… to comment about your love of piracy while mocking the movie industry and including all kinds of personally-identifying information.
( I blurred the information to protect the guilty, but it is posted on a public forum and available for anyone to see. )
A few years ago, while I was home at my parents, I found this:
What is it? It’s a cassette tape… with software on it. Back when my parents first bought us a computer, it didn’t have a disk drive. It had a tape drive. The tape drive was connected to the computer, and when you wanted to load a program, you had to fast-forward or rewind to the location on the tape where the program started. Then, you pressed ‘play’ and waited for several minutes for the computer to read the software into memory by converting sounds into bits. The sounds would also play over the speaker, and it was really irritating. If the tape was getting old, the program wouldn’t load, and you’d have to start over and try again. I went ahead and recorded the sound that was on the tape. Enjoy: Atari Tape Recording
It’s not often that a local news station will do a story that makes it into the national gaming news (Joystiq, Penny Arcade, Kotaku, Digg). And, by “local”, I mean that I walked down to the coffeeshop across the street from KDVR today, and did some work. I would’ve egged the building, but then they’d do a story about how video games make people aggressive.
(Who is that mysterious man on the roof?)
The story: Xbox a Sex Box? Child sex predators exploiting Xbox to find victims.
It’s been a little over two months since the game’s release. I’ve been pretty happy with the number of things I’ve accomplished since the release, including doing updates at least once a week. Here’s a list of 129 Items (Suggestions or Bug-Fixes) that have been added to the game since its launch:
Version 1.01.3737, January 26, 2009
– Fixed a bug that caused turn-processing to run very slowly (in one case, the time dropped from 67 seconds to 2.7 seconds)
– Added additional information to the city-build window
– Added the Pangea map-type to the New Game window
– Fixed a display bug with radar lines
– Fixed a crash
– Fixed a bug with city-population growth
– Removed the city ‘anchor’ icon and replaced it with a blue number indicating the number of city improvements.
– Fixed a display bug with the technology tree
– Fixed an issue with aircraft combat
Version 1.01.3118, January 18, 2009
– Fixed a crash
– Fixed the washout bug
– Faster draw system (about 20% faster)
– Added “Pangea” to the Map Editor, but not the New Game window because the AI seems to run slowly on Pangea maps (will be fixed in the next update)
Version 1.01.2818, January 11, 2009
– Border Violation bug: The AI should not detect units inside transports
– The AI won’t complain about submarine border violations unless he actually saw the submarine
– “Sightings” list now shows the unit-name, rather than just “Sighted”
– Fixed some problems with the AI that caused it to consume lots of memory on large maps
– Adjusted ship/submarine combat balances
– – Some of the changes
– – – Reduced Battleship->Submarine power, Increased Battleship->Ship power
– – – Slightly reduced Cruisers->submarines power, Increased Cruiser->Aircraft power, reduced the cost of cruisers by 7%
– – – Increased Destroyers->Submarines power, reduced the cost of destroyers by 10%
– – The end result is that ships have more defined roles
– – – Destroyers->Submarines (good), Destroyers->Ships (fair), Destroyers->TacticalAircraft (fair)
– – – Cruisers->Submarines (fair), Cruisers->Ships (fair-good), Cruisers->TacticalAircraft (good)
– – – Battleships->Submarines (poor), Battleships->Ships (good), Battleships->TacticalAircraft (fair/poor)
– Satellites move faster now
– Fixed problem with Battleship bombardment (can’t target) and artillery bombardment (can’t target some enemies)
– Added a ‘random’ option to Game Setup > Land Density
– Added a ‘random’ option to Game Setup > City/Resource density
– Cities could see submarines out to a range of 60. Changed this – cities cannot see submarines by default anymore
– Fixed a bug in the Map Editor that was switching to the wrong player
– Added some debug settings to the Preferences Window to help track-down the washout-bug
– Fixed a crash that occurs when you change the “View As” setting
– Added a flag to the map-tooltip (important when hovering over a yellow-diamond and you can’t see the unit)
– Fixed a bug that caused aircraft unit-groups to ignore field orders
Version 1.01.2609, January 4, 2009
– When the AI sends a “violating my borders” message, it will tell you exactly which units are violating its borders
– Reduced the amount of memory used by borders
– Fixed a bug that would cause the AI to falsely complain about border violations
– Fixed a bug with the rules-editor that could cause the game to crash
– Players can see other players borders if they are near their own borders
– Fixed a crash during Turn-Processing. It’s related to expired TradeAgreeements
Version 1.01.2459, December 31, 2009
– Fixed bug: Sometimes the city-build window wouldn’t appear, causing player to think the game locked up
– Added Borders
– – Borders are created automatically, based on cities and resources
– – The AI gets irritated if you violate his borders
– Fixed a crash during turn-processing
– Fixed a lockup during turn-processing
– Adjusted some things on the MapEditor interface to make map< ->scenario more obvious
– Aircraft can be given more complex (move to, land, move to, land) orders
– Added ‘sentry for five turns’
– Units which are set to ‘sentry until repaired’ will not attack enemies based on field-orders
– UnitGroups can be given orders to ‘sentry until repaired’ (until all units inside the group are repaired)
– Repairs cost iron. The iron cost is equivalent to the original iron cost (e.g. a ship at 50% damage will require 50% of the iron that it cost to build it originally).
