Poll: The death of internet freedom; AKA bill S.978

[mikev7.0]

Watched the video already. It's just wrong.

I don't claim to be an expert, but this news alarmed me and I thought more people should have access to the information so that they can make up their own opinions about it. The fact that this post has already gotten 5 people to sign the message who might not have otherwise, more than sanctifies me.

Um, I don't think the word "sanctify" means what you think it means.... This, for example, in no way makes you sacred or holy. Sweet god....

Also, Sober Thal is right. The speaker in the video just assumes that everybody and every company see the use of someone else's copyrighted material as positive and beneficial. I know from experience that isn't true. Some companies really would like an answer to what they perceive as amateurs misrepresenting their property, and they should have it for the simple fact that well, it's their property. The speaker tries to set using some copyrighted material without permission above others calling videos of t.v. shows and movies piracy, but acting as if he is performing some noble service.

He's not. He's doing the same thing that anyone who uses copyrighted material that doesn't belong to them is doing. Also, yes, they make money for it in various ways, that money or benefit should go to the creators not the critics.

 

[Savagezion]

Holy Crap, that guy is extremely long winded and likes to repeat himself. He repeats himself so much I want to stab him and myself in the eye.

Also, in the video he says "punishable by upwards of 5 years in jail", the bill says "punishable by no more than 5 years." I didn't hear any other mistakes but it was hard not to zone alot of what he was saying out due to repetition. But 12 minutes where he repeats himself, he is an alarmist.

Go ahead and kick me in the crotch, this bill is too vague to pass.

 

[mikev7.0]

I disagree with you because your Bias makes Fox news proud

This is also a great point. If you want to debate a serious topic, fine. Don't just assume that you are preaching to the choir and decide to insult (and I guess even threaten) anyone who would look foolish enough to disagree with the sage wisdom of a person who uses words like "sanctified" without having the slightest clue what it means.

However at your insistence I will contact my representative in support of this bill. I think it will be a good thing that will help creators protect their intellectual property from amateurs.

 

[jimahaff]

WOW... I never thought this would get as many hits as it has, You guys are all awesome; even the people who disagree with me and didn't sign. I would have been happy if only two or three people had signed it, but at the time of posting, just over 300 of you guys have signed. That is so cool, you have all caused me to regain a little faith in humanity; and for that I thank you all from the bottom of my soul.

 

[jimahaff]

Watched the video already. It's just wrong.

I don't claim to be an expert, but this news alarmed me and I thought more people should have access to the information so that they can make up their own opinions about it. The fact that this post has already gotten 5 people to sign the message who might not have otherwise, more than sanctifies me.

OK, you seem to be genuinely concerned and that's fair enough. But I should point out that you might want to rewatch the last minute or so of this video in which it is being stated that the creator in no way wishes to be an alarmist about this sort of thing and that seeing the early stages the bill is in, it will have probably taken a radically different form by the time it's finished, to incorporate all kinds of different aspects of society.

Incidentally, I think you should change your "no"-option, since for someone who obviously values freedom so much, it's not very democratic. It actually contains a slander technique that you might not be consciously aware of; by making the negative option less appealing to choose, you're basically spiking the yes vote.

I know that the bill in in the early stages but that is the best time to act. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." The longer you wait the harder it will be to change, and that goes for everything.

As for the "no" option, I was aware of the slander technique when I wrote it. I like to do things like that when I can simply because they are the meanest evilest things I will ever do. And I like pretending to be evil, when I know that I am not. As for changinig it... I don't know how ); So even If I did take your advice I wouldn't be able to put it into action.

 

[mikev7.0]

Didn't sign, don't plan to. Copyright holders should have the right to decide if they want people to stream their products.

Here is your video anyways:


What people need to realize, is that if a company wants to allow you to make your 'Lets Play' and what not, they can easily give permission to stream their content. They don't have to do so on an individual bases like this video implies.

You watched the video, so what do you thing about that thing where in, say, a kareoke party occurs where your friends sang, and you thought it was funny and put it on Youtube, suddenly putting that video up is a federal offence. How is that fair?

Are you serious?

First. Does the person performing the song actually own it? No. Now, I've seen many, many kareoke parties and believe me, if George Michael doesn't want your cousins rendition of Everything She Wants up on Youtube? Yeah, that should be his god given inalienable right.

An' I feel the same way for much of the content on the internet that is not used with any form of permission, and that makes a profit, or can affect the profit of the actual owner by harming the perception of the product. I think companies (especially video game companies) will want this control after having to watch for years while absolute garbage got flung around with their products name on it.

 

[Hallow'sEve]

I don't really see them able to enforce this law.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

It's just a shame the music industry can't take a hint from the games industry and realise youtube videos are just another advertising tool, and having your music video up there is an AD, not a violation of copyright (Ok, it's both, but considering music videos were INVENTED to advertise an artist or band, restricting their usage is kinda dumb dont ya think? Do you think Gearbox would complain if someone started taking out banner ads promoting Duke without their say so?)

