9930 stories
·
100 followers

The RiffTrax guys on getting back in the puppet trench for MST3K

1 Share

In 1999, Mike Nelson, Kevin Murphy, and Bill Corbett were the final crew to front the long-running movie-riffing series Mystery Science Theater 3000—Nelson as the human test subject of the same name, Murphy as the delightfully pompous Tom Servo, and Corbett as that wily rascal (you know you want him, baby) Crow T. Robot. Having formed a cohesive unit onscreen and behind the scenes on the show’s three Sci-Fi Channel seasons, the trio kept at the unique form of comedy perfected by MST3K following the show’s cancellation. In 2004, they released their first efforts as The Film Crew, before pivoting to (and going audio only as) RiffTrax in 2006.

But in their years of recording humorous commentary tracks for blockbusters and B-movie schlock alike, the Satellite Of Love was never far from their hearts. Their castmates and co-writers Mary Jo Pehl and Bridget Jones Nelson (the latter of whom is married to Mike Nelson) eventually joined the RiffTrax fold; Murphy and Corbett reprised the roles of mad-scientist second bananas Professor Bobo and The Observer for the first season of the 2010s MST3K revival headed up by series creator Joel Hodgson. And now they find themselves at the center of the search for the worst movie ever made once more, thanks to Mystery Science Theater 3000: The RiffTrax Experiments, the crowd-funded comeback that will subject Mike, Servo, and Crow to four new episodes of cinematic crud this fall. Before the premiere of the first Experiment—a riff of ’60s creature feature Sting Of Death that Fathom Entertainment is bringing to theaters September 9 and 13—Nelson, Murphy, and Corbett spoke to The A.V. Club about returning to MST3K’s not-so-distant future, the parts of the old show they wanted to maintain, and how they’ve managed to keep their creative collaboration going for multiple decades. (It probably has something to do with the way their natural, off-the-cuff banter just sounds and reads like Mike and the Bots going at it.) 

The A.V. Club: When the opportunity to do these episodes presented itself, were you surprised?

Kevin Murphy: I was absolutely surprised, because we were done. 1999, we closed up shop and we all moved on. And so for this to reappear was intriguing. All the stars aligned at the exact same time, and it seemed like, “Well, there’s never going to be another good time to do this.”

Bill Corbett: We didn’t say yes right away. I think it’s fair to say we had to really think “Is this a mistake? On any number of levels?” We just seem like old dogs returning to the farm to the die or something. That’s what they do, old dogs. 

How about you, Mike?

Mike Nelson: It is a weird thing to return to something that was formative in your life, but it was a long time ago. That is an odd thing, but there’s such a joy to it—like, “Wow. Hey, all these people!” It was weirdly, weirdly fun in a way that is hard to describe.

KM: The way I describe it is that we managed to get a big part of the old band back together. Our original director of photography. Two of our favorite prop people. Toolmaster Jef Maynard. Brad Keely, our editor. Beez McKeever, Patrick Brantseg—all these folks had worked in and day out to make this thing happen. We’d write these cockamamie scripts, and these people would just, like, move heaven and earth in order to get the stupid things we put on scripts onto the screen. That was the joy in it, was working with these people who we had such a great connection with.

BC: We’d see some of them here and there, every now and then. But to be getting together every day with all of them and hanging out and having fun was, to me, at least 50% of it—just like a reunion with old pals and compatriots in the puppet trade. [Laughs.] They all get it, and they all not only get the kind of range we can and can’t do, but the sense of humor. They developed it with us. And the visual language of it. Having Trace Beaulieu involved, too, and Frank Conniff—Trace really did put the visual language of the whole show in place back before my time.

AVC: You’ve spoken elsewhere about retaining the “hand built” look of previous eras of the show. What was important about recapturing that visual language?

KM: It’s the only thing we knew. To try to do it with green screens and with CGI, that just isn’t interesting. Part of the fun of it was having to write in a way that we knew could be accomplished with hand built, practical effects and props. And most of the visual effects being done in the camera. That’s more of a challenge than, you know, putting on a tight suit with little dots all over your body and jumping in front of a green screen and becoming Bobo or something. That’s just monumentally uninteresting. 