– Fixed bug: AI was not accepting trade agreements
Version 1.01.2038, December 23, 2009
– Fixed bug: sometimes the ‘trade window’ doesn’t allow players to enter numbers
– The game-setup window now let’s players individually adjust land-density, cities, gold, iron, food, and oil abundance.
– – This applies to random maps and custom maps/scenarios.
– – Added the same feature to the map-editor’s random map generator tool.
– Changes to the AI:
– – Now, the AI can experience resource shortages
– – Fixed a bug that was causing the AI to be too passive
– – Added more behaviors to the AI to make it smarter
– Nukes automatically trigger war
– Added ability to turn-off the ‘low oil’ warning on the cursor (in the preferences window)
– Made adjustments to the pathfinding system to (hopefully) avoid the ship-beached-on-land problem
– Fixed problems with satellites:
– – it sometimes showed the wrong time until crash
– – they were jumping to their target location after launch
– Fixed bug: Sometimes if aircraft land at the very end of a turn, they are not refueled
– Fixed a bug with food-shortage starvation
– Added warning popups that appear if you try to submit your turn and you’re about to have a resource shortage.
Version 1.01.1609, December 17, 2009
– Reduced memory use
– – Reduced memory-use by 20% or more when playing the game
– – Save-game files are about 35% smaller (which also means faster loads/saves)
– Faster AI
– – In one test case involving a 4000×3200 map and 5 AI on turn 110, the AI processing time was halved
– Fixed bug: Nuclear Bombers running out of fuel/not destroying target
– Altered the AI to reduce wolfpack attacks (where players jump in and attack players already at war)
– Fixed bug: Game sometimes crashes after forming a team
– Added “oil shortage/low oil” icons to the cursor, and a warning message when submitting turn
Version 1.01.1203, December 11, 2009
– An upgrade order no longer turns-off ‘sentry’.
– Added a “70% Population” Victory condition
– Improved the trade window interface
– – The interface splits immediate-trade and ongoing trade
– – Allow per-turn open-market trade
– – The AI gives more feedback on trades
– – You can improve foreign relations with the AI by giving generous trade agreements or gifts
– Fixed bug: Can’t cancel ongoing trade agreements
– Fixed a bug invoving the production money in cities without orders
– Small decreases in memory use and AI processing time
– Removed ‘Freighters’ from the Field Orders list
– Fixed bug: The Foreign Relations window showed the wrong information if you’re not Player 1
– Fixed bug: Saved Games don’t remember the ‘sneak attack’ state
– Fixed bug: Infantry UnitGroup cannot capture a neutral airfield
– Added a “Full” icon to transports/carriers when they are full
– City list is sorted from highest-production city to lowest-production city
Version 1.01.777, December 5, 2009
– Fixed bug: The scenario editor forgets player restrictions if you edit the map-setup settings.
– Fixed bug: Players were allowed to do per-turn open-market trades
– Added a page to the game-manual for the “Unit Description” window.
– Bumped up the version from 1.0 to 1.01 because it was triggering a bug that users weren’t being automatically notified of updates
– Fixed lockup (turn processing never ends) that can happen when sending Units to join a UnitGroup
– Fixed bug: sometimes unit-groups cannot target enemies
– Improved some things with unit-groups and orders, to make it more intuitive
– Fixed bug: National Summary information was wrong if you weren’t Player 1.
