World Of Gadget

On July 20, Blizzard held an event for the press to allow game writers to get their first taste of StarCraft 2 single-player. Ars Technica received what amounted to a golden ticket for the event, but I was unfortunately busy attending to a personal issue and had to politely decline… no matter how great the temptation. What Blizzard revealed was a completely rethought single-player experience that goes beyond what was attempted in the first game. While some are still hung up on the lack of LAN play, what is offered to those playing alone is substantial.

The single-player game is no longer a linear, mission-to-mission affair. You’ll be given different hubs that allow you to click on people and items in order to gain understanding about the game world, and pick and choose which missions you would like to tackle. “These hubs operate in a similar fashion to briefing rooms from games like Wing Commander or X-Wing, but with an even greater degree of interaction,” Shacknews explains. “You can talk to characters, interact with and examine various items in the environments, upgrade your units, and start up missions.” Successfully completing these missions allows you to unlock new units, as well as cash to hire your own mercenaries to aid you in battle.

“The mercenaries function kind of like Hero Units from the Warcraft games. For a large fee, you can contract with various groups of mercenaries,” Destructoid reports. “Once you’ve contracted them, you can then use them in battle by constructing a Merc Compound and then buying them like any normal unit.”

Single-player gameplay is given some unique twists

The missions described include a race to grab an artifact, and a lava-infused map that includes unique environmental challenges. There was also a mission on display that incorporated a day and night cycle into the strategy. “During the day, it’s build, research and destroy every Zerg infested structure. At night, the player must retreat, as hundreds of infested humans emerge from their hidden burrows, swarming the camp,” Kotaku reveals.

Missions will also include unique units that almost sound like something out of the world of Diablo. “When trying to secure the relic, Raynor’s forces are attacked by a quartet of Stone Zealots, gargantuan statues brought to life to protect the prized artifact,” Kotaku describes from its playthrough. There will also be achievements to unlock during each mission, giving you a reason to go back and improve your performance.

Single-player is no longer just a mutliplayer trainer

These sweeping changes to how single-player missions are organized and how you unlock units and items should make the solo experience a much more fulfilling experience. No longer just a way to learn how to use your units, now it seems as if the single-player will be an almost fully unique experience. If you’re a fan of the world and lore of StarCraft, expect it to be explored in a much deeper-than-expected way.

This also raises some interesting questions about the Zerg and Protoss releases. While Terrans drink in bars and organize their attacks from ships, what will the Zerg hubs be like? It will likely take a while to find out, but it’s a question that should be fun to answer.

While I don’t regret skipping out on Blizzard to take care of my family, this is the one invitation that tempted me to leave the hospital and hop on a plane. A new son… or single-player StarCraft 2? No man should ever have to make that choice. Be sure to read the previews that are scattered around the Internet, there are many interesting tidbits in each one.

Further reading

• Shacknews “First StarCraft 2 Singleplayer Hands-on Preview“
• Destructoid “Preview: StarCraft II single-player“
• Kotaku “First StarCraft II Single Player Campaign Hands-On (With Spoilers)“

There’s a new battle developing in the bitter war over the Performance Rights Act—proposed legislation that would require terrestrial radio stations to pay royalties to the artists whose songs they broadcast. The Federal Communications Commission has agreed to hear comments on reports that radio station owners are “targeting and threatening artists who have spoken out in favor of the PRA,” with some going so far as refusing to play their music. The FCC is responding to a Petition for Declaratory Relief submitted by the MusicFIRST coalition, a group backed by the Recording Industry Association of America, SoundExchange, and various musicians’ groups.

In addition to accusing radio stations of “engaging in a pattern of threats and intimidation against artists to chill their speech,” MusicFIRST says they are refusing to run the coalition’s ads. All this is part of a coordinated campaign “designed to spread malicious and untruthful information—all in an effort to avoid royalty payment to artists,” the group warns.

Quite a lot to throw at radio—but it appears that the first charge is true, at least in the case of Dalhart, Texas radio station KXIT, which plays oldies, and its panhandle neighbor, country station KIXK-FM. Earlier this month, Inside Radio broke the story that their owner, George Chambers, says he won’t broadcast the tunes of almost 100 PRA supporters. We contacted Chambers, and he told us that he got the list of musicians that he’s banned from MusicFIRST’s pro-PRA artist website.

