseball news. The most popular of these is Techmeme, a daily destination for tech industry watchers.

A month after Obama's election, Rivera announced he'd hired a human editor for Techmeme to help prevent inaccurate results from the algorithm. This editorial oversight would affect any link-based analysis on Techmeme, but he confirmed that Memeorandum is still completely machine-driven.

This automated analysis is not a commentary on the personal opinions and beliefs of any blogger -- no amount of linear algebra can prove that. What this shows is the biases in their linking behavior: the stories that each site chooses to cover, or not cover, and their similarity to others like them.

If you'd like to learn more about the math behind how this works, there's more detail and links to tutorials on my original blog entry.

Let me know if you have any questions and I'll try to answer them in the comments.

In those ten years, I've posted 415 entries, including this one, and over 13,000 links.

The decision to start writing here regularly changed my entire life. It's given me exposure, a place to share my projects and crazy experimentation with technology. It's created new opportunities for me, directly or indirectly responsible for every major project I've gotten involved in. It's a place to play and experiment with ideas, some of which led to big breakthroughs and passions. And it connected me to people who cared about the things I did, many of whom became lifelong friends.

Personal homepages and weblogs have long since faded from the popular trends. They're no longer hip and nobody's launching the hot new startup to reinvent them or make them better.

Most of the interest in writing online's shifted to microblogging, but not everything belongs in 140 characters and it's all so impermanent. Twitter's great, but it's not a replacement for a permanent home that belongs to you.

And since there are fewer and fewer individuals doing long-form writing these days, relative to the growing potential audience, it's getting easier to get attention than ever if you actually have something original to say.

Carving out a space for yourself online, somewhere where you can express yourself and share your work, is still one of the best possible investments you can make with your time. It's why, after ten years, my first response to anyone just getting started online is to start, and maintain, a blog.

And now, just for the hell of it, some of my favorite posts from the last ten years. :)

2002

Tracking the All Your Base Meme with Usenet. The first chart appears only two weeks in, setting a precedent for the next ten years.

Dar Kabatoff's In Town. My first deep-dive into Internet kookiness, an amazing example of Usenet lunacy that eventually led to my first stalker. To this day, people still link to this on various forums that Kabatoff appears in.

Spamming Weblog Comments. Where I casually predicted the rise of blog spam and Bayesian filters designed to stop it.

Steve Martin Fans. Another exploration into a sad, weird corner of the Internet, a prolific stalker turned suicidal in a Steve Martin fan forum.

October 2002 Dictionary Domains. I used to periodically run a script, check for the available of dictionary word .com, .org and .net domains, and post the results. Note the last one in the list, which I later snatched up for myself.

2003

Eldred, Shared Culture Loses. My first mashup landed me in the New York Times and Boston Globe, my first real press coverage ever. Soon after, a Disney exec bought a print of the comic from me, with the sale facilitated by Larry Lessig himself!

NYT and Lost Friends. Two weeks later, I was in the NYT again for my Lost Friends page. This was very new to me.

Google Buys Blogger. I was sitting front and center at the Blogosphere panel in Los Angeles when Ev announced Google bought Blogger, and was one of the first to report the news.

Bias Affects Story Updates on Political Weblogs. My first controversial tech exposé, manually analyzing sites to understand linking behavior. Most of these sites found my article from their referers, leading to some very upset bloggers. People don't like to be accused of bias.

Typo Popularity Tracking with Google. I feel like I started to hit a stride with posts like these, doing some simple analysis to find entertaining results.

Star Wars Kid. The post that launched a meme, melting my server and the servers of most of my friends. I later tracked him down, interviewing him with Jish's help and doing a fundraiser to buy him a newly-introduced iPod. Later, I reported on the lawsuits. Years later, I wrote a final summary of the whole thing, along with the logs for that period.

Santa Monica Farmer's Market Tragedy. My personal reporting from a freak car accident that killed nine people outside my office led to coverage in the BBC. Horrifying.

Upcoming.org Launch! The side project that changed my life.

2004

Researching the 2004 Oscar Screeners. Inspired by a delusional film industry, I sat down and tried to figure out exactly how often Oscar screeners leak online. Eight years later, I'm still doing it every year.

Waxy v2.0. Announcing our pregnancy and, a few months later, the birth of our son.

Danger Mouse's The Grey Album. I was the first person to put the Grey Album on the web, leading to the first takedown request from EMI, which spawned the Grey Tuesday protests.

InfocomBot for AOL Instant Messenger. One of my favorite hacks ever, it let you play classic and modern text adventures over AIM.

Nanniebots: Hoax, Fraud, or Delusion? I helped Ben Goldacre and Cameron Marlow debunk a ridiculous hoax, someone who claimed he developed chatbots to lure pedophiles in chatrooms.

Waxy's Bandwidth Blowout #1: Heat Vision and Jack. In the years before YouTube, serving video was a massive pain in the ass. If you were lucky enough to have a dedicated server, excess bandwidth was a handy commodity. I always loved hosting commercially-unavailable materials.

Amazon Knee-Jerk Contrarian Game. This post, tracking horrible Amazon reviews of critically-loved media, still makes me laugh.

Kleptones, "Night at the Hip-Hopera". Still my favorite mashup album ever, I originally hosted a copy and crowdsourced the sample list for the Kleptones. It netted me my second cease-and-desist, this time from Disney/Hollywood Records.

Afro-Ninja Found! I managed to track down the identity of a stuntman having a very bad day.

Amateur Tsunami Video Footage. Another pre-YouTube phenomenon, the demand for this tragic disaster footage was so high, it melted my server and even took down Archive.org for a time. The videos I uploaded to Archive.org dominated their most downloaded lists for years.

2005

Boing Boing Statistics. I built a simple visualization tool for Boing Boing's five-year archive, following my own Waxy.org Stats and Metafilter growth charts.

Wordpress Website's Search Engine Spam. The biggest story I'd ever broken, at that point, covering search engine spam hidden on Wordpress.com. For me, this was a switch from casual blogging to serious journalism, including quotes from Matt Mullenweg before publishing. More in the followup.

Automating Wikipedia History. I started a contest to make a Greasemonkey script to visually browse Wikipedia history, and got some amazing entries, including one by future-jQuery creator John Resig.

Yahoo and Upcoming, Sitting In A Tree. One of the craziest things that ever happened to me, the optimism in this post is almost blinding.

House of Cosbys, Mirrored. After the brilliant Cosby-inspired animated series was shut down, I mirrored all of the videos and got a takedown order from Bill Cosby's lawyer. I publicly defied it, compiled a list of Cosby parodies in the media, and did an interview about it with the New York Times. I never heard from team Cosby again.

2006

Metafilter Sources 2006. Tracking how the top 50 link sources on Metafilter changed between 2004 and 2006.

Sex Baiting Prank on Craigslist Affects Hundreds. I broke the story of Jason Fortuny's "Craigslist Experiment" after seeing a link to it in a private discussion forum. This ended up being a huge story, involving Craigslist, lawsuits, and ruined lives.

2007

Outgoing. Waxy.org went into cryogenic sleep while I was working at Yahoo and raising my baby boy, so I decided to take some time off to write again and explore new ideas.

2008

Colin's Bear Animation. Four years later, this video still makes me laugh. I tracked down Colin and interviewed him about it.

Personal Ads of the Digerati. I dug up vintage personal ads from Dave Winer and Richard Stallman, and I interviewed RMS about his unusual methods of accessing the web.

The Times (UK) Spamming Social Media Sites. I exposed some nefarious SEO practices from a mainstream newspaper, and interviewed founders of online communities to see what they thought.

Highlights from the British MovieTone Darkweb. Some wonderful vintage videos from a service that doesn't want you to find them. I'm amazed these videos still work.

ForumWarz Postmortem: Interviewing the Game's Creators. This innovative game never got popular, but I was very proud of this interview.

WIRED and The WELL. I have a complete archive of The WELL, and occasionally dig into it for research. For anyone who cares about Wired history, it's a treasure trove.

Internet Power, Volume 1: Flashback to the VHS-Era Web. I set up a VCR and started ripping vintage VHS tapes about the Internet. This was the first of a series of VHS rips, including Internet Power Vol. 2, Olympia School District, and Computability.

Fanboy Supercuts, Obsessive Video Montages. The blog post that named the "supercut" genre, I continued adding to it for years before starting Supercut.org.

Milliways: Infocom's Unreleased Sequel to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. This post caused me more pain and heartache than anything I've ever written. On its release, I was extremely proud of it, reconstructing the never-before-told history of an unreleased Infocom game using digital archives. But I didn't ask permission before quoting private emails, causing major fallout on the source that provided me with the archives, ending our friendship forever. You have no idea how often I wish I could unpublish this post.

The Whitburn Project: 120 Years of Music Chart History. I've always loved this story about a group of record collectors on Usenet, illegally swapping Billboard chart spreadsheets. In my followup post, I used the data to analyze music history.

The Machine That Changed the World: Great Brains. An awesome, out-of-print documentary series on computer history that I ripped from VHS, and created annotated show notes for each of the five episodes.

Girl Turk: Mechanical Turk Meets Girl Talk's "Feed the Animals". The first of my Mechanical Turk experiments, crowdsourcing metadata about the album to make neat charts.

Cheap, Easy Audio Transcription with Mechanical Turk. People still cite this post regularly as the guide for DIY crowdsourced transcription.

Kickstarter. The first of many posts about Kickstarter, when I first met the team and joined the board. "Ultimately, everybody should be able to support themselves doing what they love using the web."

Memeorandum Colors: Visualizing Political Bias with Greasemonkey. I worked with Joshua Schachter on this Greasemonkey script analyzing linking behavior on Memeorandum. I still use this every day.

The Faces of Mechanical Turk. I wanted to know what they looked like, and was willing to pay them to find out. This image seems to show up in every conference presentation about Mechanical Turk.

2009

Robin Hood's "Oo De Lally," Translated Into 16 Languages. This makes me happy.

Translating "The Economist" Behind China's Great Firewall. One of the strangest online communities I've ever discovered, a group of Chinese fans of The Economist translating the entire thing cover-to-cover as a learning tool. I ended up writing a shorter version of this piece for the New York Times.

Attribution and Affiliation on All Things Digital. This investigation into AllThingsD's linking practices led to concrete change. They never use long quotes anymore, clearly attribute, and drive traffic to the blogs they link to. Everyone wins.

Category Inflation at the Webbys. In the three years since, the number of categories continues to explode. Planning on writing a followup soon.

Kind of Bloop: An 8-Bit Tribute to Miles Davis. My first Kickstarter project was a big success, hitting its goal in four hours, and went on sale later that year.

Meme Scenery. One of my all-time favorite posts, I removed the subjects of famous memes from their backgrounds. There's something weirdly serene about these background locations without context.

Code Rush in the Creative Commons. In 2008, I'd posted an annotated copy of the classic Mozilla documentary and interviewed the director after he requested I take it offline. A year later, he decided to release it under a Creative Commons license, allowing me to put my annotated version back online.

2010

Interviewing Ted Rall on Comics Journalism in Afghanistan. I interviewed several project creators for the Kickstarter podcast, including this one with author and cartoonist Ted Rall, Pixeljam and James Kochalka, and R.U. Sirius.

Wikileaks Cablegate Reactions Roundup. Sometimes, there's value in just curating the best set of links around a topic. Every time I've ever done this, people seem to like it. I need to remember that more often.

Joining Expert Labs At the end of 2010, I took a leap and joined Expert Labs to work on tools to help government agencies better listen to citizens using social media.

2011

Metagames: Games About Games. Quite possibly the most entertaining research I've ever done. It took me forever, largely because I ended up playing so many clever games.

The Daily: Indexed. I got a lot of press for creating a public index of The Daily's iPad app, against their will. After my trial was up, I wrote about how I did it.

Making Supercut.org. The product of one very, very long night, I worked with artist Michael Bell-Smith to make a script that generated randomized video clips composed entirely of spliced-together supercuts.

Playable Archaeology: An Interview with Telehack's Anonymous Creator. I was so floored by this tour de force of computing history, I interviewed the brilliant, but anonymous, genius behind it.

Kind of Screwed. The long, frustrating tale of the contested Kind of Bloop artwork, which cost me a large out-of-court settlement and a bunch of legal bills. Makes a good story, though!

Apple's 1987 Knowledge Navigator, Only One Month Late. As I was watching the Knowledge Navigator video, I started piecing together dates to figure out when it was supposed to take place. I was blown away by the coincidence.

Google Kills Its Other Plus, and How to Bring It Back. My first column for Wired ended up being a big one. Lots of other power users were justifiably upset, and it directly led to the "Verbatim" feature being added to Google Search.

Supercut: Anatomy of a Meme. I dug into the supercut meme using Mechanical Turk and my database of clips. This doubled as the launch announcement for Supercut.org, a community-contributed index of videos.

Google Analytics A Threat to Potential Bloggers. Exposing one of my techniques for researching anonymous sites, I was surprised how many people didn't know about this.

Viewing the UC Davis Pepper Spraying from Multiple Angles. Sometimes, the simplest ideas are the most powerful. The video's been viewed on YouTube over 150k times.

No Copyright Intended. Remix culture is the new Prohibition.

I'll wrap it up there. With luck, I'll see you in ten more years. Thanks for reading.

I crunched the numbers, pulling together data from a selection of 30 notable internet acquisitions over the last ten years, from Broadcast.com to OMGPop, to see if the Facebook/Instagram acquisition was as crazy as everyone thinks. (I left out companies without public purchase prices or user stats.)

The spreadsheet below captures the acquisition date, dollar amounts, and ballpark counts of the users and employees at the time of acquisition. Be warned: any of these numbers are very rough, cobbled together from Internet Archive searches, old news articles, Quora answers, and tech blogs. If you have more accurate information, please leave a comment and I'll fix it.

Download the spreadsheet or view it on Google Docs.

Cost Per User

When a startup's acquired, they're purchased for any combination of the technology, talent, or the user base.

If we look strictly at the acquisition cost per user, Facebook got a relative deal with the Instagram purchase, paying roughly $37 for each of Instagram's 27 million users. (The median cost across all the acquisitions is about $92 per user.)

Compare that to acquisitions like Aardvark ($555/user) or Jaiku ($240/user), and you can systematically see which were likely technology or talent hires. The glaring exception is Yahoo's famous purchase of Mark Cuban's Broadcast.com in 1999, which paid nearly $10,000 for each of their 520,000 monthly active users, ten times any other startup. (Broadcast.com skewed the chart so much, I had to leave it off.)

Cost Per Employee

But if you look at the payout per employee, Instagram is completely off the charts. If split equally, each of Instagram's 13 employees would make nearly $77 million. The nearest runner-up is YouTube, with a paltry $24M for its 2006-era staff of 67. Skype, Broadcast.com, and Myspace all top the charts. The median? About $3 million.

Some would point to this as a sign of a bubble, but I think it's more likely it just reflects the incredible scalability of modern app architectures. Using cloud services, failover, and solid monitoring, Instagram can quickly scale up to support a million new users overnight with very little additional engineering effort.

The User-to-Employee Ratio

Instagram's numbers are exactly what you'd want to see in a social network -- high user counts with the lowest number of employees. This ratio is a measure of your efficiency, and it's no surprise that Instagram comes out on top here, with a ratio of one employee for every 2.07 million users.

The second highest user-to-employee ratio is OMGPOP, famous for developing Draw Something, the fastest-growing mobile app in history. With only one employee for every 875,000 users, they were able to scale to 50 million users within 50 days.

On the other end of the scale are the short-lived Q&A service Aardvark, with one employee for every 1,800 users, and customer-service giant Zappos with one employee for every 3,400 users.

More than anything, the app ecosystem rewards efficiency; your ability to massively scale with very little engineering effort. I'm guessing these ridiculously lean startups with huge exits aren't a freak occurrence. We'll see more of them as the rest of the world catches up, and learns how to do more with less.

Methodology

All figures are at the time of acquisition, and I favored active user counts over total registered users for calculating acquisition cost per year.

Thanks to Tristan Louis for providing some of the rumored numbers.

Update

I originally published this yesterday on Wired, under a different headline and revised lede from my editor. To be clear, I don't know if we're in a bubble or not. My only point is that, relative to other acquisitions, the per-user cost for Instagram isn't insane. Union Square Ventures' Albert Wenger added some additional thoughts, noting that the per-user costs should be discounted as the userbase grows.