BC: You didn’t want to be like Ian McKellen in that footage of him absolutely breaking down and crying after talking to a tennis ball and a stick long enough on the Hobbit movie. [Impersonates McKellan.] “I can’t do this anymore!”

MN: I like to look over and see the puppet mouth that I’m going to. [Laughs.] Then I can cry after—[Impersonates McKellen.] “Oh Crow: Why do you disfigure me like this? This is unbelievable.”

KM: [Impersonates McKellen.] “Croooooow is beyond our sights.”

BC: Not to be too much of an angry old fart, but there was part of me that felt good to reject all that other stuff. At least at this point in history, when AI is just getting shoved into everything whether we like it or not. CGI absolutely has its place, but in a little puppet show like this, it’s such a theatrical kind of affair that it doesn’t need it. So we were lucky enough to have the resources to do it.

KM: That was probably the biggest challenge updating it—in 1999, when we closed up shop, we were using Avid, the editing system, but we were doing it on Beta SP—actual magnetic tape. And 4:3 aspect ratio of a regular television screen. But now we had to do this for 4K and digital video and digital cameras, and so it has to look good enough for that. We were still seeing thumbprints on the paint jobs for the puppets. It’s like Wallace And Gromit in that way. This is where people like Jeff Stonehouse, our DP, were so instrumental to it. He knew how to translate this—keep the same sort of charm and joy we had with the old show and bring it up to date. 

An example: Instead of doing green screens behind us, we used a video screen with a star field, and we could do all kinds of monkeying around with icons from the show while we did that. Rather than a big sheet of duvetyn with little pieces of foil stuck to it for stars, we were able to do an actual moving star field, and that sort of brought it into the 21st century. 

AVC: Did any of those technological updates impact how you’re performing on camera?

BC: One specific one did: Lights are so much better now. They don’t roast you quite as much. I know this is a very silly thing, but when you have a big ape getup on like Kevin, or even me under Brain Guy makeup, it gets shvitz-y in there very quickly. So it really did feel nice to have it relatively less oppressive under the lights.

A man in a striped shirt tunes a radio while a woman in a striped shirt looks on in a still from Sting Of Death. The shadows of a man and two robots are superimposed onto the image.

Courtesy of RiffTrax

AVC: Bill and Kevin, you both made onscreen appearances in the first season of the previous MST3K revival, but Mike, this is your first time back since 1999. What did it feel like to be back in that “Mike Nelson” persona again?

BC: He’s not very good at it.

KM: You think you’d get more out of the guy, since it’s Mike.

MN: Yeah, yeah.

BC: I don’t think he understands the character of Mike.

KM: I don’t think he gets Mike. The Mike-ness.

MN: I talked to people about it, like, “Was it a young man’s game to do this thing?” But look, at the end of the day, if we aren’t better at what we do now than we were when we were younger, then I would say, “Time to hang it up,” or it’s just a nostalgia thing: [Affects cartoon yokel voice.] “Hey, there he is again, in the thing.”

But the fact that we are better at what we do now—the timing is a little better, the funniness is improved—is something that was really important. I didn’t just want to do it just for nostalgia. I wanted it to be funny, and I think it’s funny. 

BC: That was our guiding star: Whatever else we’re gonna do, we’re gonna be funny. We might accidentally do some fan service—you can’t help it if you’re breaking out the puppets again and all that. But it has to be funny on its own. I think with the years of RiffTrax, our sharpness, collectively, in riffing movies, is better than ever. That’s the bulk of the screentime [on MST3K] right there, and we’re very good at that, if I do say so myself. 

And we also have a couple of new writers [Conor Lastowka and Sean Thomason] who brought a little bit of fresh perspective. They’re new to MST3K, but they are not new to RiffTrax. And they had a ball, and it was really fun—I don’t know, mentoring them seems a little ostentatious as a way of describing it, but describing what we do and don’t do, and what works, was a good kind of refresher course for me, at least. It’s like, “Oh, yeah, so we’re kind of all kind of relearning how to do these sketches.” And that the key is usually shorter, snappier, funnier.