– Added “Show All Paths”/”Show all Orders”, and a hotkey (K)
– Fixed bug: Nuclear Bomber was showing up on the idle-units list even though it had orders
– Thumbnails are automatically added to map/scenario uploads
– Fixed a bug in the download system – only the first paragraph of the “Description” section was showing up
– Fixed a lockup during Turn Processing
Version 1.0.613, December 2, 2009
– If a city has a “Produce Wealth” order, and you select a new build item, “Produce Wealth” is automatically removed from the queue
– Fixed bug: Problem moving ground unit that was next to water
– Fixed bug: Sometimes units don’t capture resources
– Fixed bug: Aircraft can’t land on moving aircraft carriers
– Fixed bug: Sometimes sea-units cannot move into/out-of certain coastal cities
– Fixed bug: Certain units (air-units that self-destruct) were not showing up on the “idle units” list (this was by design, but I decided to change it; players can just hit ‘sentry’)
– Changed some code around to hopefully avoid crashes
– Fixed the crash that occurs if you try to pickup an air-unit from a city
– Fixed a problem with AI technology research
– Tweaks to the AI to make it more active
Version 1.0.461, November 29, 2009
– Fixed some memory leaks, reduced memory use
– Faster AI
– Players can now see how many people are in the chatroom from the main-menu
– Players can tag others as friends, and see if they are in the chatroom from the main menu
– Thumbnail images on the ‘Downloads’ tab (inside ‘Updates and Downloads’). This isn’t fully functional yet, but you can see the Europe and Mediterranean thumbnails.
– Fixed a variety of bugs related to unit-repair and “sentry until repaired” orders
– Fixed a crash that occurs when loading certain files. Error in a compression algorithm.
– Fixed bug: Aircraft in aircraft carriers sometimes show up in ‘idle units’ list even though they have orders
– Fixed bug: Sometimes aircraft won’t move if they are given orders to move to nearly their maximum range
I was thinking about DRM lately, and one idea that crossed my mind was this: what about a system where every executable contains a serial number. The serial number would be long (and therefore resistant to brute-force attacks). It would be used whenever connecting to the (company) servers to get updates, play multiplayer games, or any other downloadable game content.
You could then install the software wherever you wanted, without any kind of server validation, but if too many computers with the same serial number started asking for the exact same update or multiplayer access, then we could assume the game had been pirated. That serial number could be automatically blacklisted from server access. In other words, if someone uploads their copy to a pirate website, they would end up harming their own copy and all the pirates could also be blocked from accessing the server. Optionally, the application could either be disabled or could start show a nag message about buying the software.
While it doesn’t actually stop anyone from using the application (unless the application is disabled, as indicated above), this system is resistant to a variety of hacks. Using a long serial number means people can’t just guess a different serial number for their copy. If they rewrite the serial number to something else (like a bad serial number), they still can’t access the server.
This system would also accomplish a couple of good things. It would allow the application to continue working even if there were no DRM servers running (e.g. if the company goes bankrupt). It allows users to install the application where they want without needing to remember a registration code (the registration code is built in). Users would never have to worry about unregistering their copies on old computers (if you computer suddenly dies or your hard drive goes bad, no problem because the only thing that matters is whether it’s asking for updates or server access). It allows the company to recognize and selectively ban copies that have been spread on the internet by pirates.
While I was thinking about this, I realized that it only works very well for software. And it works better for multiplayer games than single-player games. (If someone pirates a single-player game, doesn’t care about updates, and doesn’t care about downloadable content, it doesn’t really restrict them.) Theoretically, this DRM system could be open-sourced, too, because it doesn’t get harmed by the fact that people can see what’s going on inside the code. Plus, it would be nice to see people’s reaction to the phrase “open source DRM”. I don’t think I’d want to do that, though, because I think open-source DRM would attract too many confederates who want to either destroy the system or build-in backdoors. One other possible problem with the system is that a pirate could hack the application to point it to another server, then setup their own (open source) copy of the server elsewhere, serving up copies of the updates and other downloadable content. This would a somewhat dangerous strategy, though, because it means setting up a website. Websites can get shutdown, they cost money, and it means that their identity might be revealed. Still, I’ve seen websites that were clones of other websites, in an attempt to get some ad-traffic based on someone elses’s content.