Many Wired commenters complained I was wrong because Instagram has no revenue. In 2006, YouTube had 34M users, zero revenue, and were bleeding $1M/month for bandwidth alone. Was Google crazy to buy them, too?

Anyway, it was a good excuse to collect all of this data in a spreadsheet for the first time. I went looking, and couldn't find the numbers available in one place anywhere. Hope you liked it.

I guess Caine should've worked out a harder-to-crack checksum.

Short version: Expert Labs — the non-profit I've worked on for the last 18 months — is over. Gina and Anil are rebooting ThinkUp into a commercial entity, but I've decided to move on. I'll continue to act as a ThinkUp advisor, and have already started work on two brand new, soon-to-be-announced projects.

A Quick Review

I worked on a whole bunch of stuff while at Expert Labs, but it took on two themes: bringing ThinkUp to a new audience, and analysis of the data we collected. Since most of this work wasn't high-visibility outside of the existing ThinkUp community, here's a quick roundup.

Outreach. It's the first time in my career I've ever worked with self-hosted software, and I spent quite a bit of energy trying to help people understand why they'd want to use ThinkUp and make it as easy as possible to get it installed. It's hard enough to get people to sign up with a new web service, but one that requires you to install it on your own web server? Damn hard.

Part of this was marketing: I produced two promo videos, showing off the capabilities of the app at different stages. The first video was overly long, too detailed, and a bit cheezy. With the second, I cut out all the crap and asked Clay to narrate a tight, 74-second elevator pitch for why ThinkUp is an essential utility. If you've never seen it, take a minute to watch.

Unfortunately, offering a hosted version ourselves was never an option. As a nonprofit, it would have been irresponsible for us to archive people's social media activity and then disappear when funding dried up. Instead, we tried to make installation as simple as possible.

My first attempt was just getting it up and running on EC2, and making that process as easy as possible with a step-by-step tutorial. Later, I replaced that with the ThinkUp Launcher, a one-click installer that booted a custom EC2 instance with ThinkUp preinstalled. I released the code on Github, so any open-source project could easily make their own launcher.

Finally, in December, a commercial service appeared that offered drop-dead simple ThinkUp hosting. We worked with PHP Fog, a Portland-based cloud hosting company, to support a one-click ThinkUp jumpstart. Here's the screencast I made, showing off how to get up-and-running in seconds.

To help expand the reach of the app, I worked with Mule Design to figure out what ThinkUp does well, what it could do better, and incorporate those learnings to redesign the next version of ThinkUp. Elements of the redesign have already made their way into ThinkUp 1.0, and will guide later versions of the app.

Analysis. Whether it was making charts, building mashups, or crunching data, I spent quite a bit of effort trying to make sense out of the incredible amount of data being collected by ThinkUp.

I showed off the ThinkUp API with ThinkBack, an open-source mashup that extracted entities from your historical Twitter history to make a time machine of the people, places, and things in your past.

I analyzed Twitter reactions to 2011 and 2012 State of the Union speeches, as well as the White House's Twitter Town Hall, releasing datasets for each. I even made my first, and only, linkbait infographic summing up the White House's Year in Review on Twitter.

One of the biggest projects I created was the Federal Social Media Index, which used ThinkUp to gather activity from 125 federal agencies on Twitter, and try to measure their engagement for the questions they ask using some simple metrics. The response was great, showing how much interest there is for additional tools in that world.

Over the last few weeks, I've adapted it to use the ThinkUp API and will be open-sourcing the results soon to use on your own projects.

Overall, working with Expert Labs was fascinating for me. I'd never worked with government before, and was able to work with motivated and passionate teams from the White House down to local city government. It was an eye-opening experience, and I learned a ton about cultivating an open-source community, the challenges facing state and federal government agencies, and distributing hosted software. Best of all, I was able to do it all while working with three friends I deeply respect: Gina Trapani, Anil Dash, and Clay Johnson.

The Future

Expert Labs may be ending, but ThinkUp is just getting started. It'll continue to be free and open-source, and Gina and Anil are spinning ThinkUp off into a commercial entity, using the open-source base to create a new media property. You can read more about their plans on their Knight News Challenge application on Tumblr, which you should totally like and reblog. (The number of votes factors into the Knight Challenge judging!)

And me? I'll be doing new stuff, like always. I'm still writing my weekly Wired column, working on Playfic, and thinking about big future projects.

I've started working on two unannounced projects simultaneously that I'm crazy excited about. Both have to do with this problem: how do you use technology to connect people together in new ways, and help people make a living doing what they love? It's a running theme through everything I've ever worked on, and I'll be writing much more about them soon.

For the first time in a very long time, I'm also open to hearing about new opportunities. If you're working on anything along these lines and want help, get in touch!

If you're running a botnet, the goal is to avoid detection for as long as possible. Flashback took an interesting approach to hiding itself — if one of several popular antivirus or monitoring tools is detected, it immediately deletes itself. Merely installing a utility like Avast, Clam Antivirus, Little Snitch or HTTP Scoop was enough to protect you, even if you didn't keep them running.

Funny enough, major commercial antivirus utilities like Norton Antivirus, McAfee VirusScan, and F-Secure weren't included in the blacklist. It seems the Flashback authors aren't afraid of the effectiveness of those utilities or, maybe, the technical expertise of their customers.

From the threat description:

On execution, the malware checks if the following path exists in the system:

/Library/Little Snitch
/Developer/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/MacOS/Xcode
/Applications/VirusBarrier X6.app
/Applications/iAntiVirus/iAntiVirus.app
/Applications/avast!.app
/Applications/ClamXav.app
/Applications/HTTPScoop.app
/Applications/Packet Peeper.app

If any of these are found, the malware will skip the rest of its routine and proceed to delete itself.

Note the presence of Xcode, Apple's IDE for Mac and iOS development. To a virus author, the presence of development tools like Xcode is a perfect indicator of a tech-savvy user... the kind of person most likely to detect your work.

If you want to stay safe, or see if you were infected, Macworld has the best roundup.

It's the opening titles for 48 Hours of Hallucinatory Sex (originally "48 Horas de Sexo Alucinante"), a 1987 trash/sexploitation film from Brazil. (Don't worry, the clip's safe for work.)

Everything about this video is amazing, from the face-melting porno synth to the Amstrad-like scrolling fonts. (You can see the blinking cursor!) With the VHS warble, it sounds like an unreleased track straight off of DJ Shadow's Endtroducing... I couldn't find any information about the soundtrack online, but would love to hear more.

The sequel to a 1985 movie called 24 Hours of Explicit Sex, the plot of 48 Hours is totally meta: a sex psychologist sees the original film and hires the original cast and crew to make her own. It's like the '80s porno version of The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence, where a psychopath is inspired to recreate the events of The Human Centipede using the real-life actors from the film.

The last time I stumbled on anything this funky, it was this scene from low-budget indie comedy Apple Pie from 1976, that ends with this insane 15-minute-long choreographed dance sequence set on the streets of 1970s NYC. And the music? An improvised funk jam by Hall & Oates.

This happens to me every time I go to NYC.

(Click for larger size.)

This article received a bigger response, hands-down, than anything I've written for Wired so far, resting at the top of Techmeme for a full day, with widespread coverage from The Telegraph, The Verge, Fox News, and Business Insider. (That's a good signal you've written something notable: when competing tech magazines start linking to your work.)

Almost two weeks later, I'm still angry but happy that the column ignited such a powerful discussion about the patent issue. I'm especially pleased that "weaponizing patents" is entering the lexicon; articles like these use the phrase without mentioning me at all. Awesome.

For two other perspectives on this issue, I enjoyed Mark Cuban's linkbait take and Fred Wilson's short, furious rant.

Anyway, if you hadn't seen it, I hope you enjoy it.

While most of the tech world was partying at South by Southwest in Austin yesterday, Yahoo announced it was filing a lawsuit against Facebook for allegedly infringing on 10 patents from their 1,000+ patent warehouse.

I'm no fan of Facebook, but this is a deplorable move. It's nothing less than extortion, expertly timed during the SEC-mandated quiet period before Facebook's IPO. It's an attack on invention and the hacker ethic.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have a small supporting role in this story. None of the patents I co-invented are cited in the Yahoo complaint, but a handful of applications I worked on with Yahoo were granted patents, weaponized now to use against people like me.

Here's how the process worked, in my case:

In 2005, Yahoo acquired Upcoming.org, the collaborative events calendar I'd launched two years before.
Back then, the Web 1.0 behemoth seemed on the verge of turning things around. A series of smart moves — high-profile hires, the Oddpost and Flickr acquisitions, the launch of the Yahoo! Developer Network, and their Research Lab — was breathing new life into things. Two months after we were acquired, Del.icio.us and Webjay joined us in the Yahoo fold.

After we moved in, we were asked to file patents for anything and everything we'd invented while working on Upcoming.org. Every Yahoo employee was encouraged to participate in their "Patent Incentive Program," with sizable bonuses issued to everyone who took the time to apply.

Now, I've always hated the idea of software patents. But Yahoo assured us that their patent portfolio was a precautionary measure, to defend against patent trolls and others who might try to attack Yahoo with their own holdings. It was a cold war, stockpiling patents instead of nuclear arms, and every company in the valley had a bunker full of them.

Against my better judgement, I sat in a conference room with my co-founders and a couple of patent attorneys and told them what we'd created. They took notes and created nonsensical documents that I still can't make sense of. In all, I helped Yahoo file eight patent applications.

Years after I left I discovered to my dismay that four of them were granted by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office.

I thought I was giving them a shield, but turns out I gave them a missile with my name permanently engraved on it.

I was naive. Even if the original intention was truly defensive, a patent portfolio can easily change hands, and a company can even more easily change its mind. Since I left in 2007, Yahoo has had three CEOs and a board overhaul.

The scary part is that even the most innocuous patent can be used to crush another's creativity. One of the patents I co-invented is so abstract, it could not only cover Facebook's News Feed, but virtually any activity feed. It puts into very sharp focus the trouble with software patents: Purposefully vague wording invites broad interpretation.

In their complaint, Yahoo alleges that Facebook's News Feed violates "Dynamic page generator," a patent filed in 1997 by their former CTO related to the launch of My Yahoo, one of the first personalized websites. Every web application, from Twitter to Pinterest, could be said to violate this patent. This is chaos.

Software patents should be abolished, plain and simple. Software is already covered by copyright, making patent protection unnecessary.

Ask any programmer — developing software is as creative and unique as writing poetry.

Yahoo's lawsuit against Facebook is an insult to the talented engineers who filed patents with the understanding they wouldn't be used for evil. Betraying that trust won't be forgotten, but I doubt it matters anymore. Nobody I know wants to work for a company like that.

I'm embarrassed by the patents I filed, but I've learned from my mistake. I'll never file a software patent again, and I urge you to do the same.

For years, Yahoo was mostly harmless. Management foibles and executive shuffles only hurt shareholders and employee morale. But in the last few years, the company's incompetence has begun to hurt the rest of us. First, with the wholesale destruction of internet history, and now by attacking younger, smarter companies.

Yahoo tried and failed, over and over again, to build a social network that people would love and use. Unable to innovate, Yahoo is falling back to the last resort of a desperate, dying company: litigation as a business model.

That it's Yahoo makes it even sadder. The complaint isn't really wrong when it asserts that: "For much of the technology upon which Facebook is based, Yahoo! got there first."

But being first with something generic that would have been invented by someone (like the wheel) — as opposed to something few could have imagined (like the Segway) — is a big difference.

Ask any start-up CEO — execution is everything.

As the fictionalized Mark Zuckerberg says in The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

The only problem? There is no music in the video; only bird calls and other sounds of nature.

Naturally, he filed a dispute, explaining that the audio couldn't possibly be copyrighted.

The next day, amazingly, his claim was rejected. Not by YouTube itself — it's unlikely that a Google employee ever saw the claim — but from a representative at Rumblefish, who reviewed the dispute and reported back to YouTube that their impossible copyright for nonexistent music was indeed violated.

Back at YouTube, eeplox found himself at a dead end. YouTube now stated, "All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content." No further disputes were possible, the case was closed.

Whether caused by a mistake or malice, Rumblefish was granted full control over eeplox's video. They could choose to run ads on the video, mute the audio, or remove it entirely from the web.

A History of Screw-Ups

On Sunday night, Reddit took notice. Within hours, the thread was on the homepage, commenters were freaking out and, to his credit, Rumblefish CEO Paul Anthony was fielding questions in an IAmA interview until 2:30am.

His argument: One of Rumblefish's Content ID reps made a mistake by denying the dispute, and they released the claim on Sunday night. "We review a substantial amount of claims every day and the number is increasing significantly," said Anthony. "We have millions of videos now using our songs as soundtracks and keeping up is getting harder and harder."

This is the latest in a long series of foibles or outright abuses of YouTube's Content ID system. Content ID was intended to help copyright holders manage the chaos of YouTube. They'd provide copies of their audio and video for analysis, which would then algorithmically match newly-uploaded videos. If a match was found, rightsholders could automatically block the video or, increasingly, claim money from video advertising.

Content ID's monetization was a huge boon for copyright holders. Uploaders could keep their videos online, while copyright holders profited from the creative reuse of their work.

But the last couple years have seen a dramatic rise in Content ID abuse, using it for purposes that it was never intended. Scammers are using Content ID to steal ad revenue from YouTube video creators en masse, with some companies claiming content they don't own, deliberately or not. The inability to understand context and parody regularly leads to "fair use" videos getting blocked, muted or monetized.

Bypassing the DMCA

The problem is that media companies and scammers are using Content ID as an end run around the DMCA.

With the DMCA, the process works like this. A rightsholder could file a claim against a video with YouTube, and YouTube would immediately take the video offline. If there was a mistake, the uploader could file a counter-notice. The video would then be restored by YouTube within 10-14 business days of the counter-notice, unless it went to court.

It wasn't perfect, by any means, but it was fair. Disputes could always be appealed, and both parties were given equal power. And if a claimant lied about owning the copyright to the material in question, they could face perjury charges.

The current system, led by Content ID, tips the balance far in favor of the claimant.

Rumblefish never needed to prove they were the copyright holder, but were still given ultimate control over the video's fate. Uploaders can dispute claims, but the only people reviewing claims are the Content ID partners that filed the claim in the first place, who are free to deny them wholesale.

A Simple Fix

The solution is simple: if a copyright holder wants to pursue a disputed Content ID match, they should file a DMCA claim. That's the only way to guarantee their rights, and make the copyright holder legally responsible for telling the truth.

In fact, this is exactly how YouTube says that Content ID "fair use" claims should work. In practice, this doesn't appear to be true any longer. Content ID partners, of course, can file a DMCA notice at any time, but why bother if they can reject the counter-claims themselves?

(Preferred partners like Universal Music Group can go a step further and block videos directly without filing a claim.)

This problem has been on YouTube's radar for at least two years, but it's only getting worse as unsavory companies discover this nascent business model. Claim copyright on media you may or may not own, and let Content ID do the rest.

By letting Content ID partners have the final word, and not trusting their own users, YouTube is violating its trust with its community and damaging fair use in the process.

Update

I originally published this article over at Wired, where a commenter pointed out that this process may actually violate YouTube's "safe harbor" granted through the DMCA. If they choose to ignore disputes, they're effectively giving content providers an end run around fair use and the DMCA.

Selfish Crab wrote:

It seems like by providing the Content ID system, Youtube was trying to pre-emptively identify copyrighted material, like a first-pass dispute system. Their lawyers probably concluded that so long as the content ID system falls back onto DMCA takedown procedure, they are still in compliance with the DMCA sufficiently to retain their safe harbor.

So if Content ID claim disputes do not fall back onto DMCA takedown, as Andy's article suggests, there's a case to be made that YouTube no longer has liability protection from users. It is a whole another can of worms to analyze what a legal claim against youtube would look like. You'd have to look at the YouTube Terms of Service (i.e., the contract) to see if maybe they contracted around this problem already, you'd have to figure out damages, etc etc. Or I guess you can just raise a shitstorm and that's enough of a moral victory.

In a Google+ comment last December, senior copyright counsel for Google and former EFF staff attorney Fred von Lohmann acknowledged the problem.

