It seems The Terminator franchise is up for grabs, with some thinking it could sell for as much as $200 million. Halycon – the current owners – are filing chapter 11 after some bad investments. Still, having bought the franchise just two years ago for $25 million, selling it for $200 million isn’t exactly a poor return on their investment.

So some Terminator fans are wondering who is going to buy it and whether they can turn out anything on film that matches or even comes close to James Cameron’s Terminator 2. Others hope that the appreciated but ultimately canceled show Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles will enjoy a reappearance. Of course, for Hollywood, some things are simply too logical to occur, like making a sequel to insanely loved and successful film Serenity.

However, it’s far more likely that the same thing will happen to the Terminator franchise as happens to virtual all franchises where audiences are guaranteed: it will run even further downhill in a stream of campy, half-ass projects meant only to glean as much money from the success of the first two films as possible. In short, Cameron’s amazing success on T2 will mean that subsequent films only have to be half as good to make money. It’s hard to pinpoint what made the most recent iteration – Terminator: Salvation – fall short of the mark. But even with Christian Bale, excellent effects, and an interesting story, the film indeed lacks something special – whatever ingredient the first two films were able to tap into.

While no company – even one going through chapter 11 – is every going to risk a certain $200 million, I propose another path for the Terminator saga. Like a future ruled by Skynet and the machines, this path is also only a possibility, and not even one that we’re likely to see anytime soon.

How about if instead of selling off a storyline that has become an iconic imagine of our tech-obsessed world to the highest bidder, they give it to the fans. That means lifting all restrictions of copyright on future products. If anyone wants to write a story, make a movie, create an action figure, or code a game based on the Terminator series, then let them without any injunctions. But add one stipulation: that the company that owns the franchise can monetize those creations.

Imagine it: instead of a $250 million dollar piece of garbage being the next film to bear the Terminator name, it’s a series of fan-made shorts airing in theaters. Maybe live-action, maybe CGI, maybe animated. I have zero doubts that whatever fans produced would be far superior to what Hollywood would (not could) make in terms of story, content, and that all-too-allusive heart. Sure, major studies can pull big names, so blockbusters can (but often don’t) have solid acting and amazing effects.

But consider the difference between fan-made The Hunt for Gollum and billion-dollar Lord of the Rings by Peter Jackson, et al. Indeed, Jackson’s work is finer in terms of effects and the overall hotty factor of his elves, but these differences are in no way proportional to the difference in cost. In other words, the maker of The Hunt for Gollum came eerily close to Lord of the Rings without being in the same solar system so far as costs go. The same would indeed happen with Terminator.

Of course it would prove a huge gamble, but since so few fan-made projects have enjoyed big-budget advertising and buzz-making, it’s hard to tell how much money they would make. Then again, there simply wouldn’t be that much money you would have to make. When some 60% of films don’t make it into the black at theaterical release, you have to wonder how much money is too much when it comes to the production. You may create an amazing film in terms of set, effects, and cast, but if it cost you $300 million and the film itself lacks any real heart, then you’ve got a long way to go to realize gain. Distribute a shoestring budget production for fans by fans, and you’re only risking the cost of advertising.

Like I said, this is about as likely to happen as is the Skynet holocaust, but what a beautiful possibility.

A recent Ars Technica story covers a Web site that collects donations from people who feel guilty for the things they’ve pirated. I’m not making this up.

The site, which is more of a blog with a donation button, seeks to let the only mildly piratical among us to give money back to the industry they’ve ripped off in hopes of being able to sleep at night. Ironically, the benefactors of these donations remain unveiled for supposedly legal reasons (since admitting to taking pirate booty passively accepts digital piracy).

Donations cannot be tracked, and do nothing to mitigate potential lawsuits. Comments from site visitors notes that donating (via PayPal) is part and parcel to admitting guilt. While I seriously doubt that any company could use such information to effectively form a “hit list” of pirate targets, I wouldn’t put it past owner/operator Drew K from Australia to sell the list of donors to the highest bidder. I just don’t happen to think there’d be any bidders.

It’s amazing that we’ve been able to feel so guilty that someone’s job can be reconciling that guilt with money – certainly very little or none of which will reach the artists after passing through this company, the anonymous beneficiaries, and the legal bureaucrats in-between.