Unfortunately, it’s not a system that can work for things like movies or music, because they don’t benefit from updates, server-access, or multiplayer access. Well, the other day, I stumbled on one company seems to be trying this strategy with music:
Is the World Ready for the Successor of the MP3?
A leading technology company is set to launch a new digital music file format that will embed additional content for fans including lyrics, news updates and images in what could be a successor to the ubiquitous MP3 file.
…
Music labels, bands or retailers could then also send updates to the music file every time they have something new to announce such as the dates of future tours, new interviews or updates to social network pages.
(Source: Wired Magazine)
What they seem to be doing in this case is embedding a serial number in the MP3 metadata. They then update the file with new data (images, lyrics, etc) if you have a valid serial number. I don’t think their system works very well, though. First, once someone gets the update, they can pass it around to everyone else, giving them access to the images and lyrics. Also, I’m unclear on what happens if you have 40 songs by one artist. Are all 40 mp3s going to get updated with tour dates? That seems inefficient. And, what if someone had one legitimate mp3 on my system, and 39 pirated mp3s? Would that mean that the one legitimate mp3 be enough to get all the tour date and news information? While it’s generally a step in the right direction, I don’t think it’s going to be terribly beneficial to the music industry. Maybe it will help pull-in some of the music fanatics that absolutely need the best.
I have to admit, I still think there’s something just a little bit off in her face, but it’s quite good.
As a followup to my previous blog post, where I claim that the EFF is pro-piracy.
There are a number of articles on the EFF website that make me think they are pro-piracy, or, at least, indifferent to the issue. For example, this article, posted a few weeks ago (and linked to all over the internet by pirates):
EFF: Most Pirated Movie of 2009 … Makes Heaps of Money
According to TorrentFreak, last summer’s Star Trek movie was the “most pirated movie of 2009.” So it seems that Paramount Pictures was prescient when it gave testimony before the FCC that used Star Trek as an illustrative example of how “Internet piracy” is poised to devastate Hollywood and (though the nexus here is less than clear) undermine residential broadband in America.
Funny thing is, Star Trek is on course to make more than $100 million in profits.
Here’s the financial breakdown, courtesy of The Numbers.com, which gathers financial data for movie industry analysts:
Production costs: $140m
Promotion costs: ~$100m
Global box office revenues: $385m
U.S. TV syndication rights: $30m
DVD & Bluray revenues (anticipated, based on sales and rentals since Nov. 2009): >$100m
When I first read the EFF’s article, my thoughts were that the movie studios picked a particularly bad example to cite as a victim of piracy. But, I also had doubts about judging the health of the industry based on one movie, and thought about the fact that Star Trek was highly rated by viewers, so maybe they can legitimately claim it should’ve made more. (Box Office Mojo readers gave the movie an “A-“.)
But, then I checked the EFF’s numbers, and I became less convinced of their argument. So, to clear up some of the sketchy numbers: According to BoxOfficeMojo, the production budget was $150 million (rather than $140 million). More importantly, “Global box office revenues” is the money taken by the movie theaters. I’ve read elsewhere that Movie studios and theaters split that money 50/50 (*see update). This means that, from the movie-production studio’s perspective, the box office revenues that they see are half of $385m.
When “DVD & Blueray revenues” say $100m, I believe that’s the amount of money paid by customers to retailers (e.g. Best Buy or Amazon), not the amount of money seen by the movie studios themselves. Like the movie-theater numbers, the movie studios might be seeing half or less of that $100m, because stores like Best Buy typically make half of the money from each sale. Plus, there’s some small packaging costs.
The updated numbers, from the movie studio’s perspective, should say:
Production costs: $150m (not $140m)
Promotion costs: ~$100m
Global box office revenues: $192.5m (not $385m)
U.S. TV syndication rights: $30m
DVD & Bluray revenues (anticipated): >$50m* (not $100m)
Using these updated numbers, then things look like this: Costs: $250m, Revenue: $272.5m. Total profit: $22.5m or 9% return on investment. And that 9% mostly disappears once you consider inflation and interest rates.