Yes, we're aware of that problem in the Content ID dispute process and are looking at what we can do to fix it. It's the result of a complicated collision of how to handle geographically limited Content ID claims, disputes, and global DMCA removals. Turns out to be a hard problem to figure out. But we're thinking on it.

Virginia law student Patrick McKay got in touch with Annie Baxter, a public relations manager at YouTube, about this issue.

This is one of those corner-case outcomes that emerges from several different rules, none of which was intended to yield the result you've encountered (i.e., DMCA takedowns are global, but Content ID ownership claims are territorial). Unfortunately, addressing it YouTube-wide is going to take some time, both for pondering and implementing.

So while we can promise you that we're thinking about this, we can't promise you a fix or time-table. And feel free to tell the OVC we're looking at it and trying to come up with something.

In the meantime, anyone in the Content ID program is offered free reign to claim copyright on your videos and profit directly from them. I'm hoping this gets cleared up soon.

Playfic is a community for writing, sharing, and playing interactive fiction games (aka "text adventures") entirely from your browser, using a "natural language"-inspired language called Inform 7.

Inform 7 is incredibly awesome and weird. For example, this is a fully functional game:

East of the Garden is the Gazebo. Above is the Treehouse. A billiards table is in the Gazebo. On it is a trophy cup. A starting pistol is in the cup. In the Treehouse is a container called a cardboard box.

Type that into Playfic, and you end up with this simple game, ready to send to the world.

The official documentation is extensive, with a great manual and recipe book. I've collected a list of resources to help you get started.

For now, there's very little documentation on Playfic itself, but you can click the "View game source" link on every game to see how it was made, and Cooper's adding sample games from the official Recipe Book.

My hope is that Playfic opens up the world of interactive fiction to a much wider audience — young writers, fanfic authors, and culture remixers of all ages.

While the language can be tricky, building simple games is surprisingly easy. Cooper had never coded anything or made a game before trying Playfic, and within 30 minutes of futzing around, he'd made his first game.

Some stuff is broken and missing, but I'd love to hear what you make of it. Open to any and all feedback. Go make some games!

As I was about to connect my Gmail account, my finger hovered over the "Grant access" button.

Wait a second. Who am I giving access to my Gmail account, anyway? There was no identifying information on their site — no company address, no team page listing the names of its team members, and broken links to their privacy policy or terms of service.

For all I knew, it could be run by unscrupulous spammers or an Anonymous troll looking for lulz. And I was about to give them unfettered access to eight years of my e-mail history and, with password resets, the ability to access any of my online accounts?

I had to dig around online to find out who's behind it, and fortunately, Unroll.me is a totally legit NYC-based startup providing a useful service. I spoke to Perri Blake Gorman, Unroll.me's cofounder and CMO, who assured me they'll add all the company information as they roll out their public beta.

But since Gmail added OAuth support in March 2010, an increasing number of startups are asking for a perpetual, silent window into your inbox.

I'm concerned OAuth, while hugely convenient for both developers and users, may be paving the way for an inevitable privacy meltdown.

The Road to OAuth

For most of the last decade, alpha geeks railed against "the password anti-pattern," the common practice for web apps to prompt for your password to a third-party, usually to scrape your e-mail address book to find friends on a social network. It was insecure and dangerous, effectively training users how to be phished.

The solution was OAuth, an open standard that lets you grant permission for one service to connect to another without ever exposing your username or password. Instead of passwords getting passed around, services are issued a token they can use to connect on your behalf.

If you've ever granted permission for a service to use your Twitter, Facebook, or Google account, you've used OAuth.

This was a radical improvement. It's easier for users, taking a couple of clicks to authorize accounts, and passwords are never sent insecurely or stored by services who shouldn't have them. And developers never have to worry about storing or transmitting private passwords.

But this convenience creates a new risk. It's training people not to care.

It's so simple and pervasive that even savvy users have no issue letting dozens of new services access their various accounts.

I'm as guilty as anyone, with 49 apps connected to my Google account, 80 to Twitter, and over 120 connected to Facebook. Others are more extreme. My friend Sam is a developer at Kickstarter, and he authorized 148 apps to use his Twitter account. Anil counted 88 apps using his Google account, with nine granted access to Gmail.

For Twitter, the consequences are unlikely to be serious since almost all activity is public. For Facebook, a mass leak of private Facebook photos could certainly be embarrassing.

But for Gmail, I'm very concerned that it opens a major security flaw that's begging to be exploited.

The Privacy Danger

A long list of services, large and small, request indefinite access to your Gmail account.

I asked on Twitter and Google+ for people to check their Google app permissions to see who they've granted Gmail access to. The list includes a range of inbox organizers, backup services, email utilities, and productivity apps: TripIt, Greplin, Rapportive, Xobni, Gist, OtherInbox, Unsubscribe, Backupify, Blippy, Threadsy, Nuevasync, How's My Email, ToutApp, ifttt, Email Game, Boomerang, Kwaga, Mozilla F1, 0boxer, Taskforce, and Cloudmagic.

Once granted, all of these services are issued a token that gives unlimited access to your complete Gmail history. And that's where the danger lies.

You may trust Google to keep your email safe, but do you trust a three-month-old Y Combinator-funded startup created by three college kids? Or a side project from an engineer working in his 20 percent time? How about a disgruntled or curious employee of one of these third-party services?

Any of these services becomes the weakest link to access the e-mail for thousands of users. If one's hacked or the list of tokens leaked, everyone who ever used that service risks exposing his complete Gmail archive.

The scariest thing? If the third-party service doesn't discover the hack or chooses not to invalidate its tokens, you may never know you're exposed.

In the past, Gmail's issued security warnings to accounts being accessed from multiple IP addresses. I spoke to OtherInbox founder Joshua Baer, and he said that Google's eased up on the warnings because of the prevalence of third-party services.

It's entirely possible for someone with a stolen token to read, search, and download all your mail to their server for months, and you'd never find out unless they exposed themselves, or you were diligently auditing your "Last account activity" history.

Stay Safe

Clearly, we're not going to stop using awesome new utilities just because there's a privacy risk. But there are best practices you can follow to stay safe.

• Clean up your app permissions. The best thing you could do, right now, is to log into each service you care about and revoke access to the apps you no longer use or care about, especially those that have access to Gmail. Finding the permissions pages can be tricky, but the nice folks at MyPermissions.org made a handy dashboard linking to every one.


• Think before you authorize. Before authorizing an account, find out who you're granting access to. Look for a staff page, contact address, and take a look at the privacy policy to make sure they're not sharing or selling your info with third parties. Bonus points if they outline their security policies and offer a way to disconnect service from within the app. If anything seems off, don't do it.


• When in doubt, change your password. Have a feeling that someone might be reading your mail, but not sure which app is to blame? Changing your password instantly invalidates all your Google and Facebook OAuth tokens, though Twitter tokens persist after password changes.

Google could improve, as well. Their permissions page is too hard to find, even for experienced users, and it's impossible to see which apps have accessed your account recently.

Facebook does an excellent job with this, but Google only shows you the IP address and the protocol it used to connect. Surfacing this information, as a periodic e-mail or on-site notification, would go a long way to averting a potential disaster.

The Greatest Troll of All

So, I originally published everything above over on my Wired column yesterday, but I left off something else I've been thinking about.

While I think a compromised database is the most likely scenario, there's another possibility that disturbs me more.

Imagine that a brand new service pops up, offering a simple, fun service that uses your Gmail account. Maybe a neat visualization like Tout's Year in Review, or maybe something more practical like sending all your attachments to Dropbox.

But it's all just a giant troll, where the app's creators are silently running targeted searches, downloading your mail, and looking for compromising photos and sensitive documents behind-the-scenes. They could collect the documents for months or years, and then release it all online in an anonymous blast. Lulz!

You'd likely never find out where the data came from, and the perpetrators would never be caught. Hell, if you've Gmail-authed a questionable app, this could be happening to you right now and you'd never know. Whee!

For the last 10 years, I've tracked the online distribution of Oscar-nominated films, going back to 2003. Using a number of sources (see below for methodology), I've compiled a massive spreadsheet, now updated to include 310 films.

This year, for the first time, I'm calling it: after three years of declines, the MPAA seems to be winning the battle to stop screener leaks. But why?

A record 37 films were nominated this year, and the studios sent out screeners for all but four of them. But, so far, only eight of those 33 screeners have leaked online, a record low that continues the downward trend from last year.

(Disclaimer: Any of this could change before the Oscar ceremony, and I'll keep the data updated until then.)

They may be winning the battle, but they've lost the war.

While screeners declined in popularity, 34 of the nominated films (92 percent) were leaked online by nomination day, with 25 of them available as high-quality DVD or Blu-ray rips. Only three films -- Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, My Week with Marilyn and W.E. -- haven't leaked online in any form (yet!).

If the goal of blocking leaks is to keep the films off the internet, then the MPAA still has a long way to go.

There are a number of theories about what's causing the decline.

It could be attributed to tighter controls -- personalized watermarks, the aggressive prosecution of leakers, and greater awareness of the risks for Academy voters.

But the MPAA may have little to do with the decline. Oscar-nominated films could be coming out earlier in the year, making screeners less important.

Or maybe the interests between the mainstream downloader and industry favorites is diverging? If the Oscars are mostly arthouse fare and critical darlings, but with low gross receipts, they'll be less desirable to leak online. It would be very interesting to track the historical box office performance of nominees to see how it affects downloading. (Maybe next year!)

The continuously shrinking window between theatrical and retail releases may be to blame. After all, once the retail Blu-ray or DVD is released, there's no reason for pirate groups to release a lower-quality watermarked screener.

The chart below tracks the window between U.S. release and its first DVD/Blu-Ray leak online, which shows how the window between theatrical and retail release dates is slowly closing since 2003.

Whatever the reason, online movie releasing groups are taking longer to pirate movies than ever. When I first started tracking releases in the early- to mid-2000s, the median time between theatrical release to its first leak online was 1 to 2 days. Now, that number's crept up to over three weeks.

The rise in leak time correlates with a dip in popularity for lower-quality sources, like camcorder-sourced footage. This year, only eight of the 37 nominees (21 percent) were sourced from camcorder footage. (This is likely because there are fewer blockbuster nominees than in the mid-2000s.)

As the industry slowly transitions from physical media to streaming video, it'll be interesting to see if the downward trend continues, or if the ease of capturing streaming video spawns a new renaissance for screeners. Last year, Fox Searchlight distributed screeners with iTunes, and all were quickly and easily pirated.

The Data Dump

Skeptical of my results? Want to dig into it yourself? Good! Here's the complete dataset, available on Google Spreadsheets or downloadable as an Excel spreadsheet or comma-separated text file.

Methodology

I include the full-length feature films in every category except documentary and foreign films (even music, makeup, and costume design).

I use Yahoo! Movies for the release dates, always using the first available U.S. date, even if it was a limited release, falling back to the first available U.S. date in IMDB.

All the cam, telesync, and screener leak dates are taken from VCD Quality, supplemented by dates in ORLYDB. I always use the first leak date, excluding unviewable or incomplete nuked releases.

The official screener release dates are from Academy member Ken Rudolph, who kindly lists the dates he receives each screener on his personal homepage. Thanks again, Ken!

For previous years, see 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 (part 1 and part 2), 2009, 2010, and 2011.

Virtually every project I've ever worked on is threatened by this legislation:

Upcoming.org faced copyright complaints for event posters and listings that users added to the site.

Kickstarter gets DMCA takedowns from artists who find their work used in pitch videos, and from project founders quarreling with each other.

Supercut.org indexes hundreds of video remixes that reuse copyrighted content.

Kind of Bloop faced a lawsuit over the cover art.

And here on Waxy.org, I've had a number of battles over copyright. Among them, I received a cease-and-desist from EMI for being the first person to host DJ Danger Mouse's Grey Album on the web, from Disney for hosting the Kleptones' Night at the Hip-Hopera, and from Bill Cosby for hosting House of Cosbys, which was clearly fair use as a parody.

Every cease-and-desist and DMCA request I've received wasn't fun to get in my inbox, but it allowed me to deal with the issues directly with the copyright holder or using the due process of the court system.

Imagine, instead, a world where a bill like SOPA or PIPA passes. A copyright holder could bypass due process entirely, demanding that search engines stop linking to my sites, ad providers drop me, and force DNS providers not to resolve my domain name. All in the name of stopping piracy.

The chilling effect would be huge.

Every online community that allows for community-contributed content -- discussion forums, imageboards, Usenet newsgroups, photo sharing communities, video sites, and many more -- would be forced to pre-emptively self-censor, shut down, or risk getting blown off the net entirely.

That fucking sucks.

Everything I love about the web requires the unfettered freedom to build new ways to let people express themselves, and with that, comes the risk of copyright infringement.

Breaking the web isn't a solution.

Please take 10 minutes today to call your representatives -- or show up in person! --and let them know you won't stand for this. SOPA and PIPA must die.

A couple things struck me about this video.

First, I'm surprised that a full-length, 2.5-hour very slight remix of a popular film can survive on YouTube for over six weeks without getting removed. Now that it's on Kottke and Buzzfeed, I'm guessing it won't be around for much longer.

But I was just as amused by the video description:

"The legendary movie itself placed into chronological order. If you'd like me to put the full movie itself up, let me know and I'll be glad to oblige. Please no copyright infringement. I only put this up as a project."

These "no copyright infringement intended" messages are everywhere on YouTube, and about as effective as a drug dealer asking if you're a cop. It's like a little voodoo charm that people post on their videos to ward off evil spirits.

How pervasive is it? There are about 489,000 YouTube videos that say "no copyright intended" or some variation, and about 664,000 videos have a "copyright disclaimer" citing the fair use provision in Section 107 of the Copyright Act.

Judging by his username, I'm guessing crimewriter95 is 16 years old. I wouldn't be surprised if most of those million videos were uploaded by people under 21.

He's hardly alone. On YouTube's support forums, there's rampant confusion over what copyright is. People genuinely confused that their videos were blocked even with a disclosure, confused that audio was removed even though there was no "intentional copyright infringement." Some ask for the best wording of a disclaimer, not knowing that virtually all video is blocked without human intervention using ContentID.

YouTube's tried to combat these misconceptions with its Copyright School, but it seems futile. For most people, sharing and remixing with attribution and no commercial intent is instinctually a-okay.

Under current copyright law, nearly every cover song on YouTube is technically illegal. Every fan-made music video, every mashup album, every supercut, every fanfic story? Quite probably illegal, though largely untested in court.

No amount of lawsuits or legal threats will change the fact that this behavior is considered normal — I'd wager the vast majority of people under 25 see nothing wrong with non-commercial sharing and remixing, or think it's legal already.

Here's a thought experiment: Everyone over age 12 when YouTube launched in 2005 is now able to vote.

What happens when — and this is inevitable — a generation completely comfortable with remix culture becomes a majority of the electorate, instead of the fringe youth? What happens when they start getting elected to office? (Maybe "I downloaded but didn't share" will be the new "I smoked, but didn't inhale.")

Remix culture is the new Prohibition, with massive media companies as the lone voices calling for temperance. You can criminalize commonplace activities from law-abiding people, but eventually, something has to give.

Update, February 11: Everybody's singing the YouTube Disclaimer Blues.

Best viewed in HD fullscreen.

Top
briocloud, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ
jamiehall1615, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuWEx6Cfn-I

Bottom
OperationLeakS, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET7Uo
asucd, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4

Out of curiosity, I tried to see who the mystery blogger was.

He was using all the ordinary precautions for hiding his identity -- hiding personal info in the domain record, using a different IP address from his other sites, and scrubbing any shared resources from his WordPress install.

Nonetheless, I found his other blog in under a minute -- a thoughtful site about technology and local politics, detailing his full name, employer, photo, and family information. He worked for the local government, and if exposed, his anonymous blog could have cost him his job.

I didn't identify him publicly, but let him quietly know that he wasn't as anonymous as he thought he was. He stopped blogging that evening, and deleted the blog a week later.

So, how did I do it? The unlucky blogger slipped up and was ratted out by an unlikely source: Google Analytics.

Reverse Lookups

Typically, Google will only reveal a user's identity with a federal court order, as they did with a Blogger user who harassed a Vogue model in 2009.