Like many, I'm suspicious of any of these laws which feel kind of unfinished and open ended, open to abuse and restricting freedoms. It'd be much easier if the companies involved just realised that the industry and the market and the ways to make money have changed hugely over the past 20 years, instead of stubbornly digging their heels in and demanding we buy their limited edition blue vinyl singles. (Well, you know what I mean.)

 

[Farther than stars]

they have the right to decide...and they did...but this bill would give the government power to decide..that is the problem

Yeah, I told him the same thing, but having read the bill again I'm wondering whether moves aren't already being made to allow for exemptions. The wording in one of the paragraphs, for instance, already contains the suspiciously worded term "unauthorized distribution".
Although one of my original points still stands. Gaming studios especially small, indie ones may not have the time, money or even awareness of legal complications to make such exemptions and would thereby be hurt by this process (that is still assuming this bill would ever be passed in its current form [highly unlikely]).

If they don't have the "time, money or even awareness" to add one line to a TOS then they don't deserve to be in business.

OT: This bill, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Wow, that's cruel, even compared to what I'm used to. I mean, everyone should have the right to start off a video game company without having to hire an entire marketing department right off the bat, right? After all, if all you want to do is create some cool, fun, indie games to distribute on steam, word-of-mouth advertising might not be the first thing you think of and having to suffer because of some law you didn't know anything about could be harmful to your company. And in turn, we as consumers would never get to play their product.
If you think that because of that, they shouldn't be in business, that's fine, but for me this isn't about business. This is about making entertainment more accessible to the layman and not less, just because some bureaucratic stipulations are making it harder for the industry to do so.

Business is cruel. If the goal is to make entertainment more accessible, there are way of doing that without having to worry about the business end of things. All too often I've seen people dive into a business without knowing what to expect, put out a horrible product, and then complain that legislation is 'against' them. It's the same as when a parent buys a game for their kid and then complains that it's too 'mature' for them. Bullshit; they didn't do their due diligence, and a business owner has the same excuse. None.

I know, that's my point though. I knew you were going to say business is cruel. "If you think that", evidences that I already speculated that you and I have a different outlook on the way things work in relation to how they could work. And by "that's fine" I imply that you are well-entitled to that opinion.
My personal outlook, however, is that business simlpy being cruel is in itself not an excuse for it to stay that way. Socialistic viewpoints tend to lead me towards believing that change is something which is inherent to the improvement of society. After all, whether it is cruel or not, the origin of that word does not describe that which I would like to see any part of my society be like.
Once again, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, but a simple conservative statement such as "business is cruel" is not going to alter the way I feel about this personally.

 

[Farther than stars]

As for the "no" option, I was aware of the slander technique when I wrote it. I like to do things like that when I can simply because they are the meanest evilest things I will ever do. And I like pretending to be evil, when I know that I am not. As for changinig it... I don't know how ); So even If I did take your advice I wouldn't be able to put it into action.

I see. You can change the options by editing your first post and further down the page from your "post editing box", you'll see the options again, where you can change them. Should you choose to eventually follow this advice, you need to wait a few moments after posting before the changes will take effect. Should you not, well... then as stated before it's on your head. The forums simply aren't the place for this kind of thing.

 

[funguy2121]

this bill will unintentionally destroy game videos, walkthroughs, game and movie reviews, home recorded talent shows

This is very very melodramatic. Though I like that 121 people hit "I'm a douche!" in the poll. Thanks, Escapists who have a sense of humor!

I'd like to focus on the above statement. Did not walkthroughs exist before youtube? I used them to get through some tough spots in some of the Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and Metroid Prime games. I also managed to get all the way through quite a few video games before Al Gore did the whole of humanity a solid and invented ye olde internet for us (I really shouldn't give the man/robot too much shit for this. He was probably more responsible for making ARPANET available for mass consumption than anyone else). If I get stuck in a game, I can put it down, go out and live my life, and pick it back up later.

As for Let's Play videos and the like, it irks me when I try to embed a youtube video of a game to make a point on here and that's all I can find. The video is obscured by some stereotypical nasally-voiced nerd who has a poor understanding of humor and is reflected in the screen half the time. That's obnoxious. I don't give a shit at all about Let's Play videos.

Game and movie reviews won't change at all, at least not the ones by paid journos. A developer who just poured millions of dollars into a game isn't going to prevent it from being video-reviewed for fear of its being bashed when the game can be just as trashed in print.

Happy 4th, every one. If you're not American, feel free to get drunk and set off some fireworks this weekend. Maybe not in that order.

 

[jimahaff]

Poll wording changed... I'll be nice.