So what’s a more pragmatic answer? If you feel guilty and want to give back, why not purchase what you pirated? Then – according to the first sale doctrine – you can always resell or gift it after you’ve enjoyed it. Pirated products don’t sell well nor are they good gifts. Buy something you pirated and enjoyed, and you can give a good gift and feel better all at once. After all, you wouldn’t purchase something you pirated that sucked, would you? You would only buy something that you really enjoyed. So giving it to someone else to enjoy should free you from any residual guilt you feel from file-sharing it.

Or, you could always buy a derivative or sequel work. If you downloaded Firefly, go buy Serenity. If you downloaded both of them, buy the graphic novel (which is quite good, I might add).

But just sending this opportunist some money to feel better? Not so much.

Luckily, Drew K admits that the site hasn’t been too popular since its January 2009 launch. Doubtless, it will sink into the abyss before long. Despite big media propaganda perpetually trying to solidify the guilt we should all feel from copyright infringement, it just isn’t happening. Hmmm….I wonder why that is.

In a definitive victory, a judge ruled that ring tones do not count as a “public performance” and therefore necessitate a license via performance rights middleman such as ASCAP or BMI. Good thing, seeing as how that would mean the end of all licensed ring tones, since such a ludicrous idea would be impossible in practice without a blanket license from which only ASCAP would benefit.

There is a facet of the copyright statute regarding performances, however, that says that no performance necessitates licensing so long as no one paid to listen, had to pay to enter the place in which the music is being played, and that the person “playing” it is gaining no money. This is why you can play your portable boom box at the park or beach and not have to have a license, despite it being a “public performance”.

ASCAP certainly knows this, but leave it to middlemen to try and create a ruling in their favor when – logistically – there’s no difference in carrying a radio playing “Like a Prayer” and carrying a cell phone that rings with the same song.

Luckily, US District Judge Denise Cote was on her a-game and saw the erroneous and ultimately redundant nature of ASCAP’s decision. I have little doubt this will arise again, and we’ll just have to hope that folks like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others stay on the forefront of this battle, lest big media make humming subject to litigation.

Recently, an Ars Technica story spoke to GameStop’s latest tactic to up sales. They are making deals with game manufacturers to offer extended content to those who pre-order or reserve games. Pre-orders are indeed a great way for companies to test the market waters, and have increased in popularity as of late.

So what does this mean for those who would rather buy their games at a retailer such as Target or Wal-Mart, or simply don’t want to pay full price. Video games have a very short lifespan of selling at the $50 (PC) or $60 (console) price caps. Sometimes only weeks after initial release, a game will sell for two-thirds the initial retail price. This holds especially true for bad games, of which there are plenty. Inspiring pre-orders or at least sales at full price are key for pushing crummy games, where the market would quickly let gamers know if a game is not worth the cost.

The story highlights another positive in that this could bridge the rift between the gaming industry and sellers such as GameStop, which share a notoriously antipathy. The industry doesn’t like that GameStop and others can sell used games. They only receive money for the first sale, even if the game is sold, bought, and resold a hundred times. This is the real reason for DRM and limitations on how many times certain games can be installed.

What the industry needs to realize, however, is that this will do nothing to curb piracy. Pirates will be the first to enjoy the extra content, as this would provide extra prestige for any release group putting the pre-order game with extras onto file-sharing networks. The only people who will suffer are the spendthrifts and those who purchase their games elsewhere. So long as extras are confined to a magical item or an extra board, this is fine. But if and when whole portions of the game are relegated to pre-orders and pirates, there’s a real problem.

Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, because the answer would be that more spendthrifts would opt for piracy than purchasing.

Big media lawyer makes RIAA/MPAA stance clear on the limitations consumers should have in using their own media.

Listen to more on this article.

What effect will the Pirate Party’s agenda have on movements to make existing copyright better? Creative Commons and General Public License work on top of current copyright structure, and some worry that abolishing facets of the copyright structure could weaken copyleft ideas along with it.

Listen to more on this article.

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) ordered that video of musician Calvin Harris be pulled from YouTube. Only one problem – it was Harris who posted it.

Listen to more on this article.

EA Games’ newest game in the C + C series only operates while connected to the Internet. What’s at play here: Anti-piracy or extra content?

Listen to more on this article.

France finally pushed through a “three strikes” law that would fine, blacklist, or even imprison Internet users accused of file-sharing.

Listen to more on this article.

Music industry execs admit they should have embraced the Napster model – now ten years old. What stopped them then was the inability to clear rights. What’s stopping them now? Well…the inability to clear rights and disperse funds. Sounds like someone needs to have a corporate pow-wow. Original story from Ars Technica: http://tinyurl.com/kjlajt

Listen to more on this article.