KM: And relearning the fact that when you write something on the page—like we did at one time when Joel says “ping-pong balls” and 10,000 ping-pong balls fall down on top of him—you actually have to make that happen. So there’s a big responsibility: for what you think is funny right now in your head, and what you can actually translate to the screen with the time and the budget you have, which are never a lot. So that Sean and Conor learned real fast. And they fit right in immediately. 

BC: They’re very funny and very weird and they just have a feel for it. Or they wouldn’t have been working with us all the years, and us with them. 

AVC: MST3K has gone through all these different eras and incarnations over the years. How would you define the tone and the voice of your MST3K?

MN: I think there was a tone that I didn’t realize that we have. You never know that you have it. 

I remember when I was young and I’d watch Monty Python or SNL or SCTV, and I’d go like, “Who are these people? How can this be happening? Is this made for me?” And then you get to make comedy, and you realize, “Oh, if I just do what I think is funny, then that will resonate with someone else.” 

I think that, to me, is the joy—is that you just do what you think is funny, ’cause if you try to figure it out, you can’t do it. Like, it’s impossible. Humor is just so specific. And so we all just find this stuff funny, and so we do stuff to make ourselves laugh, and then it resonates with other people.

KM: I’ll add that it was a number one condition of ours that we are completely unfettered by anyone. We write the shows the way you want to. We conceive the shows the way we want to do it. And Radial, they said, “You guys go. We will not stand in your way.” And with that freedom, we thought,”What makes us laugh?” And that’s what we went with every time.

AVC: What does that independence mean to you at this point—after the first decade of MST3K, after two decades now of RiffTrax?

BC: Everything. I feel so spoiled in a way, because I did time in the other world: screenwriting in Hollywood. And, you know, the payday can be nice, but you do have to work, and it’s like hitting the lottery to some degree. But what you’re always going to have is a wall of people telling you about your work—good, bad, or indifferent. And everybody who’s worked there knows the William Goldman rule: Nobody knows anything. They’re always guessing based on the last bunch of things and speculating and it’s always a moving target. And now with everything else that has happened to the business, I am really, really happy that we have built up this approach to humor that is not dependent on a wall of approval or notes from any executive or anything like that. That feels like absolute hell to me now. And it’s a hell I’ve been through. I came out pretty good on the other side, but I wasn’t eager to do a lot more if I could avoid it—unless they were paying me billions every time I walked out of my house. And they weren’t, as it turns out. 

AVC: I think that speaks to the simple brilliance of the MST3K concept: The show ended, it endured, it came back once before, and now you’ve been able to bring it back again, and make it fresh and make it new and keep bringing new people into it. 

MN: I don’t know, this is probably arrogant, but whatever: A couple years ago, maybe 10 years ago, I saw a documentary about the Guarneri Quartet—it’s a string quartet that’s worked together forever. And we’ve worked together for that long. I always think, like, “Why doesn’t someone study why we can still work together?” It’s a funny thing and it’s a joyous thing that I really love. I enjoy working with these people. We’re all different people, obviously. We have different points of view, but we come together and the one thing that we enjoy is doing this weird comedy.

BC: I don’t take it for granted at all. I’ve collaborated with a lot of people, co-writing screenplays and plays and stuff like that. I try to choose carefully. I’ve mostly had good collaborations, but there’s a whole other rigor to what we’ve been doing for… what do I say? Oh, for 40, 80 years. 

KM: Let’s just call it 80.

BC: It does require some care and feeding, but I think the fact that we all like the same kind of comedy—however we got there, we accidentally lit on what we think funny will do. And I think that we got enough feedback for that over the years that we eventually believed it. [Laughs.] That plus a mutual respect for each other and our different abilities—and again, we’ve been very lucky to gather people to us, accidentally or whatever, that are similar. 