But anonymous bloggers are at serious risk of outing themselves, simply by sharing their Google's Analytics ID across the sites they own.

If you're watching your pageviews, odds are you're using Google to do it. Launched in 2005, Analytics is the most popular web statistics service online, in use by half of Alexa's top million domains.

For the last few years, online SEO tools have published Analytics and AdSense IDs for the domains they crawl publicly, typically for competitive intelligence, such as ferreting out your competitor's other websites.

But in the last year, several free services such as eWhois and Statsie have started offering reverse lookup of Analytics IDs. (Most also allow searching on the Google AdSense ID, though I wasn't able to find an anonymous blogger sharing an AdSense ID across two sites.)

Finding anonymous bloggers from Analytics is less likely than other methods. It's still more likely that someone would slip up and leave their personal info in their domain or share a server IP than to share a Google Analytics account. But it's also more accurate. Hundreds or thousands of people can share an IP address on a single server and domain information can be faked, but a shared Google Analytics is solid evidence that both sites are run by the same person.

And unlike any other method, it can unmask people using hosted blogging services. Tumblr, Typepad and Blogger all have built-in support for Google Analytics, though reverse lookup services haven't comprehensively indexed them. (Note that Wordpress.com doesn't support Analytics or custom Javascript, so their users aren't affected.)

Just to be clear, this technique isn't new. The first Google Analytics reverse lookup services started in 2009, so the technique's been possible for at least two years. My concern is that it isn't nearly well-known enough. It's not mentioned in any guide to anonymous blogging I could find and several established bloggers, engineers, and entrepreneurs I spoke to were unaware of it.

Unmasking an anti-Mac blogger may not be life-changing, but if you're an anonymous blogger writing about Chinese censorship or Mexican drug cartels, the consequences could be dire.

I decided to see how pervasive this problem is. Using a sample of 50 anonymous blogs pulled from discussion forums and Google news, only 14 were using Google Analytics, much less than the average. Half of those, about 15% of the total, were sharing an analytics ID with one or more other domains.

In about 30 minutes of searching, using only Google and eWhois, I was able to discover the identities of seven of the anonymous or pseudonymous bloggers, and in two cases, their employers. One blog about Anonymous' hacking operations could easily be tracked to the founder's consulting firm, while another tracking Mexican cartels was tied to a second domain with the name and address of a San Diego man.

I've contacted each to let them know their potential exposure.

Protecting Yourself

Some of the most important and vital voices online are anonymous, and it's important to understand how you're exposed. Forgetting any of these can lead to lawsuits, firings, or even death.

If you're aware of the problem, it's very easy to avoid getting discovered this way. Here are my recommendations for making sure you stay anonymous.

1. Don't use Google Analytics or any other third-party embed system. If you have to, create a new account with an anonymous email. At the very least, create a separate Analytics account to track the new domain. (From the "My Analytics Accounts" dropdown, select "Create New Account.")
2. Turn on domain privacy with your registrar. Better, use a hosted service to avoid domain payments entirely.
3. If you're hosting your own blog, don't share IP addresses with any of your existing websites. Ideally, use a completely different host; it's easy to discover sites on neighboring IPs.
4. Watch your history. Sites like Whois Source track your history of domain and nameserver changes permanently, and Archive.org may archive old versions of your site. Being the first person to follow your anonymous Twitter account or promote the link could also be a giveaway.
5. Is your anonymity a life-or-death situation? Be aware that any service you use, including your own ISP, could be forced to reveal your IP address and account details under a court order. Use shared computers and an anonymous proxy or Tor when blogging to mask your IP address. Here's a good guide.

Stay safe.

Instead of asking a question, he bellowed, "Welcome to ACTION CASTLE! You are in a small cottage. There is a fishing pole here. Exits are out."

An awkward pause, followed by some giggling from the audience. "Is it our turn to say something?" said Mike.

"I don't understand 'is it our turn to say something,'" said the young man.

Instantly, Mike and Jerry understood, along with everyone in the audience born before 1978.

"Go out!" said Jerry.

"You go out. You're on the garden path. There is a rosebush here. There is a cottage here. Exits are north, south, and in."

The game was afoot.

They were playing Action Castle, the first of a series of live-action games based on classic text adventures from the late '70s and early '80s. Game designer Jared Sorensen calls the series Parsely, named after the text parsers that convert player input into something a computer can understand.

In Parsely games, the computer is replaced entirely by a human armed with a simple map and loose outline of the adventure. No hardware and no code; just people talking to people.

It's a clever solution to complex problems that have plagued game designers for decades. How do we understand the player's intent? Can we make AI characters act human, instead of like idiot robots? Is it possible to handle every edge case the player thinks of without working on this game for the next 10 years?

Making computers think and react like us is hard. So instead of making software more human, some game developers are trying to make humans more like software.

It's a similar approach used by Amazon for Mechanical Turk — their motto is "artificial artificial intelligence." By layering an API over an anonymous human workforce, developers can solve problems that are best tackled by humans, but without the messiness of actual human communication.

Projects like Soylent add another layer of abstraction, invisibly embedding Mechanical Turk in Microsoft Word to crowdsource tedious tasks like proofreading and summarizing paragraphs of text. The effect feels weirdly magical, like technology that beamed in from the future.

In the gaming world, this substitution usually feels less like magic and more like robotic performance art. These performers are software-inspired actors — people pretending they're videogames.

Nobody knows more about acting like a videogame than webcomic artist Andrew Hussie. Since 2006, he's been running MS Paint Adventures, a series of increasingly insane reader-driven comics in the style of text-based graphical adventure games.

His first adventure, Jailbreak, started with a series of simple drawings posted on a discussion forum. With every new post, commenters would suggest new commands to further the gameplay, which he'd rapidly draw.

Hussie didn't invent the genre — that honor likely goes to Ruby Quest and other denizens of 4chan's gaming forums — but he certainly popularized it.

In the process, he became the world's most prolific web cartoonist, sometimes updating up to 10 times a day.

To get a sense of the scale, Problem Sleuth, his second adventure, spanned over 1,600 pages in one year. Homestuck, his latest adventure, contains a staggering 4,100 pages so far, making it the longest webcomic of all time in a mere 2.5 years. And he still has a ways to go, with act five (out of seven) wrapping up just last week. (By comparison, the Guinness Book of World Records cites Mr. Boffo creator Joe Martin as the world's most prolific cartoonist, with a mere 1,300 comics yearly.)

Over time, Hussie's experimented with the amount of reader input. With Jailbreak, he drew the first command posted after every image, but as the adventures grew in popularity — it currently averages 600,000 unique visitors daily — this grew wildly impractical.

"When a story begins to get thousands of suggestions, paradoxically, it becomes much harder to call it truly 'reader-driven,'" wrote Hussie on his website. "This is simply because there is so much available, the author can cherry-pick from what's there to suit whatever he might have in mind, whether he's deliberately planning ahead or not."

With his newest adventure, Hussie leans on reader input less frequently and less directly, but involves the community in other ways. (For example, they just published their eighth soundtrack album of songs entirely created by fans. Don't get me started on the cosplay.)

MS Paint Adventures goes where no videogame can possibly go, with insane storylines, shifting rules, and a ridiculous number of objects to interact with.

In any game, every object or action added to the game multiplies the number of possible interactions. Add a gun, and the programmer needs to deal with players shooting every single other object in the game. Add a lighter, and you'd better prepare for players burning everything in sight. Math geeks call this combinatorial explosion.

Homestuck's bizarre alchemy system supports 280 trillion combinations. But Hussie doesn't need to draw them all, only the ones readers actually try.

Reader-driven games give the illusion of limitless options, at the cost of scale. Even at 1,600 pages per year, player demand far outstrips the efforts of a single cartoonist.

Frustrated with emotional expression in computer games, game design veteran Chris Crawford set out to build Storytron, a storytelling engine intended to model the drama and emotional complexity with computer-generated actors. Eighteen years later, Crawford is still working on it and emotional AI seems just as far out of reach.

Jason Rohrer, creator of the critically acclaimed art-game Passage, tackled the problem of emotional depth in a different way — he replaced the computer AI with a human.

Last year, he released Sleep Is Death, a quirky storytelling environment that connects a single player to a single "controller" over the network. The player has 30 seconds to make any move they can think of, and the controller scrambles to manipulate the scene to respond using a set of drawing tools.

The world is completely open-ended. The only limitation is the imagination of the player and controller.

As you'd expect, the results vary wildly, often depending on the relationship between the participants, but it's always surprising in a way that many traditional videogames aren't. Try browsing through SIDTube, the community-contributed gallery of Sleep Is Death playthroughs, and you'll find everything from a child's eye view of Hiroshima to meditations on growing old with friends.

Every playthrough is completely unique, a singular experience improvised by two people. Is that a game or performance art?

Earlier this year, a German theater group named Machina eX began staging live performances based on "point-and-click" adventure games like Secret of Monkey Island and Machinarium.

On the surface, Machina eX resembles other immersive performances like Tamara or Punchdrunk's Sleep No More, with audience members following oblivious actors around elaborately-designed rooms.

In Machina eX's performances, actors periodically get stuck in a loop, like a game paused. The audience must step in to solve the puzzle by manipulating objects in the room before the story can continue.

Each of these projects pull together elements of improvisational theater, performance art, and role-playing games.

But it's the lens of videogames that separates them from Dungeons & Dragons, TheatreSports, and countless other collaborative games.

Each game borrows the conventions of a familiar game genre, preparing anyone who plays it with a set of expectations — the fundamental rules, terminology, constraints, and affordances are all well-known. Even better, storytellers can subvert any of those expectations at any time.

And unlike a game engine, human storytellers can go off-script. In the case of MS Paint Adventures, they can even switch game genres entirely, as Andrew Hussie's done with Homestuck's evolution from adventure game to Sims-style simulation to traditional RPG to whatever the hell this is.

Using live, real-time human ingenuity as the engine for videogames creates completely new, unexpected experiences unlike anything you can code.

In The Diamond Age, Neal Stephenson imagines a world where AI is extremely powerful, but still not convincing enough to convincingly simulate human behavior. Instead, AI characters are replaced by "ractors" — paid human actors who perform in virtual worlds for entertainment and education.

Even the all-powerful Wizard 0.2, the most powerful Turing machine in the land, is actually only used for data collection and processing — the real decisions are made by the man behind the curtain.

Chris Crawford and Peter Molyneux spent years trying to find Milo, but I think we'll be waiting for a while yet.

In the meantime, I'm going to go pretend a game or two.

To cap it off, I spent a night revamping Supercut.org into a comprehensive, browsable database of supercut videos, with the help of Twitter's Bootstrap CSS toolkit.

I'm very happy with how the site came out, so let me know if you have any suggestions and please submit any videos I missed. I also just added RSS and you can now follow @supercutorg for updates. Thanks!

For the last few years, I've tracked a particular flavor of remix culture that I called "supercuts" -- fast-paced video montages that assemble dozens or hundreds of short clips on a common theme.

Many supercuts isolate a word or phrase from a film or TV series -- think every "dude" in The Big Lebowski or every profanity from The Sopranos -- while others point out tired cliches, like those ridiculous zoom-and-enhance scenes from crime shows.

Since 2008, I've added every supercut I could find to a sprawling blog post. With nearly 150 of these videos, and more being added weekly, it's turned from a blog post into a minor obsession.

Earlier this year, I collaborated with NYC-based artist Michael Bell-Smith on Supercut.org, a 24-hour hack to make a supercut composed entirely out of other supercuts, along with a randomized supercut browser.

Today, I'm happy to announce that I've relaunched the site to let you browse the entire collection in different ways, subscribe to updates, or submit your own to the growing list. I'm also releasing the entire dataset publicly, which you can download at the end of this post.

To understand the rise of this new genre, let's take a look back at how it began and how it's evolved in the last three years.

The Proto-Cuts

While the web popularized the genre, the art world was experimenting with similar film cut-ups for years before YouTube was a gleam in Chad & Steve's eyes.

Brooklyn-based critic Tom McCormack wrote the definitive history of the supercut, tracing its origins back to found-footage cinema, like Bruce Conner's A MOVIE from 1958.

But it wasn't until the 1990s that clear descendants of the genre emerged. Matthias Müller's Home Stories (1990) reused scenes from 1950s- and 1960s-era Hollywood melodramas, filmed directly from the TV set, to show actresses in near-identical states of distress.

Christian Marclay's Telephones (1995) showed famous actors answering ringing telephones in a string of surreal, disjointed conversations throughout Hollywood history. Edited together, the cadence and rhythm of nonstop clips feels very reminiscent of modern supercuts.

Apple tried to license Marclay's film for the launch of the iPhone in 2007, but he refused. Instead, they made their own, borrowing the idea wholesale. (Marclay decided not to sue.)

As far as I can tell, the earliest supercut native to the web was Chuck Jones' Buffies from 2002, which isolated every mention of "Buffy" from the first season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

While there were rare exceptions, supercuts really didn't start proliferating online until around 2006. Why then? The likely cause: YouTube.

Before YouTube, it was incredibly difficult to both find and share video. After YouTube's launch in 2005, searching through big chunks of film and TV's recorded history became simple. Perhaps more importantly, sharing the video with others didn't require server space, a huge amount of bandwidth, and a deep knowledge of video codecs. It just worked.

The result was that clips were easy to find and even easier to distribute. Combined with the rise of BitTorrent and the availability of affordable, easy-to-use video editing software like iMovie, it was the perfect environment for video remixing. The only missing ingredient is the time and passion to make it happen.

Supercut as Criticism

When I first started tracking the trend in 2008, almost every example was created by a superfan. Creating videos with hundreds of edits takes a staggering amount of time, and the only people willing to do it were those who were in love with the source material.

In the last three years, the form seems to have evolved from fan culture to criticism.

Rich Juzwiak may have started the trend by calling out reality TV contestants for their overused "I'm not here to make friends" trope. That directly led to supercuts criticizing lazy screenwriting, from "We've got company" to "It's gonna blow!"

But recently, it's being used for more serious criticism: calling out politicians and the news media. The Daily Show pioneered the reuse of archival news footage and quick edits to point out the absurdity of the news media and political figures, but online video remixers are taking it much further.

Video remixing group Wreck & Salvage took Sarah Palin's speech about the Arizona shootings and removed everything but the sound of her breathing. The result, Sarah's Breath, was a creepy example of supercut as political speech.

In March, artist Diran Lyons released one of the most epic supercuts ever -- chronicling every time President Obama says "spending" in the complete video archive posted to the White House website. The result is six minutes long with over 600 edits.

The results are effective. Just as it was used to point out film cliches, a supercut sends a message about a public figure's speech in a very short period of time. For that reason, I wouldn't be surprised to see supercuts make their way into 2012 campaign ads.

Breaking It Down

I wanted to learn more about the structure of these videos, so I enlisted the help of the anonymous workforce at Amazon's Mechanical Turk to analyze the videos for me.

Using the database of 146 videos, I asked them to count the number of clips in each video, along with some qualitative questions about their contents. Their results were interesting.

When looking at the source of the videos, nearly half come from film with a little over one-third sourced from TV shows. The rest are a mix of real-life events, videogames, or a combination of multiple types, as you can see below.

According to the turker estimates, the average supercut is composed of about 82 cuts, with more than 100 clips in about 25% of the videos. Some supercuts, about 5%, contain over 300 edits!

I asked the turkers whether each supercut was comprehensive, collecting every possible example, or if they were just a representative sample. For example, collecting every one of Kramer's entrances from Seinfeld vs. a selection of explosions from action films. The results were split, with about 60% comprehensive. This could be attributed to film cliche supercuts, which don't attempt to be thorough.

Finally, I was wondering whether each video's creator was a fan or critic of the source material. The workers surveyed said that most supercuts were created by fans, about 73% of the time. This style of video remixing may be useful for criticism, but for now, it seems to mostly be a labor of love.

The Data Dump

Want to do your own analysis, or do some video remixing of your own?

You can view the full supercut database below or on Google Docs, or download the data as a comma-separated text file or Excel spreadsheet.

And, of course, let me know if you find any that I missed!

As part of the arrangement, I retain joint copyright and can republish my columns here after 24 hours, which I'm very happy about.