“I purchase the songs I play, so I will decide what songs I play,” he explained in an e-mail. “Artist that are radio-friendly get airplay.”

Musicians on the list include some country/oldies performers, but it also contains Sheryl Crow, Suzanne Vega, will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas, the Smashing Pumpkins, and other artists who probably never got much air time on Chambers’ stations in the first place. Still, although it’s worrisome, it’s also unclear how the FCC can respond. There aren’t any hard-and-fast rules that say that radio stations must broadcast certain performers or accept ads regarding controversial legislation or public issues. In the case of ads, the Supreme Court has actually ruled that they don’t.

And there are no knights in shining armor in this story, either. As we’ve reported, it’s definitely big content versus big radio here. Nonetheless, the MusicFIRST petition raises tricky questions about when license owners have crossed the line between broadcasting in the “public interest” and just serving their own.

Not a single station

Much of the petition is based on the testimony of Jennifer L. Bendall, MusicFIRST’s executive director, who has spent recent years as a lobbyist for various media groups, including SoundExchange, Viviendi, and the Motion Picture Association of America. Bendall’s statement cites a variety of instances in which artist intimidation allegedly took place. 

“A representative of a record label told us that a Delaware radio station informed them that it boycotted all artists affiliated with the MusicFIRST coalition for an entire month,” she charges. “A representative of an artist told us that, immediately before going on the air for an interview, the artist was pressured by a Texas radio station to state on the air that the performance rights bill would cripple radio stations.” MusicFIRST says it’s not disclosing the names of these folks, at least at this point, in order to protect them from further discrimination.

In addition, Edelman Communications Vice President Martin Machowsky testified that radio stations are routinely refusing to broadcast MusicFIRST pro-PRA ads. “It is my belief that these broadcasters are rejecting MusicFIRST’s radio spots based solely on the fact that MusicFIRST’s advertisements take a position that is contrary to the private interests of these broadcasters,” his statement in the petition warns. “I based this on the fact that several of the broadcasters have not even asked to listen to the spots and have stated that they are rejecting them because they come from MusicFIRST.” As of the filing of the petition, not a single radio station had accepted a spot from MusicFIRST, Machowsky contends.

MusicFIRST also doesn’t like what big radio routinely says about the PRA over the air and in print—it charges that stations have said it would constitute a “tax” on radio stations (indeed, it’s not; none of the money would go to the government); that the royalties would go to “foreign owned” companies (thousands of US copyright owners would receive payments); and some reports implied that a trio of historically black radio stations were sold to the Catholic church as a consequence of the bill’s approval by the House Judiciary Committee.

We want responsiveness

But even assuming that all this mischief is true, the petition struggles to identify clear legal remedies that the FCC can apply to the problem. As written by Sam Feder, until recently the FCC’s former general counsel, the MusicFIRST appeal hastens to note that it doesn’t want a return of the Fairness Doctrine. But it calls the alleged behavior of these radio stations “anticompetitive,” using their broadcasting power “to gain a competitive advantage over the artists and record companies to whom they would have to pay royalties if Congress passes the PRA.”

Conduct an investigation, MusicFIRST urges the FCC, then declare these alleged shenanigans against the public interest. And then? “The actions of broadcasters described in this petition support the calls for strengthening the license renewal process and shortening license terms in order to better ensure broadcasters’ responsiveness to the public, rather than their private interests,” the petition concludes, citing Commissioner Michael Copps frequent urgings to trim license periods down to three years.

So, what does this mean on a practical level? we asked Machowsky in an interview. “We’ve asked specifically for a few things,” he replied. “We’d like the behavior to stop. And we have asked in the context of the petition that this is information that the FCC should consider in the context of a license renewal. That’s all we’ve said.”

OK, we pressed, but does MusicFIRST want the FCC to revoke the license of George Chambers or some other pro-PRA-artist-boycotting station when its next renewal period comes up? “We want the FCC to consider that in the context of license renewal,” Machowsky said again, and no more.

It’s up to the individual broadcaster

So we went over to the other side and contacted National Association of Broadcasters Executive Vice President Dennis Wharton, who—no surprise here—thinks MusicFIRST’s petition is pretty specious. When it first came out, the group called it the RIAA’s “newest stunt.” Now that the FCC is actually considering an investigation, NAB’s tone has become a bit more circumspect.