The EFF’s numbers suggest that Star Trek made a 115% return on investment. More importantly, the EFF article contains this:
As 2009 comes to a close, there is no evidence out there that “Internet piracy” is leaving us with fewer creators or fewer copyrighted works
I think that shows the EFF’s attitude towards piracy: it isn’t a problem despite what people say; it’s a non-issue, it needs no remedy, creators need no protection from piracy. Honestly, this sounds like something that the Pirate Bay could’ve written.
Update:
* I’ve seen a number of contradictory claims about how movie theaters and movie studios split the money on ticket sales. Whatever the case, it is misleading for the EFF to use the $385m “Global box office revenue” number without qualifying the fact that studios do not see 100% of that money, which is what the average reader will assume.
Source #1: “This percentage will vary from movie to movie depending on the specifics of the individual leasing deal. For instance, 2 movie theatre managers told me that for Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, the studio took 100% of the box office take for the first week of release… Now, as you move into the second and third weeks of release, the percentage starts to swing to anywhere from 45% – 55% that the theatre gets to keep. It gets better after the fourth week when theatres generally can keep up to 80% or better of the ticket sales.”
Source #2: “Except for a small operational fee paid to theaters, for the first two weeks that a movie was playing in theaters, 100% of ticket revenue went to the studio. In the third week, the studio would take about 90% of ticket revenue, while the theater would earn 10%. The fourth week, they’d split revenue 80/20, then the next week 70/30, then 60/40, until the level reached 50/50, where the division of money stayed until the end of the movie’s run.”
In response to Source #2, one commenter writes: “I study the industry and have 2 years of contract data between theaters and movie distributors. The average rental fee paid on all movies in that time period was 52%. In the first week, the highest it ever is is 70%, and it goes down from there. So you’re wrong when you say that theaters barely make any money on the tickets. They keep 48% of it on average.”
Source #3: “Upon initial release, for the first 10 days of a movie, the box office is split 80/20 in favor of the studio. For the next 10 days, it is split 60/40 in favor of the studio. For the next 10 days, the split is 50/50. For the next 10 days and usually a films final week in theaters the split is 30/70 in favor of the theater. If a movie makes it to almost 2 months in theaters the split goes to 20/80 (theater favor) for the remainder of the film’s time at the theater. For most films – this ends up being a 50/50 split over the entire run of the movie in theaters.”
It would be nice to get the numbers from some typical theater – something like “in 2009, we took in X dollars of revenue from ticket sales, and paid-out Y dollars to movie studios”.
The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) does some decent stuff, and does some work to help protect freedom of speech on the internet. But, once you know that pro-piracy crusaders like Cory Doctorow and Lawrence Lessig are associated with their organization, then it should raise some red flags. Doctorow, for example, has sold “I pirate music” t-shirts on his website, and promoted books teaching people how to pirate and not get caught. Looking at EFF’s stance on issues, it becomes clear that they are (as an organization) taken a pro-piracy stance on things. This is the reason I could never actually support their work. It would be great to see a more moderate version of the EFF, one that doesn’t take a pro-freeloader / anti-creator stance.
Recently, the EFF began promoting “Real Net Neutrality”. Here’s what they say:
“Tell the FCC: Don’t let Hollywood hijack the Internet”
Already with the title, the EFF is drumming up fear-tactics with words like “hijack the Internet”. What does that mean? It sounds scary. I can imagine all kinds of terrible things. What it actually means in this context is “Content creators are unhappy with rampant piracy on the internet. Current legislation would permit ISPs to not-deliver internet packets when they contain copyright-infringing material”. That’s a whole lot less scary, but the EFF clearly wants to use a scary phrase.
Last fall, the Federal Communications Commission proposed rules for “Net Neutrality†— a set of regulations intended to help innovation and free speech continue to thrive on the Internet.
But is the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality the real deal? Or is it a fake?
Buried in the FCC’s rules is a deeply problematic loophole. Open Internet principles, the FCC writes, “do not… apply to activities such as the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.â€
The net-neutrality bill would allow ISPs to throttle the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works? Gee, it’s a good thing the EFF has stuck out their neck to fight against this. Based on the phrasing, it almost seems as if the EFF thinks that piracy should be permitted as a part of “free speech”. Personally, I actually find it “deeply problematic” that the EFF thinks throttling copyright-infringement is a problem.