My first column went up on Wired yesterday, a thinly-disguised rant on Google's removal of the + operator from search, which I noticed last Wednesday.

Obviously, this change isn't the end of the world, but it got me thinking about how the importance of alpha users changes as services grow in popularity. I hope you enjoy it.

Google+ is the fastest-growing social network in history, with 40 million users since its June launch. To help them focus, Google's quietly shuttered a number of products, removing iGoogle and Google Reader's social features and closing Google Labs, Buzz, Jaiku and Code Search in the last two weeks alone.

But in doing so, they also killed off one of its oldest and most useful tools, from its most popular product.

On Wednesday, Google retired a longer-standing "plus": the + operator, a standard bit of syntax used to force words and phrases to appear in search results. The operator was part of Google since its launch in 1997 and built into every search engine since.

Unlike their other recent closures, the removal of + was made without any public announcement. It could only be found by doing a search, which advised the user to double-quote the string from now on, making "searches" look like "awkward" "Zagat" "reviews."

Google wouldn't disclose exactly why they phased it out, though it seems obvious that they're paving the way for Google+ profile searches. When Google+ launched, instead of adopting Twitter's @reply syntax, they coined their own format for mentioning people — adding a plus to the beginning of a name — triggering the future conflict with the + operator.

The fate of the "+" symbol was clear: protect a 12-year-old convention loved by power users, or bring Google+ profile searching to the mainstream? It was doomed from the start.

Geeks from Reddit and Hacker News were quick to condemn the move.

To understand why they're upset about a single character, let's step back to Google's launch in 1997.

Why It Matters

For the first 12 years of its life, from its launch until early 2009, Google worked like this: every term you searched for appeared on every web page in its results. Nerds call this an "and" search — a search for "cherry pie" becomes "cherry AND pie."

By comparison, the popular convention at the time was to return pages with any of the search terms present — an "or" search. The results were noisy and unhelpful.

Google's own help page, archived in February 1999, explained it:

Google only supports "and" queries. That is, it only returns pages that include all the query terms. The + operator, which enforces "and" behavior on some search engines, is unnecessary on Google.

At the time, this new feature was a godsend for savvy users. Because every term appeared in results, you could continue to refine your queries by simply adding new words to the search bar until you found what you were looking for.

As Google grew in popularity, this didn't scale. Non-technical users don't know what search terms to use or how to use search modifiers, and they shouldn't have to.

Instead, Google needed to read minds to find what their mainstream audience was looking for, even if it meant ignoring what they actually wrote.

They started with the introduction of spelling suggestions, with "do you mean?" prompts introduced in 2003. By 2009, these were so successful that Google replaced the user's search with the corrected words by default, though they always explicitly explained the change.

In January 2009, however, Google began experimenting with silently ignoring search terms completely.

For anyone deep-diving Google for the dark corners of the Internet, this change was hard to swallow. For the first time, searches were unreliable — an "or" search instead of an "and" search.

Journalists and software engineers, two classes of people who commonly search for obscure terms, objected to the change most.

"It's incredibly annoying," wrote Peter Rojas, gdgt founder and co-founder of Engadget and Gizmodo. "I hate how they don't want you to do searches for exactly the words you've entered and nothing else."

"I also use + constantly. It's such a long-standing convention," wrote Mat Honan, senior reporter for Gizmodo and former contributing editor to Wired.

Even Matt Cutts, head of webspam at Google, personally agreed. "My fingers are crossed for coming up with a better approach to this," he said on Twitter. "As a power user, I want my escape hatch/safety valve for 'Yup, I want exactly that weird word' too."

So, should we just "search" "like" "this" forever? Naturally, enterprising hackers are already routing around the perceived damage.

The Alternatives

As Google marginalizes its core base, it's opened the door for smaller, more nimble startups, such as DuckDuckGo, a one-man project that's quickly becoming the go-to search engine for discriminating nerds.

With a corpus of powerful search modifiers and a hard-line stance against tracking and personalization, it was created and maintained for the last four years by a single engineer, Gabriel Weinberg. This month, Weinberg announced DuckDuckGo accepted funding from Union Square Ventures and hired his first full-time employee.

For those unwilling to leave Google's deep index, there are other solutions. One pseudonymous hacker made FindErr, a simple proxy that adds quotes to every search before shuttling the user off to Google.

My personal favorite is this simple userscript created by electrotype for Hacker News, which instantly adds quote marks to every submitted search. It works in Chrome natively and Firefox with the Greasemonkey plugin.

Too Hardcore

As a service grows in popularity, alpha users outlive their usefulness. The core users that helped build a service by word-of-mouth often find themselves dwarfed in numbers by people with very different needs.

Take the recently-announced changes to Google Reader, for instance. Reader is the most widely-used and deeply-loved feed reader ever made, steamrolling over several startups in the mid-2000s in the process. Any startup would be thrilled to have their devoted audience; within Google, Reader seems like a distraction.

Last week, the Reader team announced the removal of all of its social features, used by a relatively small but rabid fanbase.

Courtney Stanton, a Boston-based product manager, called Google Reader "the best social network created so far" in a passionate rant on her blog. "For me, this is the destruction of the only online space I truly give a shit about."

There's no easy solution. Should a company be expected to maintain features indefinitely because a tiny fraction of their base loves them? There are tangible costs to maintaining old code, and fringe features can clutter an interface, making user experience worse for those that don't use them.

For those people, removing features is more than an inconvenience. It shatters an entire community. But, ultimately, their usage is a rounding error in the overall product activity.

With Google Search and the + operator, the consequences are far less dire. I asked Google what inspired the + removal, and how they balance the needs of power users with those of their mainstream base. "We're sensitive to the needs of both newer users and 'power users' alike, and we're always looking for ways to improve search for both groups," a Google spokesperson said. "We make changes to search after rigorous testing shows that they improve the user experience."

At Google's scale, user testing can hide the behaviors and passions of entire subcommunities. The long-term implications of small changes like these are very hard to predict, especially with early adopters.

Who knows? If Google's search engine dominance started with an "and," it might just end with a "+".

Based on the dates mentioned in the Knowledge Navigator video, it takes place on September 16, 2011. The date on the professor's calendar is September 16, and he's looking for a 2006 paper written "about five years ago," setting the year as 2011.

And this morning, at the iPhone keynote, Apple announced Siri, a natural language-based voice assistant, would be built into iOS 5 and a core part of the new iPhone 4S.

So, 24 years ago, Apple predicted a complex natural-language voice assistant built into a touchscreen Apple device, and was less than a month off.

(Thanks to Hugh Dubberly for the video, who helped create it for ex-CEO John Sculley's EDUCOM 1987 keynote in six weeks on a $60,000 budget.)

This is my guide to PDX for people like me: people who geek out about good food, beer, comics, and computers. It's for people who want to experience the best of Portland in a short period of time, with a heavy focus on new stuff: many of the places listed here have opened in the last year.

One thing you'll notice is that most of the best stuff isn't in the downtown area. To really experience Portland, you'll need to cross the bridge to the east side. But don't worry, PDX is tiny and nothing will take you more than a few minutes by bus, bike, or taxi.

If you want any other suggestions, or have suggestions of your own, let me know!

View Waxy.org's Essential Guide to Portland 2011 in a larger map

Restaurants

Tasty N Sons (NE)
If you have to choose one place to eat breakfast in Portland, go here. Imagine tapas-style small plates, but focused only on breakfast staples. Brunch daily from 9am, get there early.

Meat Cheese Bread and Bunk Sandwiches (SE)
These two restaurants are focused on making the best sandwiches in Portland. If it's late, try the new Bunk Bar in inner SE, which brings their sandwiches to a bar-like setting.

Salt & Straw (NE)
New this summer, Tyler Malek's creative flavors and farm-to-cone ingredients make this the best ice cream around. Try the pear w/blue cheese, honey-strawberry-balsamic with black pepper, or special flavors made with local microbrewed beers.

Pine State Biscuits (NE/SE)
Heart-stopping, delicious biscuit sandwiches. I don't think there's a bad thing on the menu, but the Reggie and Moneyball are particularly great. If you skip breakfast, their NE location stays open until 1am on Fridays and Saturdays.

Screendoor (SE)
Portland meets the South, with farm-to-table comfort food. Surprisingly great for vegans, with a menu of local organic sides and salads that changes weekly. Best fried chicken I've ever had.

Apizza Scholls (SE)
Slice ranked it as one of the top five pizzerias in America, and the #2 pizza on the West coast in their March Madness bracket. Just get there when they open, or be ready to saddle up with a couple beers and wait.

Pok Pok (SE)
2011 James Beard-winning chef Andy Ricker kicked off a culinary renaissance in Portland with his frontyard grill-turned-restaurant empire. Inspired by Thai street food, you won't find chicken panang anywhere near Pok Pok's eclectic, face-melting menu. While you wait, grab a drink at the Pok Pok-owned Whiskey Soda Lounge across the street. And try a drinking vinegar, you won't regret it.

Grüner (SW)
Delicious Alpine cuisine, my favorite new restaurant in the downtown area. They also just opened Kask, their newly-opened casual bar adjacent to the restaurant.

Wafu (SE)
Opened last month, this is the best ramen in Portland and the most inspired Japanese in town. They're still working out the kinks, but even their worst is better than most cities' best.

Food Carts and Late-Night Dining

The food cart scene in Portland is ridiculously amazing, a food culture revolution with over 670 carts in 25 "pods" (groups of carts), some spanning full city blocks. They can be a little hit-or-miss, but there are some amazing gems to be found. New this year: carts serving alcohol.

Note: Voodoo Donuts is for tourists. Like Le Bistro Montage, Whiffies Fried Pies and Potato Champion, these late-night staples became famous with locals by being open when bars let out. They should only be consumed drunk. (And even then, you can do better.) Any other time, they're just mediocre.

Pyro Pizza, Whiffies fried pie, and Potato Champion poutine, photo by Stacy Clinton

Cartopia (SE, weekends until 3am)
This collection of carts on SE Hawthorne at 12th is more known for its late-night hours and raucous vibe than the quality of its food. But if you're hungry after a late night of drinking, it's definitely worth trying Pyro Pizza's wood-fired oven-in-a-cart and the crepes from Perierra Creperie. New this week and running until the end of October, is Hospitality Suite, the nation's first cocktail cart, run by the Oregon Bartenders' Guild to showcase Portland Cocktail Week.

Nong's Khao Man Gai (SW)
Bangkok-born Nong Poonsukwattana offers only one item on her menu — khao man gai, a uniquely Thai street dish made from poached chicken and rice and sauce. Arguably the best cart in Portland, located at the SW 9th and Alder cart pod, the largest in town. Closed Sundays.

LeRoy's Familiar Vittles (SE)
The best BBQ in town comes from this food cart on SE 48th at Division, in the only cart pod in town with its own full bar, pool table, and piano. Try the mac & cheese. Close runner-up: Podnah's Pit BBQ on NE Killingsworth.

Three Pigs Deli (NW, weekends until 4am)
Another brand-new addition to Portland's late-night dining scene, Three Pigs is a tiny deli downtown serves delicious sandwiches made from fresh, local ingredients, some grown behind the counter. They have lunch hours, but quality late-night food is so rare, this is worth seeking out at night.

Drinking

Portland's a big beer town, home to more microbreweries than any city in the world, though the distillery and cocktail scene's grown in recent years. Here are my picks for the absolute best.

Hair of the Dog Brewing, Photo by throgers

Hair of the Dog (SE)
This microbrewery is beer geek heaven, capturing five out of RateBeer's top six Oregon beers. A perfect place to try some of Portland's best beer, though their tasting room has quirky hours, open only from 2-8pm, Wednesday through Sunday.

Bye & Bye/Sweet Hereafter (NE/SE)
The Bye & Bye on NE Alberta and the Sweet Hereafter, its newly-opened sister on SE Belmont, are distinctly Portland institutions — vegan bars with food that's shockingly tasty even for die-hard omnivores like me (try the chili pie!). Great beer list, delicious and strong cocktails served in Mason jars, comfortable vibe, and plenty of seating make this a great meeting place.

Bailey's Taproom (SW)
There isn't much atmosphere here, but Bailey's makes up for it with the most interesting taplist in Portland — 20 beers rotating daily, selected by mega-beer geeks.

Green Dragon (SE)
With 50 beers on tap and huge indoor/outdoor spaces, this place is great for meeting large groups of people. The food menu and taplist can be hit-or-miss, but there's always a handful of great beers in the mix. If you're feeling experimental, try Cascade Brewing across the street, quite possibly the only brewery in the U.S. focused exclusively on sour ales.

Distillery Row (SE)
If you're here on a weekend, take an hour to sample Portland's craft distillery movement on foot, doing tastings from House Spirits and Deco Distilling to New Deal and Integrity. If you can only choose one, New Deal's the best deal, with eight excellent liquors for $5.

Townshend's Tea House (NE)
There's no shortage of good coffee in Portland. (Stumptown, Ristretto, and Barista are all safe bets.) But I'm not a big coffee drinker so I tend to head to Townshend's, the best tea in Portland. Their bubble tea is best in town, with a wide range of flavors and your pick of tapioca, aloe or fruit jellies.

Attractions

Ground Kontrol at night, photo by Incredible Ape

Ground Kontrol (NW)
World-class '80s video arcade and pinball gallery that turns into a 21+ bar after 5pm. Absolutely essential geek visit.

Powell's Technical Books (NW)
Everyone knows about Powell's Books, but geeks may be more interested in Powell's Technical, an essential resource for modern and vintage books on science, math, computers, and engineering. It recently relocated directly across the street from the flagship store.

Floating World Comics (NW)
Portland has some great comic shops, but for art/indie/experimental comic lovers, Floating World can't be missed.

Counter Media (SW)
On the other side of Burnside from Powell's, Counter Media is a wonderful bookstore carrying a carefully-curated collection of indie comics and graphic novels, with crazy fetish stuff in the back. When you're done, hit up Reading Frenzy next door for some of the best of Portland's local zine scene.

Billy Galaxy (SW)
Though often wildly overpriced, this is nostalgia heaven. Go buy that Burgertime lunchbox you've always wanted.

Have a great time!

Lately, I've been interested in seeing how game modders and mappers have recreated the World Trade Center, the events of September 11, and the WTC Memorial in various game engines. Some of these are profane and offensive, quite likely made by teens that have no first-hand memory of the disaster, but most are intended as tributes. Here's the best of what I was able to find.

But it's shaping up to be more than that. Creative fakesters are using the blank slate to turn Heello into the parallel-universe version of Twitter.

A world in which Heello was cofounded by Ev Williams (@ev), who acts as CEO and gives away free iPads to Heello users.

Where CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) reports all the news in ALL CAPS, including breaking news reports like "JUSTIN BIEBER" and "I JUST UNLOCKED THE 'I'M ON A BOAT' BADGE ON FOURSQUARE."

A world where Mark Zuckerberg (@MarkZuckerberg) is a profane, sexist womanizer.

And where major web services (past and present) flirt and snark at each other, like @Tumblr, @Color, @4chan, and @Pownce.

Of course, Heello wouldn't be complete without its own Social Media Experts. "Please Check Out My Blogpost 'How To Drive Qualified Traffic To Your Blog Via Heello.'"

Heello is like a blank-slate Twitter with no moderation or verification. I doubt the Heello team wanted or expected this behavior, but they inadvertently created a perfect playground for parody and meta-commentary, like Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica's parallel world versions of Wikipedia.

It should be fun to see how they respond.

Update: Marshall Kirkpatrick, lead writer of ReadWriteWeb, comments, "They told me they were going to remove any of these that weren't clearly satires. That's a real shame and shows a lack of sense of humor." The first casualty was @ev, which was deleted shortly after this post was published.

Five things I never knew about Monopoly's official rules:

1. If a player decides not to buy a property, it immediately goes up for auction by the bank and is sold to the highest bidder. This blew my mind.

2. Houses must be built, and sold, evenly across a color-group. For example, you can't build three houses on Park Place without having two houses on Boardwalk first.

3. It's the property owner's responsibility to ask for rent. If you forget to ask for rent before the end of the next player's turn, you're out of luck.

4. Rent is doubled on properties without houses in a monopoly.

5. Income tax is calculated from your total net worth, including all properties and buildings, not just your cash. And you have to decide whether to pay 10% or $200 before you add it up.