And that’s what this summer [making The RiffTrax Experiments] was so great for. I got to have my daughter, who’s in college, come along and she just fit in and was like, “You guys are all so great. You’re old, but you’re great.” And I said, “Yes, honey, it’s about time you recognized that about me.” [Laughs.]

MN: The oldness, not the greatness. 

BC: You see the numbers now. Putting some big ones on the board, my child.

Crow T. Robot, Mike Nelson, and Tom Servo on the Satellite Of Love in Mystery Science Theater 3000: The RiffTrax Experiments. Crow's wearing a '60s buoffant wig and bikini top, Servo has on an aloha shirt, and the set is decked out in Party City tiki finery

Courtesy of RiffTrax

AVC: For each of you, what’s the memory of making these episodes that’s going to stick with you?

KM: I’ll… [Sees that Nelson is about to talk.] Go ahead, Mike. 

MN: Dang it, I was going to jump in before.

KM: Start, Mike. Go!

MN: [Feigning conflict.] I hate you! I hate working with you! This is all a nightmare!

BC: [Adding to the bit.] This partnership is done! I’m sick of listening to you guys bicker!

KM: Here we go again!

MN: It’s done right here!

KM: [Concluding the bit.] A long day’s journey into Mystery Science Theater

MN: It was really funny to go to the studios, and I’d go in and the makeup person is Crist Ballas, who, 30 years ago, he was the last one who makeup-ed my face. And then Beez goes “Here, put on this thing.” So I walk into the studio. It’s dark, but Jeff Stonehouse, the old DP [Laughs.] is like matting the camera. And he’s on the camera deck and he’s going, “Can we see your face in front of the light?” The memory to me was like, “Oh my God. What happened? We just went back 30 years!” It was fun and comfortable and weird in a good, weird way.

KM: It’s the moments like that. I remember one in particular—without giving anything away—but there are six people in front of the puppet trench and back behind the desk, all doing six different things, and I’m trying to hold the puppet in a very absurd way. And Jeff is there on the camera, and Molly Corbett is throwing dust in front of the lens, and there’s fog—everything but fire in this particular instance. And everyone’s laughing. It’s really complicated, intense, takes a lot of timing, and everyone’s just having a ball. So that was just like, “Yeah, this is why I wanted to do this.”

BC: My memories are the same as those guys’, only slightly better. 



Read the whole story
InShaneee
21 hours ago
reply
Chicago, IL
Share this story
Delete

Flock Taught Cops How to Surveil No Kings Protesters

1 Share
Flock Taught Cops How to Surveil No Kings Protesters

Flock taught cops how they could surveil the No Kings protests and “small parades” using a mix of Flock’s technology and law enforcement’s own databases in a webinar last year. As Flock publicly downplays the power of its automated license plate camera network and highlights its use to solve violent crime, the company’s seemingly endless trove of webinars, training sessions, and blog posts show it offers far more invasive capabilities.

In the webinar, Flock’s director of market management Caity Peak explains how real time crime centers — which are police surveillance centers that utilize Flock cameras and other surveillance cameras — can be used for emergency response, but can also be used to surveil “established events” like 4th of July fireworks displays, parades, bike races, Mardi Gras, and protests. The webinar shows just how routine the idea of always-on surveillance has become, and how casually it is used during extremely innocuous events. 

Peak explains that police can use FlockOS, a software platform that combines Flock’s automatic license plate readers (ALPR), drones, gunshot detectors, 911 data, and other surveillance cameras (including ones Flock does not own) into a “single pane of glass” or single piece of software to look at various types of surveillance in one place during both emergencies and relatively mundane events in a city or town. 

“Imagine that you’re an incident commander, and you’re working this No Kings Protest,” Peak explains while a dashboard shows a series of surveillance tools overlaying the city of Denver. “If I’m somebody assigned a traffic post that’s working this No Kings Protest, I really don’t have time to go in […] and look at all these places [for different intelligence]. This is an example of viewing all of that in one place. I’m an officer, I can see the response plan that’s included, I can pull that up if I need it, but I can also see live video footage as that protest moves throughout the park.”