“NAB will be commenting on the distortions raised in the musicFirst petition at the appropriate time,” the latest statement says. “Contrary to suggestions in the petition, broadcasters are under no obligation to carry everything that is offered or suggested to them.”

But what about this Chambers fellow and perhaps other boycotters? We asked Wharton whether that sort of behavior is in the public interest.

“I guess I’d respond by saying that it’s up to the individual broadcaster, ultimately, the licensee of the station, to decide what programming is appropriate for the community,” Wharton said. “I also don’t think that it’s some kind of coordinated effort. If indeed there are some broadcasters who are disappointed after having nurtured the careers of many artists, who decide in a moment of anger at performers who’ve come out in support of legislation which they believe threatens the very livelihood of free over-the-air broadcasting, for them to not play that music for a while, it wouldn’t surprise me if there were one or two stations who did that.” Wharton went on to call the coordination charge “ridiculous.”

Various players in the media reform community are keeping tabs on this skirmish. The Future of Music Coalition supports artists compensation, and it’s concerned about the allegations that MusicFIRST makes, FMC’s Casey Rae-Hunter told us. But the group hasn’t got a position on the petition. Still, “we will be following the comments on this closely,” he said.

The Media Access Project doesn’t have a stance on the PRA. But MAP’s Andrew Schwartzman says that, if MusicFIRST’s allegations “are proven to be true, they will raise serious questions as to whether some radio stations deserve to receive free licenses for exclusive use of the public’s airwaves.”

If you want to weigh in on this issue, the FCC is accepting comments on MusicFIRST’s petition through September 23. You can upload a text file here. The number for field #1 (”proceeding”) is

09-143.

Obsessive compulsive on the cellular and organismal level, via strep throat: In some ways, an autoimmune disease is a bit like an obsessive compulsive disorder, with the immune system getting so keyed up to clean up an infection that it starts going after anything that even looks like the original invader. But now there’s an indication that some cases of obsessive-compulsive behavior are the result of an autoimmune disease. Apparently, streptococcal infections (think strep throat) can leave their younger victims suffering from tics and other obsessive-compulsive syndromes. A recent paper describes how inoculations with strep bacteria could trigger an analogous set of symptoms in mice. Apparently, the same symptoms could be transferred to new mice simply by injecting them with antibodies isolated from the first, indicating the involvement of an immune response. Weird on many levels.

A vicious Facebook cycle: The title of this paper about says it all—”More Information than You Ever Wanted: Does Facebook Bring Out the Green-Eyed Monster of Jealousy?” The only thing that’s missing is the answer, which is a statistically significant, personality controlled, and hierarchically regressed “yes,” at least when it comes to college undergraduates. The authors speculate that it’s a bit of self-reinforcing process. Anyone who’s prone to use Facebook will obviously use it to check out their new partner, come across notes and photos that are probably ambiguous (or evidence of past relationships that’s not), get a bit jealous, and start searching for more details.

Birds with a hormone flock together: In humans, the hormone oxytocin has a powerful effect on social behavior, helping mediate a mother’s bonding with her offspring and generally predisposing us to look upon our fellow species members a bit more favorably. So, if you think about it, the results of a study of its avian equivalent shouldn’t be so surprising. And yet, it seems amusing that you can apparently manipulate a bird’s decision to get involved in large groups by altering levels of the bird equivalent of oxytocin. The unexpected finding is that the birds are equally social—they just don’t like large groups.

Not only embarrassing, but painful: This paper lays the issue out right in the first sentence: social pain may use the same neural systems that underlie physical pain. It’s an idea with testable consequences, and the authors go after one of them. If opioid receptors are involved with physical pain, they’re probably involved with social pain, so they tested a bunch of volunteers for their response to social pain, while genotyping them at the µ-opioid receptor locus. One particular variant of the gene was found to associate sensitivity to being rejected in social contexts. So, if you’re too paralyzed by fear of rejection to ask someone for a date, heroin should do the trick (we kid!).

Monkey see human do monkey impression: Those of you with siblings have undoubtedly suffered periods where they thought it would be funny to immediately repeat everything you said (or perhaps you tormented your sibling using this method). Imitation may not always be the sincerest form of flattery for humans, but Capuchin monkeys are apparently good with it. In interactions with strangers, the monkeys showed a pronounced preference for humans that imitated their actions. The authors speculate that, even if it can be annoying in some modern contexts, imitation is probably a way of facilitating social behavior among most primates by demonstrating the equivalent of a shared norm.