While these official rules gradually disappeared from common play, other unofficial "house rules" came to take their place. We always put funds collected from Chance/Community Chest cards into a "kitty" that was given to whoever landed on Free Parking. Many others gave $400 when landed on "Go," or didn't allow rent to be collected while in jail.

Many of us learned Monopoly like we learned the rules of dodgeball or rock-scissors-paper — spread by word-of-mouth from family and friends.

It's interesting to see a commercial game see the same sort of cultural variation as other children's folk games.

But maybe that's appropriate for a game that was itself derived from another board game. Contrary to popular belief, Charles Darrow didn't invent Monopoly in 1933 from scratch. It was heavily based on The Landlord's Game, an innovative board game patented in 1904 by Lizzie Magie, to be a "practical demonstration of the present system of land-grabbing with all its usual outcomes and consequences."

The Landlord's Game and its variations like "Auction Monopoly" and "The Fascinating Game of Finance" spread by word of mouth throughout the early-20th century with evolving rules and hand-drawn boards, popular among the Quakers and used as a teaching aid for university students.

In 1933, Charles Darrow played a homemade version of The Landlord's Game printed on oil cloth, saw the market potential, and tried to patent the new "Monopoly" as his own. After finding great success selling handmade versions, he sold the rights to Parker Brothers. Parker Brothers bought Magie's patent for $500 to have an undisputed claim to the board game, but was threatened by other popular competitors and homemade variations. Through a process of litigation, acquisition, and quiet settlements during the late-1930s, Parker Brothers wiped all the other derivative versions of The Landlord's Game off the map.

By the 1970s, Parker Brothers' revisionist history was canon — the official Monopoly rules and a 1974 book on the history of the game stated that the game was created solely by Charles Darrow.

So, when someone says you're playing Monopoly wrong, tell them you're playing your own version... just like Darrow did.

Because everything is a remix.

Me: Can I make a suggestion?
John: Sure.
Me: You guys should make a sweet tea.
John (emphatically): No.
Me: Why?
John: Because it's disgusting. I make all the iced tea myself. Simple syrup's over there. If you want to ruin it, go ahead.

Some people would get turned off by this, others would be downright pissed. But this is exactly what I like in a business, and it's why I eat there at least once a week.

John's singular, uncompromising vision is why the food is so damned great. He's not trying to make a restaurant that makes everyone happy; he built a place that he'd want to eat at, and if you don't like it, piss off.

The same goes for the web. I'd rather use a service that has a strong, single-minded vision, even if some of the decisions aren't exactly how I'd want them, than a washed-out, milquetoast service created by committee, designed to meet market demand, that tries to make everybody happy.

Another way to put it: if someone out there doesn't hate your product, it's probably not worth using.

I'm cross-posting it below, for posterity. Hope you enjoy it!

During the Twitter Town Hall collaboration with the White House, President Obama posted a single tweet to @whitehouse, asking this question:

This was historic for two reasons: it was the first time that a President has ever posted directly to a social network from the White House. Second, it was the first time the President's directly asked for feedback from users of a social network.

There was some great analysis of the Twitter Town Hall activity, including TwitSprout's infographics and Radian6's detailed postmortem on Wednesday. Both focused on the #askobama questions that were asked before and during the Town Hall. Using ThinkUp's data collecting responses to the President's first tweet, I'd like to focus specifically on responses to the President's question above.

We've been using ThinkUp to archive and analyze the White House's Twitter account since May 1, 2009 and, as we've shared before, have gathered a pretty amazing corpus for analysis. With that, it's useful to see how people responded to this new kind of personal, inquisitive behavior relative to past activity.

The short version: the response to the President's tweet drew more than three times the number of responses as the nearest runner-up, and more than six times more replies than anything posted in the last year. There were over 1,850 responses to his deficit question, topping the two Grand Challenges questions from April 2010 combined. You can see them all on the White House's ThinkUp.

By comparison, the chart below shows the top ten most-replied tweets since the White House started using Twitter.

It's worth noting that eight out of the top 10 most replied were all posted in the last six months, suggesting that the White House's New Media team is increasing its effectiveness in engaging its audience on Twitter, even as that audience grows.

This tweet was the most effective the White House has ever been at drawing a behavior response from its followers. This is interesting, because it differs from typical tweets in two ways:

• It is personal (using the President's "- bo" signature)
• It asks a concrete question

While some of the response could be attributed to the focus on the Twitter event, it's likely that continuing this question-answer process with a personal touch leads to deeper and richer engagement.

Who talks to @whitehouse?

To help determine the subject expertise for each of the respondents, I used the Twitter API to retrieve the lists that each person belonged to. My hope was that the list names could act as tags, like on Delicious or Flickr, to help group and categorize individuals.

Because lists are often used for personal use, the most frequently-used list names include some unhelpful ones like "friends" and "people," but many can be used as useful categories like "politics," "writers," and "tech." Here's a Wordle of the top 100 most frequently used.

Lists that @whitehouse responders belong to

These lists let us examine the responses from different facets. Here are the top five responses from people most tagged with "politics" or "political":

Compare that to people tagged with "tech" or "technology":

As you'd expect, the responses are very different from people tagged "green":

It's surprising how useful these results are, considering how limited Twitter Lists are exposed throughout the interface. This suggests that Twitter List memberships can be a useful measure of determining a user's authority in subject areas, which we'll be looking into for ThinkUp.

The Answers

When asked where to reduce spending, 479 people (about 25%) included some variation of "war," "defense" or "military." Other popular suggestions included raising taxes/ending the Bush-era tax cuts (11%) and tax subsidies for oil companies and farming (6%). People seemed to be evenly split between those who want to protect Medicare and Social Security and those who want to see it overhauled.

With regards to where to invest for the future, the most popular was education, with about 17% of responses including terms like "education," "school" or "teachers." 6% want to see renewed investments in energy, 5% on infrastructure projects, and 2% in health care. (Surprisingly, only 15 people mentioned decriminalizing marijuana.)

For the full set of responses, you can browse them all on ThinkUp. Or, if you like, the entire dataset is available on Google Docs or embedded below.

Conclusion

For us, it's been fascinating to see an American President use social media to directly ask questions and get answers. We hope other government agencies are taking note of how powerful the combination of a direct question, authentic voice, and an audience can be for democracy. And these lessons extend to the private sector, as well: every company can learn how to better interact with their community from this national experiment in democracy.

The next step, of course, is to make sure those answers are useful enough to inform decision-making. If our representatives are listening, and people feel they're being heard, everyone benefits.

We're happy for people to reuse our findings. Any questions about these results can be addressed to research@expertlabs.org.

Note: I posted this on Twitter and Maisel's Facebook wall before it was deleted, but I'll repeat it here: I understand you may have strong feelings about this issue, but please don't harass him publicly or privately. Reasonable discussion about the case is fine; personal attacks, name-calling and abuse are not. We're all humans here. Be cool.

Still want the full story? Read on.

(Note: This post was reviewed by both my and Jay Maisel's legal counsel.)

Remember Kind of Bloop, the chiptune tribute to Miles Davis' Kind of Blue that I produced? I went out of my way to make sure the entire project was above board, licensing all the cover songs from Miles Davis's publisher and giving the total profits from the Kickstarter fundraiser to the five musicians that participated.

But there was one thing I never thought would be an issue: the cover art.

Before the project launched, I knew exactly what I wanted for the cover — a pixel art recreation of the original album cover, the only thing that made sense for an 8-bit tribute to Kind of Blue. I tried to draw it myself, but if you've ever attempted pixel art, you know how demanding it is. After several failed attempts, I asked a talented friend to do it.

You can see the results below, with the original album cover for comparison.

In February 2010, I was contacted by attorneys representing famed New York photographer Jay Maisel, the photographer who shot the original photo of Miles Davis used for the cover of Kind of Blue.

In their demand letter, they alleged that I was infringing on Maisel's copyright by using the illustration on the album and elsewhere, as well as using the original cover in a "thank you" video I made for the album's release. In compensation, they were seeking "either statutory damages up to $150,000 for each infringement at the jury's discretion and reasonable attorneys fees or actual damages and all profits attributed to the unlicensed use of his photograph, and $25,000 for Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) violations."

After seven months of legal wrangling, we reached a settlement. Last September, I paid Maisel a sum of $32,500 and I'm unable to use the artwork again. (On the plus side, if you have a copy, it's now a collector's item!) I'm not exactly thrilled with this outcome, but I'm relieved it's over.

But this is important: the fact that I settled is not an admission of guilt. My lawyers and I firmly believe that the pixel art is "fair use" and Maisel and his counsel firmly disagree. I settled for one reason: this was the least expensive option available.

At the heart of this settlement is a debate that's been going on for decades, playing out between artists and copyright holders in and out of the courts. In particular, I think this settlement raises some interesting issues about the state of copyright for anyone involved in digital reinterpretations of copyrighted works.

There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about "fair use" on the Internet. Everyone thinks they know what fair use is, but not even attorneys, judges, and juries can agree on a clear definition. The doctrine itself, first introduced in the 1976 Copyright Act, is frustratingly vague and continually being reinterpreted.

Four main factors come into play:

1. The purpose and character of your use: Was the material transformed into something new or copied verbatim? Also, was it for commercial or educational use?
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market

For each case, courts take these factors into account and render a verdict, occasionally contradicting the opinions of past judges and juries.

The crux of our disagreement hinges on the first factor — whether the Kind of Bloop illustration is "transformative."

In his influential paper on fair use, Judge Pierre N. Leval wrote, "Factor One is the soul of fair use." Stanford's Fair Use Center asks, "Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?"

From the beginning, Kind of Bloop was a creative experiment. I was drawn to the contradiction between the textured, subdued emotion in Kind of Blue and the cold, mechanical tones of retro videogame music. The challenge was to see whether chiptune artists could create something highly improvisational, warm, and beautiful from the limited palette of 1980s game consoles. (I think we succeeded.)

Similarly, the purpose of the album art was to engage both artist and viewer in the same exercise — can NES-style pixel art capture the artistic essence of the original album cover, with a fraction of the resolution and color depth of an analog photograph?

It reinforced the artistic themes of the project, to convey the feel of an entire album reimagined through an 8-bit lens. Far from being a copy, the cover art comments on it and uses the photo in new ways to send a new message.

This kind of transformation is the foundation of fair use. In a 2006 verdict, the court found artist Jeff Koons' use of a fashion photo "adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message."

I don't think there's any question that Kind of Bloop's cover illustration does the same thing. Maisel disagreed.

The second fair use factor is the nature of the copyrighted work. Works that are published and factual lean towards fair use, works that are unpublished and creative towards infringement. While Maisel's photograph is creative, it's also primarily documentary in nature and it was published long before my illustration was created.

With regard to the third factor, although the illustration does represent the cover of Kind of Blue, it does so at a dramatically reduced resolution that incorporates few of the photograph's protectable elements. Courts routinely find fair use even where the entirety of an image is used.

The fourth factor considers the impact on the market value of the original work. It's obvious the illustration isn't a market substitute for the original: it's a low-resolution artistic rendering in the style of 8-bit computer graphics that is, at best, of interest to a few computer enthusiasts.

And it's worth noting that trying to license the image would have been moot. When asked how much he would've charged for a license, Maisel told his lawyer that he would never have granted a license for the pixel art. "He is a purist when it comes to his photography," his lawyer wrote. "With this in mind, I am certain you can understand that he felt violated to find his image of Miles Davis, one of his most well-known and highly-regarded images, had been pixellated, without his permission, and used in a number of forms including on several websites accessible around the world."

In practice, none of this matters. If you're borrowing inspiration from any copyrighted material, even if it seems clear to you that your use is transformational, you're in danger. If your use is commercial and/or potentially objectionable, seek permission (though there's no guarantee it'll be granted) or be prepared to defend yourself in court.

Anyone can file a lawsuit and the costs of defending yourself against a claim are high, regardless of how strong your case is. Combined with vague standards, the result is a chilling effect for every independent artist hoping to build upon or reference copyrighted works.

It breaks my heart that a project I did for fun, on the side, and out of pure love and dedication to the source material ended up costing me so much — emotionally and financially. For me, the chilling effect is palpably real. I've felt irrationally skittish about publishing almost anything since this happened. But the right to discuss the case publicly was one concession I demanded, and I felt obligated to use it. I wish more people did the same — maybe we wouldn't all feel so alone.

If you feel like it, you're still welcome to buy digital copies of Kind of Bloop (without the cover art) at kindofbloop.com. Donations can be made to the EFF, and you'll get a rad 8-bit shirt for joining. And if you have any ideas for an alternate album cover that won't land me in court, bring it on!

Special thanks to my lawyers (Chris, Erica & Ben), the EFF, Fred von Lohmann, and the team at Kickstarter for moral support.

I'm collecting examples of reinterpretations of copyrighted works, like the ones interspersed in this post. Here's some more I found:

* Thomas Hooper's pixel recreations of famous album covers
* Norn Cutson's Record Collection, a book of illustrations based on album covers
* Format Magazine's hip-hop albums recreated in LEGO
* Videogame Minimalism, available as shirts
* Justin Russo's Minimalist Videogame Posters
* Howie Green's paintings of famous album covers
* Cliff Chiang's '80s album covers recreated with comic book heroes
* Brandon Heinley's pixel recreations of famous images in art and culture
* Collection of famous album covers in LEGO
* Benjamin Shaykin's Lo-Res Books, book covers abstracted to the edge of recognition
* Graphic Nothing's minimalist art and album cover remixes
* Kirby Ferguson's Everything Is A Remix is a thought-provoking and entertaining demonstration of how remixing is fundamental to all creativity, with hundreds of examples from Star Wars to Apple.

I've turned off comments, but I'd love to hear your thoughts and any more relevant examples. Send me an email or instant message, or find me on Twitter.

It's a tour de force hack — an interactive pastiche of 1980s computer history, tying together public archives of Usenet newsgroups, BBS textfiles, software archives, and historical computer networks into a multiplayer adventure game.

Among its features:

• Connect to over 24,000 simulated hosts, with logged-in ghost users with historically-accurate names culled from UUCP network maps.
• Hacking metagames, using simplified wardialers and rootkit tools.
• User classes that act as an achievements system.
• Group chat with relay, and one-on-one chat with send or talk.
• Reconstructed Usenet archives, including the Wiseman collection.
• A BASIC interpreter with historical programs from the SIMTEL archives.
• Standalone playable games, including Rogue and a Z-code interpreter for text adventure games like Adventure and Zork.
• Hidden hosts and programs, discoverable only by hacking Telehack itself.

The entire project was engineered by "Forbin," an anonymous Silicon Valley engineer named after the protagonist of Colossus: The Forbin Project. Like the chief engineer of the film, Forbin's created a networked supercomputer that defies all expectations. (Hopefully it won't gain sentience and enslave the human race.)

I had to know more. With the help of Paul Ford, I interviewed Forbin about the project — using Telehack's send utility, naturally. Read on for the full interview about his motivations, how it's built, and why he's chosen to remain anonymous.

Andy Baio: So, first off, I want to tell you how much I'm in love with Telehack. You've made something truly unique... I'd love to hear about your inspiration for building it.

Forbin: Thank you. I'm glad that people are enjoying it. The inspiration was my son. I had shown him the old movies Hackers, Wargames, and Colossus: The Forbin Project and he really liked them. After seeing Hackers and Wargames, he really wanted to start hacking stuff on his own.

I'd taught him some programming, but I didn't want him doing any actual hacking, so I decided to make a simulation so he could telnet to hosts, hack them, and get the feel of it, but safely.

What did he think?

He really liked it. At first he thought it was all real, and he was actually hacking into government computers and such. It was great. Eventually though, like Santa Claus, he figured out he wasn't really wardialing all those systems.

He's been my best beta-tester. :)

Hacking a host on Telehack

When do you think he'll be ready for real-world hacking? Is there a path to graduation from Telehack?

Telehack can help you learn commandline basics. I've told him not to ever enter any real systems without permission.

I'm curious if you've played Digital: A Love Story. It seems like Christine Love was trying to do something similar — conjuring an earlier time in computing history, but without worrying too much about historical accuracy.

I played a bit of Digital: A Love Story. I thought it was wonderful. I really liked the atmosphere it evoked. That was the same effect I was going for in Telehack, but in a different way. Silent, no sound... Just green text and more code, but the same emotion.