Flock Taught Cops How to Surveil No Kings Protesters

Peak says the surveillance footage can be used to monitor the protests without having cops physically on the ground “making it worse, getting attention.”

“I’ve got the video footage to monitor when things go sideways, I know when the environment is starting to shift. But I also know a lot of other things as well. I can see traffic flow, so as people are blocking the roadway, maybe that’s OK for a while, but if I see that traffic has been stopped a while, I may need to send officers to that area because I know that road rage is imminent,” she continues. The dashboard Peak shows includes traffic information, a “response plan” for the protest, the floor plans of nearby buildings, as well as a series of video feeds of both outdoor-mounted cameras and cameras inside businesses and government buildings. 

404 Media and the Electronic Frontier Foundation previously showed that police have specifically used Flock cameras to monitor the No Kings protests and other First Amendment-protected activity. 404 Media found California cops used Flock to monitor an “immigration protest.” The EFF found that the following law enforcement agencies ran Flock searches related to No Kings protests and rallies:

Flock Taught Cops How to Surveil No Kings Protesters

This webinar shows this type of surveillance is not anomalous, and is specifically taught by Flock. The webinar also shows that Flock’s latest public stance — that its ALPR cameras are noninvasive technology, that they take only static images at a single place and time, and that they are primarily used to solve the worst crimes — is wildly misleading. Flock has time and time again pitched itself to police as a sort of operating system to solve crime and do real-time surveillance and predictive policing. ALPRs are just one part of this broader surveillance apparatus that Flock has created, markets to police, and teaches them how to use. These real time crime centers are proving increasingly popular with police; Flock now says on its website that more than 4,800 cities around the country are running FlockOS software

Flock Taught Cops How to Surveil No Kings Protesters
Flock Taught Cops How to Surveil No Kings Protesters
Flock Taught Cops How to Surveil No Kings Protesters

Matt Patin, a former New Orleans Police Department officer and current Flock employee, explains in the webinar that the dashboard can show ALPR data, body camera footage, and other data to “give me a full situational awareness of what’s going on.” Peak explains that, back when she was a cop, she used to hope that people would plan events near intersections that had ALPR cameras. “We’d have to pick which intersection is going to make sense [for an ALPR camera], where do we see the most traffic, where do we see the most events, and then I hoped that if an event happened in front of a camera, it’s one that’s in an intersection where I chose to put [the ALPR] and not one where I chose not to put an ALPR,” she says, adding that she would try to think which types of cameras and drones to use to police a specific event. “I want to make sure I have as many tools to make myself dangerous if and when I need it,” she adds.

Peak goes on to give another example, in which police would surveil a car sideshow near Sacramento using a mix of drones, surveillance cameras, ALPRs, and monitoring of social media posts. “We knew it was likely to turn into nefarious activity based on who was promoting the car show,” she says. A list of “THINGS TO LOOK FOR” include “mismatched front and rear wheels, stickers representing car clubs, and covered up license plates with car club logos.” Peak then demos Flock’s free-form search, which is “AI-powered video search and alerts.” 

“Let’s take Flock’s free-form feature and say ‘hey, any time you see a car tonight with multi-colored wheels passing by any one of these five LPR cameras, I want you to send us an alert,’” she says. She then explains how Flock Nova, the company’s deeper investigative tool, can be used to marry LPR information with “all of your agency data,” which in this example includes “person data, IP data, email data, sex offender data, license plate data, vehicle data, and OSINT [open source intelligence].” A screenshot of the Flock system shows a “street racing suspect” complete with the man’s name, address, email, social media accounts, phone number, and various affiliations.

“It works like a Google Search,” she says, imagining a scenario in which cops pull someone over then use Nova. “I run him through Nova. I can query CAD [computer aided dispatch], RMS [records management system], OSINT, jail records. All these things we have integrated to see that we have contacted him before for sideshows, he has been contacted for spinning cars in an intersection in the last 90 days, he is related to this car club, and now with that information, I have the justification I need to actually tow the car for 90 days instead of just issuing a citation.”

