(07-03-2011, 06:19 PM)Kriven Wrote: They already have a formal course of action, seeing as the material is already illegal. However, the bill is stating that the federal court can arrest people without charges being pressed by the company. That's what the big deal is about. It's about the federal government arresting people for something the individual companies really don't give two shits about.

(07-04-2011, 02:03 AM)GrooveMan.exe Wrote:

(07-03-2011, 06:19 PM)Kriven Wrote: They already have a formal course of action, seeing as the material is already illegal. However, the bill is stating that the federal court can arrest people without charges being pressed by the company. That's what the big deal is about. It's about the federal government arresting people for something the individual companies really don't give two shits about.

And where's the guarantee that even the federal government care enough to chase up the most egregious examples?

I fuckin' love LPs, but amusingly, all I can think of is this getting rid of the shitty Youtube Camcorder LPs. Which would improve the state of the Internet by measures. Though, it's good that you recognise/accept that LPs and the like are already illegal; I'm getting a lot of noise of people complaining that their rights are being impinged by this but... they never really had any rights in the first place.

(07-04-2011, 06:28 PM)GrooveMan.exe Wrote: Sooooo your argument is that LPs as a general concept are free advertising? While there are people dedicated to reviewing obscure or underrated games; the vast majority of online videogame footage is pretty much just shit. To the degree where there's a lot of high-quality content mocking the low-quality content. That's... not really great advertising.

(07-04-2011, 10:22 PM)Negative-Zer0 Wrote: This is exorcising communism.

(07-04-2011, 10:31 PM)Sengir Wrote:

(07-04-2011, 10:22 PM)Negative-Zer0 Wrote: This is exorcising communism.

Communism is protecting a game company's rights?
Or is communism ensuring people don't freely stream another artist's music?

Either I'm all for communism or you're taking something you dislike and calling it communism.

(07-04-2011, 10:22 PM)Negative-Zer0 Wrote: This basically takes away peoples right to do things though. Why would you want a law that basically prohibits "normies" from posting video game footage. Becuase you don't like them and you would take that right away from all americans? Bullshit. This is exorcising communism. It's a little offensive that you are actually in favor of a bill that limits rights. What the crap is that.

P.S. No beef.

(07-05-2011, 02:21 AM)GrooveMan.exe Wrote:

(07-04-2011, 10:22 PM)Negative-Zer0 Wrote: This basically takes away peoples right to do things though. Why would you want a law that basically prohibits "normies" from posting video game footage. Becuase you don't like them and you would take that right away from all americans? Bullshit. This is exorcising communism. It's a little offensive that you are actually in favor of a bill that limits rights. What the crap is that.

P.S. No beef.

You seem to be missing the point where they never had that right in the first place. They were already breaking copyright laws. The footage they're uploading was never 'theirs'. Purchasing a game gives you the right for the purachaser to play said game and not much else. In theory the average use of most games would be breaking some kind of ToS, but the fact of the matter is that for the most part, the companies didn't act on it. It wasn't worth spending the resources to chase down shitty camcoder LPs.

This is becuase video games have to be played. It doesn't hurt as much as it helps. Leaks can be a blow to a company, but other than that, there is now way you can get the same experience playing a game by watching a video other than buying it. ( i know the other illegal alternative)

What's changed now is that apparently the US government has the ability to chase down shitty camcorder LPs. But that's still going to cost time and money, something that they might not be so willing to spend, when the previous status quo was to leave most of it be, with the most flaunted examples excepting.

I don't see why they would waste money passing a bill like this with the other shit we have to deal with anyway.

My more positive take on it is that with the US internet [Minor spelling fix ] users somewhat more aware that LPs would be breaking the law, they either take greater steps in protecting what they're doing, or stop. And judging by the average quality of content; that's p. sweet.

This is sugar coating a bad situation. I can also say " Loss of freedom of speech? At least those conspiracy theorist will shut the fuck up." [Keep in mind that this is an example not a direct comparative with the situation]
The bad, in laws like this, will ALWAYS outweigh the good if this is how you truly see it.

I will admit that with the US not being the center of my universe, I am less 'moved' as it were by what this might do to my internet use, but all this cry about a 'loss of freedom' that wasn't actually even there is laughable.

Loss of freedom of you doing an active activity. Gaming videos change every time you play them, no two are the same unless you copy the video. They are interactive with the user so it won't damage gaming companies in any way. It would help expose their game, seeing a game for free isn't as bad as seeing a movie becuase you have to pay to see a movie. You don't have to pay to see a game, you have to pay to play it. It should be re-written becuase I don't support piracy either.

Edit: I think this is the 3rd time I've said this. Deja Vu.

(07-05-2011, 04:59 PM)GaryCXJk Wrote: Not all laws are enforced anyway.

(07-03-2011, 04:52 PM)Zac Wrote: jeeze I just recently started doing let's plays
that's depressing

actually I could probably finish at least one game before this bill passes