Regarding historical accuracy, one of the surprising things about Telehack is how those old systems were hard to use. Whenever a movie or a book looks back at the past, it can look through a set of lenses that make the past seem more engaging and accessible, and sometimes add a narrative. Someone on Hacker News referred to Telehack as "MovieOS," and that's exactly right.

There are actual TOPS-10 systems on the net you can get accounts on. They're not easy to get into. I wanted to reduce the usability barriers to the old commandline interfaces, while giving the same feel of the systems, and blend some of the good things I remembered from various systems together.

Telehack seems to borrow quite a bit from modern videogame theory... Integrated tutorials, slowly ramping up difficulty, multiple avenues to exploration without a linear path. Paul Ford suspected you're a game designer.

I have done some computer games, although that is not my profession. I really admire the advances that have occurred in game design, although I'm not much of a gamer myself. Mostly, I wanted to help newcomers get across barriers of accessibility which is what the old tutorial manuals were all about.

Read an old DECsystem-20 manual. It tells you, in excruciating detail, how to type control-C to interrupt a program. It turns out people still need to know that but aren't being told anymore.

The other part is that the system is open-ended. It has all this old code that is animated by resurrecting an interpreter for a dead language. People can run programs again that haven't been run — and experienced — for 20 years. And see old files through a lens that makes them look like they used to. That's fun.

Speaking of old files, the way you used the textfiles.com and Usenet archives feels brand new. You've created a playful environment for exploring archival material in a new way. It made me wonder what other data sources could be reinvented by making them game-like.

What Jason Scott did with textfiles.com is heroic. He's saving away all this stuff that is completely unique, and irretrievable otherwise. But to make people want to see it, byte by byte, I thought it would be neat to offer it up, a piece at a time, in a format similar to how the files were originally experienced.

You dial some modem number — not busy! It actually connects and then you see what files they have and download some of them. Most of them are crazy stuff but period-relevant. So it's a way to animate old text files.

Same thing with the Usenet archive, although my Usenet reader needs some work. It's pretty crufty. There is so much in there, I haven't really found a good way to get people back into it yet.

Folks would wait in anticipation for Usenet — the daily poll — where your modem would call some hub and get you the news. I have to find some way to bring that back to the archive.

Google Groups doesn't give that feeling. Neither does Telehack's usenet command currently. Still noodling on that.

Reading Usenet posts from 1982

Does it advance in real-time? Are you adding "new" articles to the archive in a rolling period?

No, although that's a good idea for a way for it to be more dynamic and engaging.

You've been adding features incrementally since you launched it, but how long did it initially take you to build from conception?

If you type uptime, it says sysgen was 454d ago at 07-Mar-10 20:26:00. That's when I started working on it. Not full-time, there were months when I didn't have any time to work on it. It's mostly been a small side project.

What was the hardest thing to get right?

There is one feature that works in the telnet interface, but not in the http client yet — the baud rate simulation. If you dial or wardial into a host and you're connected to Telehack with telnet, it will actually give you a 2400 or 9600 or whatever connection, but that doesn't work on the html interface yet sadly.

It's not the same when you dial into a host and the text renders instantly. For the full authentic feel, you should have to wait for the lines to appear slowly, as we once did. :)

I keep my 300 baud VicModem on my desk as a reminder of how good we have it now.

300 baud was really slow! I started there too, with a Hayes on an Apple II. Type baud 300 on Telehack, it's hard to see how we could use those systems, but we did. They were amazing, even at that speed.

I'd love to hear more about the technology behind it.

Telehack is built in Perl, in a single process, in an epoll-driven event loop. There are two interpreters — Z-code, which is an interpreter called Rezrov in CPAN, and a BASIC interpreter, which I wrote. Currently it doesn't fork any external code. Various functions, including the 6502/VAX CPU and such, are simulated.

Any plans to open-source any of it? I'm sure some of the community would love to hack on Telehack, to extend it in different directions.

Yes, I plan to open it up at some point.

So, I have to ask: why the anonymity? The mystery definitely adds to the fun, but most people would love to take credit for such an impressive project.

Well, I have a day job, and I didn't want this to be a distraction. I also made this for my kid, but didn't really want to expose him to a larger internet just yet.

Are you worried that coming out from behind the curtain will bring attention to him too? I'm the parent of a six-year-old, and can definitely appreciate that.

At an earlier point in my career, I got a lot of press for a project I did. The intense interest from that made me very cautious about what I put online. I took down my personal photos and such. I would be sad if I felt like I had to take down Telehack.

Makes sense. What have you thought about the reaction? Like several others, when I first saw Telehack, I completely underestimated its depth. It seems like an deep rabbit hole that endlessly rewards curiosity.

I'm extremely happy that people are enjoying it. I was a bit sad that some commenters initially dismissed it as a simple JS shell. It was pretty cool when the first person found ptycon and the secret entry points in the system monitor.

With zero fans, I'd be pretty disappointed. With any n > 0, I'm happy. I don't expect it's a huge audience though. Doesn't have to be. It's an artistic/historical project to me.

Viewing users on NYU's cmcl2 network circa 1988, and me.

You've done some incredible data archaeology here — reconstructing 25,000 hosts from the early Internet, along with the people that used them at the time. One guy on Hacker News was able to find himself and his two best friends at the time logged into the host he first used when he get online. How did you do it?

Well, a lot of this information is available online, but you need to look at the right way to interpret it.

Were you able to find yourself in the archives?

Yup, I'm in there.

Any specific rules for how you scattered the text and game files across hosts?

There is some topic-clustering for the text files, the rest is mostly random. But I'm still working on the game parts of this thing.

If Telehack ever takes off, would you ever consider doing it for a living? I have no idea what you do for a living, but I can't help but think you've missed your true calling as a game designer.

Well, thank you for that. :-) I'll have to get back to you on that. At this point, I'm mostly interested in fleshing it out, so I'm happy with it.

Telehack's a pastiche of many different systems, networks, and tools from the mid- to late-1980s. It's rich with nostalgia. Is there anything you miss from that era?

Good question. The commandline was a universal language. You had to learn it, there was a curve, but it wasn't that hard. Heck, we were all being taught it in the new classes in middle school. But the GUI's mission was to kill it.

My worry is that the CLI was symbolic, algebraic, whereas the GUI is... pictorial, or one-step, or something.

hosts | grep foo

It's important that you understand that. If you're graduating from any university today, it's an algebra more important than... uh, algebra, maybe.

I actually don't miss anything from that era. But I want the best of what was known then to propagate today.

The other teams were a humbling roster of creative geeks, including Ricardo "mrdoob" Cabello, Ben Cerveny, Jeri Ellsworth, Zach Lieberman, Kellan Elliott-McRea, Chris "moot" Poole, Bre Pettis, and Erica Sadun.

I was paired with Michael Bell-Smith, whose digital art I'd admired and linked to in the past. It was a perfect match, and we're very happy to announce the result of our collaboration: Supercut.org (warning: NSFW audio).

Supercut.org is an automatic supercut composed entirely out of other supercuts, combined with a way to randomly shuffle through all of the supercut sources.

The Idea

When we first started work on Friday morning, Michael and I started brainstorming what we wanted to accomplish: something visual, high-concept (i.e. explainable in a tweet), and hopefully with a sense of humor.

We quickly realized that our interest in supercuts was fertile ground. Michael's work often touches on structural re-edits and remixes, such as Oonce-Oonce, Battleship Potemkin: Dance Edit, Chapters 1-12 of R. Kelly's Trapped in the Closet Synced and Played Simultaneously, and his mashup album mixing pop vocals over their ringtone versions.

Both of us were fascinated by this form of Internet folk art. Every supercut is a labor of love. Making one is incredibly time-consuming, taking days or weeks to compile and edit a single video. Most are created by pop culture fans, but they've also been used for film criticism and political commentary. It's a natural byproduct of remix culture: people using sampling to convey a single message, made possible by the ready availability of online video and cheap editing software.

So, supercuts. But what? Making a single supercut seemed cheap. I first suggested making a visual index of supercuts, or a visualization of every clip.

But Michael had a better idea — going meta. We were going to build a SUPERSUPERCUT, a supercut composed entirely out of other supercuts. And, if we had time, we'd make a dedicated supercut index.

Making the SuperSupercut

There were three big parts: index every supercut in a database, download all the supercuts locally, break each video into its original shots, and stitch the clips back together randomly.

Using my blog post as a guide, Michael added every supercut to a new table in MySQL, along with a title, description, and a category. While Michael did that, I wrote a simple script that used youtube-dl to pull the video files from YouTube and store them locally.

To split the clips, we needed to find a way to do scene detection — identifying cuts in a video by looking at movement between two consecutive frames. But we needed a way to do it from my Linux server, which ruled out everything with a GUI.

After some research, I found a very promising lead in an obscure, poorly-maintained French Linux utility called shotdetect. It did exactly what we needed — analyze a video and return an XML file of scene start times and durations.

The most challenging part of the entire day, by far, was simply getting shotdetect to compile. The package only had binaries for Debian and the source hadn't been updated since September 2009. Since then, the video libraries it needed have changed dramatically, and shotdetect wouldn't compile without locating them.

Three frustrating hours later, we called in the help of one of the beardiest geeks I know, Daniel Ceregatti, an old friend and coworker. After 20 minutes of hacking the C++ source, we were up and running.

With the timecodes and durations from shotdetect, we used ffmpeg to split each supercuts into hundreds of smaller MPEG-2 videos, all normalized to the same 640x480 dimensions with AAC audio. The results weren't perfect — many scenes were broken during dialogue because of camera changes — but it was good enough.

As ffmpeg worked, I stored info about each newly-generated clip in MySQL. From there, it was simple to generate a random ten-minute playlist of clips between a half-second to three seconds in length.

With that list, we used the Unix `cat` utility to concatenate all the videos together into a finished supersupercut. We tweaked the results after some early tests, which you can see on YouTube.

While the videos processed overnight, we registered the domain, built the rest of the website, and designed our slides for Saturday's event — taking time out for wonderful Korean food with the fellow team of Ben Cerveny and Liz Magic-Laser. I finally got to sleep at 5:30am, but I'm thrilled with the results.

The Future

There were several things we talked about, but simply didn't have time to do.

I'm planning on using the launch of Supercut.org to finally retire my old supercut list by adding a way to browse and sort the entire index of supercuts by date, source, and genre. Most importantly, I'm going to add a way for anyone to submit their own supercuts to the index.

And of course, when any supercut is added, it will automatically become part of the randomized supersupercut on the homepage: an evolving tribute to this unique art form.

The JSON API was created by Sam Rose, a 20-year-old student from Wales and an active contributor in the ThinkUp community. His 7,000 line contribution -- composed of 40% new tests and 40% documentation -- earned him first place in the ThinkUp bounty contest and a brand new iPad 2. Congrats, Sam!

I thought it'd be fun to try building a hack with his new API, so I made a simple visualization of your entire Twitter archives in ThinkUp — ThinkBack, a ThinkUp-powered time capsule. Take a look at my history, or on the @whitehouse account to get the gist.

ThinkBack analyzes your entire Twitter history, extracts entities from the text, and colors them based on category. Grouped by month, it also gives you a quick glimpse at your posting activity over time.

For the entity extraction, I used an excellent free web service called AlchemyAPI to extract people, places, events, product names and other keywords from everything I've ever posted. They provide a category for each, which I assigned a color.

I also tested two other free web services that offer entity extraction, text-processing.com and Zemanta. Finding and categorizing keywords from short status updates is no small feat, but AlchemyAPI does a remarkable job. (If you'd like to play around with all three, support for both Zemanta and text-processing.com is commented out in the source code, but easily swappable with AlchemyAPI.)

ThinkBack also uses four typefaces from Google Web Fonts, my first time using them and dead simple to implement. For free fonts, the quality's surprisingly great, with several faces commissioned by Google itself. For a quick, free hack, it's a great alternative to Typekit.

I also used a very simple PHP templating language called RainTPL, which I chose as a lightweight alternative to Smarty. In practice, I found it too simple. Its handling of complex data structures and loops required me to jump through hoops that shouldn't be necessary. (I'll stick with Smarty next time.)

Anyway, you can download the code here, it only requires PHP and access to a recent version of ThinkUp. Feel free to fork it and submit a pull request for anything you add!

Those unique set of circumstances create a serendipity machine, and the people I meet each year keep me coming back, even as it busts at the seams. To that end, please track me down or say hi! That's why I'm there. And here's where you'll find me:

Worst Website Ever II: Too Stupid to Fail
Monday, March 14 at 11am
Hilton, Salon D

After a three year absence, I'm bringing Worst Website Ever back to SXSW with an all-star lineup of designers, developers, and entrepreneurs. Join us as these very talented people pitch their worst website/app/startup ideas to a live audience in short, five-minute rounds.

This year, the lineup's pretty amazing:
Gina Trapani (Lifehacker, Expert Labs)
Jeffery Bennett, (BetamaXmas, 2008's runner-up with Image Search for the Blind)
Josh Millard, (Metafilter, viral musician)
Jonah Peretti, (Buzzfeed, Huffington Post)
Mike Lacher, (Wonder-Tonic, Wolfenstein 1-D, Geocities-izer)
Ze Frank (The Show, Star.me)

And like last time, it's judged by a real VC, Rob Hayes from First Round Capital. Winner gets funded!

ThinkUp: Austin Meetup
Saturday, March 12 at 5pm
The Ginger Man, outdoor patio

Curious about ThinkUp, or want to meet the people behind it? I'll be joining Gina Trapani, Amy Unruh, Jed Sundwall, and other developers/users of ThinkUp at our second SXSW meetup. Come on out! We'll be in the back patio of The Ginger Man, if weather permits.

Stalk Me

This year, I'll be tracking interesting sessions on Lanyrd, and evening events on Plancast. And, of course, I'll be mentioning any unusually great activity in real-time over on Twitter.

See you there!

I'm surprised and grateful that The Daily executive and legal team never tried to shut it down. On the contrary, when asked directly about it, publisher Greg Clayman said, "If people like our content enough to put it together in a blog and share it with folks, that's great! It drives people back to us." They seem like a nice bunch of folks, and I hope they succeed with their big publishing experiment.

But now that I'm ending it, I can finally address the most common question — how did I do it?

The Daily: Indexed is just a list of article headlines, bylines, and links to each article on The Daily's official website. Anyone can grab the links from the Daily iPad app by clicking each article's "Share by Email" button, but that would've taken me far too long. So, how to automate the process?

When you first start The Daily application, it connects to their central server to check for a new edition, and then downloads a 1.5MB JSON file with the complete metadata for that issue. It includes everything — the complete text of the issue, layout metadata, and the public URLs.

But how can you get access to that file? My first attempt was to proxy all of the iPad's traffic through my laptop and use Wireshark to inspect it. As it turns out, The Daily encrypts all traffic between your iPad and their servers. I was able to see connections being made to various servers, but couldn't see what was being sent.

Enter Charles, a brilliantly-designed web debugging proxy for Mac, Windows, and Linux. By default, Charles will listen to all of your HTTP network traffic and show you simple, but powerful, views of all your web requests. But it can also act as an SSL proxy, sitting in the middle of previously-secure transactions between your browser and an SSL server.

After grabbing the JSON, I was able to write a simple Python script to extract the metadata I needed and spit out the HTML for use on the Tumblr page. Here's how to do it.

Configuring Charles

1. Download and install Charles on your desktop machine. On your iPad, navigate to http://charlesproxy.com/charles.crt to trust Charles' SSL certificate.

2. For Mac users, start Network Utility to get your desktop's local IP address. Start your iPad, make sure it's on the same wireless network as your desktop, and go into Settings>Network>Wi-Fi. Select the wireless network, and click the right arrow next to it to configure advanced settings. Under "HTTP Proxy," select "Manual." Enter the IP address of your desktop for "Server" and enter in "8888" for the port.

3. Now, start Charles on your desktop and, on the iPad, try loading any website. You should see assets from that website appear in Charles. If so, you're ready to sniff The Daily's iPad app.

Indexing the Daily

1. Start the Daily app on the iPad. Wait for it to download today's issue. In Charles, drill down to https://app.thedaily.com/ipad/v1/issue/current, and select "JSON Text."