Flock Taught Cops How to Surveil No Kings Protesters

Later in the webinar, police from New Orleans and Flock representatives spoke about how its system was used by police in the aftermath of the Bourbon Street terror attack that killed 14 people on Jan. 1, 2025 and during the Super Bowl and Mardi Gras that year. The webinar highlights how this tech is used after a crime, and how the data often filters across agencies. Ross Bourgeois, who runs New Orleans' real time crime center, says that the city used a "tremendous amount of cameras in a very short time" to recreate the terrorist's movements.

“We were able to use our network of cameras and license plate readers to map out what he did when he entered the city a day or two before the event, up until he executed the event and engaged the police and our shooting situation at the conclusion of it,” Flock's Patin said, adding that footage running through FlockOS were eventually shared with the Department of Homeland Security, federal fusion centers, and the FBI. “7 terabytes of information, which was a lot of data, and we were able to share that with our fusion center and our federal partners. Homeland Security, HSI [Homeland Security Investigations, a division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement], and FBI.” 

Read the whole story
InShaneee
1 day ago
reply
Chicago, IL
Share this story
Delete

Chicago has abundant water. Data center developers want a taste.

1 Share

Waterways in Chicago and northern Illinois have supported industrial activity for more than a century, and now those same bodies of water are drawing an influx of proposed data centers that would tap into the region’s plentiful resources.  These proposals have drawn considerable scrutiny, with experts and advocates concerned about the lack of transparency and […]

The post Chicago has abundant water. Data center developers want a taste. appeared first on Chicago Reader.

Read the whole story
InShaneee
1 day ago
reply
Chicago, IL
Share this story
Delete

Cops Are Asking Axon to Make Their Cameras Look Different From Flock So People Don't Destroy Them

1 Share
Cops Are Asking Axon to Make Their Cameras Look Different From Flock So People Don't Destroy Them

Axon says cops are asking it to make its automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) look different from Flock cameras because Flock vandalism has become so widespread, according to comments Axon’s CEO made in a now deleted webinar.

The comments highlight how Axon is trying to take advantage of sustained opposition against Flock's license plate cameras, with one law enforcement customer suggesting a camera redesign would “help with the optics while we batten down the hatches” as the backlash spreads.

💡
Do you work at Axon or Flock? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at joseph.404 or send me an email at joseph@404media.co.

As 404 Media has reported, some towns and cities are switching from Flock to Axon’s cameras after cops did lookups for ICE in Flock, tracked a woman who self-administered an abortion, and have repeatedly abused their access to stalk ex-spouses. ALPRs constantly scan the license plate, brand, model, and other identifying features of all vehicles that drive past the camera and then make this timestamped log of activity searchable by law enforcement without a warrant.

In an August 26 webinar that was hosted on Axon’s official Vimeo page called “From backlash to trust,” Axon Chief Customer Officer Mike Wagers took a question from the remote audience and asked, “is there any talk — and there has been talk — to redesign Outpost, our fixed ALPR camera, to not look exactly like a Flock camera?”

“We are looking at [...] do we change the general shape,” Rick Smith, Axon’s CEO, replied.

At another point in the webinar, Smith brought up Axon’s Lightpost product, which is an ALPR and AI-powered camera that attaches to an existing streetlight. “Frankly, we’ve had a lot of customers saying, hey, we’d like something that looks different because there is all this blowback. ​​It's harder to vandalize because it's up higher,” he said.

Smith also said, “We’ve had some people say they’d like to see us make just a different camera, because our ALPR camera looks like an ALPR camera.” Another idea Smith brought up, pending customer feedback, is to go in the other direction and make ALPRs more explicit, with signs showing where they are located and a description of the city’s ALPR policies. 

MegaraMedia, a YouTuber, downloaded a copy of the webinar before it was removed and shared it with 404 Media.

Cops Are Asking Axon to Make Their Cameras Look Different From Flock So People Don't Destroy Them
A screenshot of one of the questions during the webinar.