Results that will surprise no one: It took one researcher each from German, the UK, and US to determine that guys will pretty much sleep with anyone who asks, while women will generally only accept offers from the most physically attractive of partners. So, if you’re a guy looking for a one night stand, it might behoove you to check the mirror first.

Today, the World Trade Organization handed down a ruling on a complaint lodged against Chinese media laws by the US and most of the developed world. The laws require that various forms of imported media, from books to movies, be distributed by a single, state-owned company. It also limits foreign ownership of Chinese media companies and allows content produced by domestic companies to skip the trip to the state censors. A lot of that, according to the WTO, runs afoul of the agreements that China signed when it entered the body. The ruling opens the door for China’s trading partners to impose punitive tariffs on its exports, meaning that China may face a choice between exports and control.

To understand the consequences of this ruling, you need to understand a bit about how the WTO works. It’s a voluntary group, and its members sign up by agreeing to reduce tariffs and open their domestic markets to foreign competitors. Any actions that go against the documents specifying the details of this agreement allow the other members to request mediation and file formal complaints. If the complaints are upheld, the complainant gains the right to impose trade sanctions on the offender that would normally otherwise be prohibited by WTO rules. In theory, those punitive actions are supposed to be proportional and focused on the markets where the trade violations took place.

The original complaint was filed by the US in 2007 (the WTO has a brief history of it available), or you can go straight to the 469 page monster that details the entire proceedings). Over time, the EU, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan joined as interested parties. The gist of the complaint is that Chinese law discriminates against non-domestic media companies in fields like books and other publications, music, and movies, despite promising to level the playing field in its WTO Accession Protocol.

Basically, China has different rules for domestic companies, domestic companies backed by foreign investors, and foreign companies. So, for example, if a movie is burned to disk and packaged overseas, the only entity allowed to import it is the state-owned CNPIEC. If, in contrast, the movie is brought in digital form and then burned to disk and packaged within China, the process can be handled by a variety of companies, but all of them are also state-owned. Similar rules apply to print and music.

Part of this is old-fashioned protectionism, but China’s emphasis on social control is also considered a trade barrier, as this section on the country’s content review policies makes clear:

China requires all sound recordings, including sound recordings intended for electronic distribution, to undergo content review. The nature of that review, however, varies substantially depending on whether the sound recording is imported or domestic. China’s measures require imported sound recordings to undergo content review and approval by the Chinese Government prior to their electronic distribution. In contrast, domestic sound recordings do not have to receive prior approval from the Chinese Government. Instead, they undergo internal company content review, and they simply are registered with the Ministry of Culture.

It’s not so much that the review happens, it’s just that domestic companies are presumably more sensitive to the consequences of releasing content that the government disapproves of, so they’re trusted to run the review process on their own.

China’s response to the complaint, for the most part, is that it’s a mix of cultural imperialism and an attempt to undercut the morals of Chinese citizens. “Cultural goods and services have in common the fact of being vectors of cultural identity and values and, as such, of justifying the implementation of specific, yet WTO compliant, regulatory measures,” states its formal response, which noted elsewhere that, “It is of vital interest for China to impose a high level of protection of public morals through an appropriate content review mechanism that prohibits any cultural goods with a content that could have a negative impact on public morals.”

The actual decision portion of the document is entirely incomprehensible without field guides to Chinese law and its WTO Accession Protocol. (There are nine pages of statements like “The United States has not established that Article 8 of the 1997 Electronic Publications Regulation results in China acting inconsistently with paragraph 5.2 or paragraph 84(b).”) Although it’s clear that the US failed to make its case on a variety of points, it appears to have succeeded in quite a few of them. The final words on page 469 are “We recommend that the Dispute Settlement Body request China to bring the relevant measures into conformity with its obligations under those agreements.”

Although it’s clearly a victory for the US, there’s obviously little chance that China will ease up on its political censorship or anti-porn crusades. China can appeal the decision and, even if it loses, other nations may struggle to find punitive measures that are proportionate and strike at the equivalent markets. There’s also the very real problem that China’s written laws and the facts on the ground are often two very different things. Still, trade negotiations are an ongoing affair, and being able to bring a WTO decision to the table will undoubtedly be a useful tool.