2. Copy and paste the raw JSON into a text file.

3. This Python script takes the JSON file as input, and spits out a snippet of HTML suitable for blogging. I simply pasted the output from that script into Tumblr, made a thumbnail of the cover, and published.

The End

So, that's it! Hope that was helpful. If any fan of The Daily out there wants to take over publishing duties, I'll happily pass the Tumblr blog on to you.

So I went ahead and made one for them! Introducing, The Daily: Indexed...

Why did I do this? The Daily's publishing free, web-based versions to every article, but without an index, it's (deliberately) hard to find or link to the individual articles from the web. And since the iPad app only carries today's edition, it makes finding any historical articles you've paid for nearly impossible.

I love that this kind of experimentation is happening in journalism. I love journalism dearly and want to see new models emerge, and charging for content is a great way to align a media organization's interests with those of its readership. That said, if you do charge for access, you can't publish free versions to the web and hope that people don't find them.

I'm also very curious about their reaction. This isn't illegal or a copyright violation — all I'm doing is linking to the versions they're publishing on their site. The ability to link to any webpage without permission is part of what makes the web great, and it should never be discouraged. It's also worth noting that Google's slowly indexing all the articles too, and search engines aren't blocked in their robots.txt file.

But I'm still recovering from a legal nightmare last year (more on that soon), so if asked to stop publishing and delete the Tumblr, I will. (Lawyers: My email address is at the top of this page.)

In the meantime, enjoy!

(Special thanks to Rex Sorgatz for the inspiration.)

Update: At The Daily's press conference, editor-in-chief Jesse Angelo addressed the question of public sharing on the web.

"For the pages in the application that we can do it, we create mirror HTML pages. Those pages are out there on the web — they can be shared, they can be searched, you can find them out there... We know there are billions of other people sharing content on the web, and we want to be part of that."

Thanks to Ryan Tate for the video.

February 4: Some people seem to have been a bit confused by my original post, so I edited it a bit, explaining a bit more clearly why I made this. I never thought that The Daily actually forgot to make a homepage/index; that was tongue-in-cheek. I also added a comment answering some of the frequently asked questions about the project.

Since I couldn't find an exhaustive list (this TV Tropes guide to "Deconstruction Games" is the closest), I thought I'd try to pull one together along with some gameplay videos.

This is just a starting point, please post your additions in the comments or email me and I'll add them in. Note: I've tried to stay away from specific game parodies (like Pong Kombat or Pyst), and stick to games that comment on game design, mechanics, or culture.

Sadly, the charts were completely useless to me — a pile of mostly-indistinguishable lines. Along with one out of every 14 American males (about 7%), I'm red-green colorblind.

This is hard for non-colorblind people to understand, so I pulled together a couple examples. Here's a split comparison of the original chart, showing what people with normal vision see compared to me and my broke-ass eyes.

(Click to view large.)

Two simple solutions:

1. Label your lines. When you have more than three data points in a line chart, legends fall apart quickly whether you're colorblind or not. A label next to each line makes any chart much more readable. Here's a quick remake I whipped up. (Thanks to Greg for helping me get the colors right.)

(Click to view large.)

2. Pick colorblind-safe colors. If you have to use a legend, be kind and pick something people like us can see. Photoshop's supported drop-dead simple colorblind simulation since CS4, or you can check your images or webpages for free using the Vischeck colorblind simulator.

When doing the right thing is this easy, it's really disturbing when it's dismissed as a waste of time.

A couple years ago, I contacted the husband-and-wife team behind Snopes, the essential resource on urban legends, to let them know about a similar issue. The red/green icons they use to indicate true/false urban legends looked absolutely identical to me. I let them know about the problem and prepared alternate GIFs for them, with a darker red and lighter green. (Incidentally, that's why colorblind people don't have trouble with stoplights.)

They not only refused the new images, but actually added a new entry to their FAQ, defending their position:

We chose our red-yellow-green coding system because its "traffic light" pattern can be understood by most of our readers with little or no explanation. While we understand that about 8% of our readership experiences some form of color blindness and therefore cannot distinguish the different colors of bullets, other alternatives we have tried have proved confusing to many of our non-color blind readers. Therefore, we have chosen to stick with a system that works very well for 92% of our readers.

Instead, they recommended hovering over every icon to see the tooltip text. I absolutely adore the work they do on Snopes, but that interaction's left a sour taste in my mouth ever since. It just doesn't seem defensible — is slightly darkening a shade of red and brightening a green too much to ask?

I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to perfectly anticipate every person's needs; accessibility is extremely hard to get right 100% of the time. But if your ultimate goal is conveying information, open ears and a little empathy can go a long way.

Update: Alex Bischoff took the three images I made for Snopes, and wrote a user script that replaces their images with mine. Install it here for your browser of choice.

Yesterday morning, along with an anonymous group of spectators, I updated the ever-growing spreadsheet now spanning the last nine years of Oscar-nominated film. I added this year's 29 nominees to the list, a collection of 274 films in total. (You can read about more sources and methodology at the end of the entry.)

Don't miss the Statistics sheet, which covers all the aggregate year-by-year stats. Download or view it below, or read on for my findings. As always, if you have any additions or corrections, let me know.

View full-size on Google Spreadsheets.

Download: Excel (with formulas) or CSV

Findings

Note: These numbers will change as we get closer to the ceremony, and I'll do my best to keep them updated until Oscar day.

Continuing the trend from the last couple years, fewer screeners are leaking online by nomination day than ever. Last year at this time, only 41% of screeners leaked online; this year, that number drops again slightly to 38%.

But if you include retail DVD releases along with screeners, 66% of this year's nominated films have already leaked online in high quality. This makes sense; if a retail DVD release is already available, there's no point in leaking the screener. But I think it's safe to say that industry efforts to watermark screeners and prosecute leaks by members have almost certainly contributed to the decline.

The gap between theatrical and DVD release dates seems to have stabilized, hovering around 105 days for the last few years. This year, the gap between US release to first leak seems to have dipped slightly, from a median 23 days last year to 17 days.

The chart below shows how camcorder and telesync leaks for Oscar-nominated films continue to decline in popularity, while nearly every nominated film is eventually leaked on DVD. (The only exception seems to be 2008's Il Divo, which never appeared to get a US retail release.)

One prediction: The end of the DVD screener is near. This year, Fox Searchlight distributed three screeners with iTunes — 127 Hours, Black Swan, and Conviction — to all 93,000 voting members of the Screen Actors' Guild, marking the first time a major studio's used Apple's service for screener distribution.

Voters get the additional convenience of being able to watch films on their computers, Apple TVs, iPads and iPhones, while studios save the time and expense of distributing physical media. If this experiment's successful, it seems likely other studios will follow.

Miscellanea

Some random notes:

• This year, three films were leaked online within a day of their theatrical release — Iron Man 2, Alice in Wonderland, and Harry Potter.
• The Rabbit Hole screener was leaked online eight days before its theatrical release, while Winter's Bone was the slowest to leak online (so far) at 125 days after its theatrical release.
• Oscar-nominated films tend to get released late in the year, but how late? More nominated films have been released on December 25 than any other day, but the median date is October 20.
• For the first year, the first high-quality leak of a film — Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — was a PPV rip, most likely from a hotel's new movie releases on pay-per-view.
• Retail Blu-Ray rips are now frequently being leaked online now before retail DVDs, so I've modified the "Retail DVD" column to include them.

Methodology

As usual, I included the feature films in every category except documentary and foreign films (even makeup and costume design). I used Yahoo! Movies for US release dates, always using the first available date, even if it was a limited release. Cam, telesync, R5, and screener leak dates were taken from VCD Quality, with occasional backup from ORLYDB. I always used the first leak date, with the exception of unviewable or incomplete nuked releases.

Finally, the official screener dates came from Academy member Ken Rudolph, who lists the date he receives every screener on his personal homepage. Thanks again, Ken!

For previous years, see 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 (part 1 and part 2), 2009, and 2010.

It's a stunning experiment of forced transparency, prying open government against its will without much care or concern about the ramifications. Wikileaks is the Pirate Bay of journalism — an unstoppable force disrupting whole industries because they can.

To help make sense of my own opinions about it, I rounded up some of the more interesting responses and visualizations. Enjoy.

Our goal's to help government make better decisions about policy by listening to citizens in the places they already are: social networks like Twitter and Facebook.

Our first project is ThinkUp, an open-source tool for archiving and visualizing conversations on social networks. It started with Gina scratching a personal itch, a way to parse and filter @replies. But it's grown to be something more: a tool for policy makers to harness the collective intelligence of experts.

There's tons to do, but I'm particularly excited to tackle ThinkUp's ability to separate signal from noise, making it easier to derive meaning from hundreds or thousands of responses, using visualization, clustering, sentiment analysis, and robotic hamsters. I'm planning on building some fun hacks on top of ThinkUp, as well as keeping an eye open for other vectors to tackle our core mission.

Officially, I started on Monday and it's already been an incredible week. I flew to Washington DC, attended the FCC's first Open Developer Day, and a day of meetings with various groups at the White House.

What I found was inspiring: a group of extremely clever and passionate geeks, working from within to make things better. Some agencies are definitely more clueful than others, but it was clear that they want our — and your — help. I was skeptical at first, but they're sincere: they want meaningful public participation and they need smart people to make it happen.

Want to join in? The easiest thing to do would be to install ThinkUp on your server. Give it a try, see what you think and, if you can, contribute — code, design, and documentation are all welcome.

If you've read Waxy for a while, you'll know I very rarely touch on political issues here. It's not that I'm apolitical -- like anyone, I have opinions, but I don't often feel engaged enough to write about it.

So, why would I go to a Gov 2.0 non-profit? For three main reasons:

1. It's important. To tackle our most serious national issues, we need better communication between government and citizens. I want my son to grow up in a world where he doesn't feel disconnected and disillusioned by government, and I want government to meet the needs of the people, rather than favoring those with the most money or the loudest voices.
2. It's exciting. Technology is quite possibly our best hope of breaking down that divide, using social tools to disrupt the way that governments are run and policy is made. I love designing and building tools that use social connections to tackle difficult problems, and it feels like government is an area ripe for disruption.
3. I love the team. I've known Anil and Gina for years and have long admired their work. They're both extraordinarily talented and creative people, and I feel lucky to call them both friends. The opportunity to work with them was too hard to pass up.

How can I pass that up?

And what about Kickstarter? I recently stepped back into my original advisory role, and will continue to help out the team however I can — dispensing unsolicited advice, recruiting new projects, writing the occasional article, and evangelizing for them around the world, like I did at Free Culture Forum in Barcelona two weeks ago. Kickstarter's leading an indie-culture revolution, thanks to amazing leadership and a brilliantly creative team, and it was a pleasure working with them.

This isn't a change in direction for me, but a change in focus. Both Kickstarter and Expert Labs are bringing smart people together — people who might never connect otherwise — to create things, to change things, to make the world a better place. I can't wait.

Proof!

If you were using Memeorandum Colors, here's the updated Greasemonkey script and Firefox extension. (Unfortunately, it won't work in Chrome because they haven't implemented cross-site requests in user scripts yet.)

Now, a funny story. On Monday afternoon, I was alerted that the script was broken by a guy named Pat, a political blogger in Detroit. He asked politely if I'd fix the script, and I promised to take a look at it. I fixed it last night and was cleaning it up for release this morning, when I saw this on Twitter:

I never looked at his site, so was totally unaware of his political leanings. I was just busy.

Enjoy the code, Pat! Sorry I took so long to fix the code you use and love, for free, every day.

Update: Pat deleted his three tweets (archived above for posterity) and, in an epic 17-tweet rant, offered me and five others "an ass kicking that you will never, ever forget." He follows up with a threat to sue me for publishing his "likeness and words" — screenshots of the three deleted tweets above, posted in public, addressed to me, and reproduced for non-commercial commentary and criticism under the Copyright Act's "fair use" provisions.

Update 2: And now his Twitter account's gone. I saved an archive of his threatening tweets for posterity. If you want to get in touch, his new account is @RightBloggerPat.

August 6: Pat wrote a followup on his blog, with his perspective of the whole ordeal. He admits he jumped the gun and apologizes for the mistake. Case closed.

Aside from the Kickstarter project, we also talked about the history of Mondo and its long-term impact, their rivalry with Wired, and the long-lost unpublished issue. He also reveals that Joi Ito bought the $750 reward to fictionally write yourself into Mondo's history, which is funny because Joi was actually on the masthead.

The full transcript is on the Kickstarter blog, or you can download it or listen below.

Back in 1999, my first job out of college was at Gettingit.com, a San Francisco-based webzine edited by R.U. Sirius. I was a total Mondo/Wired/bOING bOING fanboy in the early '90s, so the opportunity to go work with R.U. was incredibly exciting to me. In a disappointing turn, he was an incredibly nice and normal guy, instead of the hyperactive cyberhippy on mescaline that I was expecting.

I recommend reading Patrick Farley's The Guy I Almost Was, a classic webcomic that nicely characterizes my impressions of the early '90s cyberculture scene. (Patrick Farley just ran a successful Kickstarter project to revive Electric Sheep, and R.U. backed it.)

Random trivia: In July 1999, we tried to sell R.U.'s soul on eBay. Here's the image I made for the auction:

• Kickstarter Podcast #5 - Glorkian Warrior

James Kochalka is undeniably prolific, though he balks at the word. He's kept a daily comic diary of his life on American Elf for the last 12 years, released 40+ books, recorded 10 albums, and just appeared in a scifi film. But he's never made a videogame, something he'd been aching to do since he was a kid.

Thanks to a chance meeting at a chiptune concert, Kochalka's collaborating with Pixeljam Games to make it happen. Pixeljam's responsible for some of my all-time favorite Flash games, such as Dino Run, Gamma Bros., Ratmaze, and Mountain Maniac. It's a match made in geek heaven.

Their Kickstarter project ends tonight, so get the Glorkian Warrior game, mini-comic, and other exclusive rewards while you can.

Bonus track, for hardcore Kochalka fans:

• James Kochalka sings the Glorkian Warrior theme song

On Saturday night, Kickstarter, Tumblr, and SoundCloud welcome you to F*CK YEAH! SXSW, a party with music/visuals by Eclectic Method sponsored by the nice folks at ThePlanet. It's at Emo's on Saturday night, from 6:30pm until late.

On Sunday 11am, I'm doing a solo talk about a mish-mash of my interests, focused around metagames — both games about games, and games built on games. Quite possibly the only talk at SXSW to mention Mechanical Turk, Desert Bus, Barack Obama, VVVVVV, and Metafilter.

Also in amazing panels, Kickstarter's own Perry Chen (Monday w/Robin Sloan), Yancey Strickler (Wednesday w/Allison Weiss), and Fred Benenson. You should go to every one. More details here.

See you in Austin!

He graciously agreed to an interview over Skype, which we posted late last week as the second episode of the Kickstarter Podcast. I thought it came out well, though I clearly still need to work on my audio mixing skillz (sounds better on headphones!) and perfecting my NPR voice.

Listen/subscribe on iTunes or you can stream and download the MP3.

• Kickstarter Podcast #2 - Interview with Ted Rall

Rall's a controversial figure, especially reviled among political conservatives, even though he's leveled some of his toughest criticisms at the Obama administration. While most attention's focused on his syndicated cartoons, he's also written six non-fiction books, half of those focused on his travels across the 'Stans -- Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. In 2002, he published To Afghanistan and Back, a mix of written dispatches, cartoons, and a graphic novella documenting his experiences on the ground during the U.S. invasion after 9/11.

All of Ted Rall's previous trips were funded by news organizations, but with budgets for foreign correspondents slashed, he's turned to his fans to fund his return trip. We talk about the changing media landscape, his previous books, and what it's like being a NYC cartoonist in one of the most dangerous places on Earth.

"... Anyone who wants to can see a list of all the events you are planning on attending? It's like a stalker's delight."

— Comment about Upcoming.org from September 23, 2003, six days after launch

"It's bad enough we're using real names and telling people where we've been. Now it's like prepping someone for the best times to try robbing your apartment."

— Comment from June 2005

Further back, from the Montreal Gazette, September 1983...

From 1977, don't list your weddings or funerals in the paper, unless you want to get robbed...