For years, the entertainment industry has used that innocent-sounding phrase — “unlawful distribution of copyrighted works” — to pressure Internet service providers around the world to act as copyright cops — to surveil the Internet for supposed copyright violations, and then censor or punish the accused users.
And the EFF uses the scary-sounding phrase “copyright cops” to describe the action of not delivering or slowly-delivering packets when people are involved in copyright violations. Since Net Neutrality is only concerned with the speed of the internet, it seems that slowing down/stopping the delivery of copyrighted material is equivalent to “censoring” and “punishing”. Stopping copyright infringement is not censorship. The fact that the EFF would describe it as censorship tells you a few things about where the EFF stands — and it’s against the creators.
From the beginning, a central goal of the Net Neutrality movement has been to prevent corporations from interfering with the Internet in this way — so why does the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality specifically allow them to do so?
The claim that “from the beginning, a central goal of the Net Neutrality has been to prevent corporations from interfering with [piracy]” is historical revisionism. I support net neutrality, but not when it involves copyright infringement. (To use a page from the EFF’s playbook, perhaps we could say that the EFF is attempting to hijack the Net Neutrality legislation to make the world safer for piracy.)
Besides, if the EFF believes that the goal of Net Neutrality is to let everything flow freely, then they should take a real stand and tell us that child pornography is part of “free speech” and ISPs should never be allowed to interfere with its transmission. At least then, they would be consistent.
“Tell the FCC that if it wants to police the Internet, it first needs to demonstrate that it can protect Internet users and innovators by standing up to powerful industry lobbyists. Sign your name here to demand that the copyright-enforcement loophole be removed.”
This is clearly a false dichotomy. The EFF wants to make the internet safe for piracy, but it does this under the cloak of saying that the FCC isn’t standing up to “powerful industry lobbyists”? Whether you think big-business has too much influence in government doesn’t mean you can just trample over the legitimate rights of copyright holders. That’s the equivalent of saying that Oil Companies have too much influence on the government, and therefore, people should be allowed to steal all the gasoline they want until the government stands up to “big oil”.
The EFF really needs to straighten out their act and stop going out of their way to side with freeloaders.
Addendum, January 16:
Please see my recent post about the EFF’s attitude towards piracy where they say: “there is no evidence out there that “Internet piracy†is leaving us with fewer creators or fewer copyrighted works”. (In other words: piracy is not a problem; there is no need to address the piracy issue.)
EFF: Piracy Not the Problem – “Piracy is the red herring of the digital music distribution debate” (Ironically, that statement was made at the peak of the Music Industry’s sales – in 1999. The past ten years have seen music sales decline by over 50%.)
EFF releases tool to detect if your ISP is throttling BitTorrent.
EFF defends the makers of Morpheus, Grokster, and KaZaA against a lawsuit brought by the record companies. (Admittedly, I’m doubtful that the creators of P2P software should be held liable, but I wouldn’t want to support them in court, nor could you argue that they were naive about creating anything other than software for the purpose of sharing copyrighted material.)
At Wired magazine: “The EFF vigorously urged the Copyright Office to authorize jailbreaking, which in this case is hacking the phone’s OS, and hence allowing consumers to run any app on the phone they want, including [pirated applications and] those not authorized by Apple.”
Dave Winer, an early supporter of the EFF:
I gave $5000 to the EFF when they started, I think it was in 1990, with the noble goal of protecting freedoms as our technology and culture move online. I think I have supported every cause the EFF has adopted since then, but that’s no longer true. I gave this a lot of thought, believe me, and had a long email exchange with Brad Templeton, the chairman of the EFF board of directors, and think they have become as radically polarized as the entertainment industry, and like Hollywood are now working against the interests of those they were meant to serve. The issue appears to be copyright, and it appears that the EFF believes there should be no copyright….
The problem with the EFF position is that in order to remain consistent, they have had to say that copyright doesn’t exist — if a policy or law restricts what a user can do on the Internet then that is a bad policy or law. The courts can’t agree with the EFF. I don’t agree with the EFF.
A while ago, I happened to see the movie “Moon”, and recommended it. Well, it looks like they’ve put the first seven minutes of the movie up on the internet. You can watch it here, courtesy of the Independent Film Channel:
Pretty clever mashup. One word of advice: if you get caught at the very end of the level, you only need to build the outline.