During the webinar, Axon asked its law enforcement customers to chime in with questions and answer a customer survey. 404 Media scanned the QR code displayed during the webinar to view those questions. One, which appears to be the one Wagers paraphrased, read, “Is there any talk to redesign the Outpost to not look exactly like the Flock camera — I think it will help agencies with the optics while we batten down the hatches…”

Axon did not respond to a request for comment.

Around the country people have destroyed Flock cameras, including tearing them down, backing trucks into them, or spray painting over their lenses. Authorities have arrested and charged multiple people in connection with that vandalism. In one case, a cop made a fake, 3D-printed Flock camera to essentially act as bait; authorities then charged a man who broke the fake camera with three felonies.

One explicit reason some cities have ditched Flock for Axon is Flock’s national network. This allows a cop on one side of the country to search cameras not only in their own jurisdiction or state, but in another state entirely. When reporting on how local cops were performing Flock lookups for ICE, 404 Media found that some police departments did not know or understand their cameras were accessible by other agencies.

Smith said of the backlash against Flock and ALPR more generally: “This has been a hell of a storm.”

Read the whole story
InShaneee
2 days ago
reply
Chicago, IL
Share this story
Delete

Sony says people who buy games technically don't own shit

1 Share

In a further fudging of the concept of online ownership, Sony Interactive Entertainment is disputing player ownership of its games, according to a legal filing it submitted to California’s Northern District Court on August 21. This follows a suit brought against Sony in June by four PlayStation Store customers who claim that the company doesn’t clarify the difference between buying a license to a game and owning it outright, as Olds once did when games came in lacquered polycarbonate plastic discs and cartridges that one could fling across the room in a pique of Game Over failure—or just sell them for money, if one was so inclined. 

As reported by former Kotaku editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo on his Game File Substack, Sony’s response to the suit asserts that Section 1 of its Homeric Software Product Licensing Agreement explains that “the Software is licensed [,] not sold.”

To justify this logic, Sony further asserts that one cannot “own” a digital copy of a game because, as it’s a digital file rather than physical media (which is currently being phased out by game companies like SIE), it cannot be possessed by any one individual. “In the digital age, it is not plausible to allege that reasonable consumers believed they were obtaining ‘ownership’ of a digital game,” Sony claims. “Were that the case, then [the plaintiff] would not have been able to obtain the game Resident Evil Requiem on February 25, 2026, for $69.99 from the PlayStation Store after [the other plaintiff] had obtained Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026, because [they], not Sony, would have owned it then.” 

This digital-game reality is a quantum leap from the days when players could borrow their buddy’s Dark Souls disc after they’d chucked their own into traffic after getting their ass handed to them by Manus, Father of the Abyss, for the umpteenth time. Obviously, there were many physical copies of that game going around, as opposed to the only digital copy of Resident Evil Requiem that’s still somehow available to license on the PlayStation Store.

Indeed, Sony’s argument—that gamers don’t actually own shit when they hit “Buy Now” and “Complete Purchase” on the PlayStation Store, because those are words and words are wind—comes after the company recently emailed PlayStation account users to tap on their onerous Terms Of Service agreement. It reads, in part: “[In] addition to licenses of Virtual Content being subject to purchase and cancelation [sic] terms and conditions of the storefront/vendor, the availability of Virtual Content is not guaranteed, prices are subject to change, and order sizes may be limited without prior notice to you.” Here’s a fun part: “Purchases of Virtual Content licenses may be non-refundable.” 



Read the whole story
InShaneee
2 days ago
reply
Chicago, IL
Share this story
Delete

Trump officials cut political interference ban after unusual Census Bureau report

1 Share
The Trump administration removed language banning political interference from the scientific integrity policy for the Commerce Department, the parent agency of the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which are headquartered in Suitland, Md.

After the Census Bureau issued a report tied to a Trump-aligned think tank, the bureau's parent agency cut language banning political interference from its scientific integrity policy, NPR learned.

(Image credit: Michael Zamora)

Read the whole story
InShaneee
3 days ago
reply
Chicago, IL
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories