Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

I meant as in will they also get flagged. Also, it'll create a few jobs, yet cause so much more damage. Now let's look at the major youtube LPers and streamers. Most of them play new indie games, these games then get more publicity and sales. Without these people the indie gaming companies end up not making as much of a splash, going bankrupt and basically jobless. Then there's the people who run the sites themselves, the lets players who actually make money from lets playing and so on.

 And before you say "Hey they won't flag indie company videos because the companies won't have a problem". Look at youtubes current music policy, all sorts of videos are taken down for containing small amounts of copyright, or no copyrighted materials at all.

But it makes money for all the right people -- the ones that society actually works for, both literally and figuratively.

Just saying... excuse my cynicism regarding political-economic matters...

[EmperorNuthulu]

No, it could actually lose money for the video game developers. How many of you have bought a game due to watching lps? I know I have.

[Soadreqm]

You know why our prisons are overcrowded, right?  They LOVE overbearing criminalizations of stupid shit.  Do 5 minutes of research about the prison system's role in the war on drugs.

But yeah, this is the major one.  Specifically, the rich executives of the industry along with their lawyers and lobbyists and probably a few politicians will make a ton of money.  It's the same thing that's been going on with the intellectual property debate for last 15 years or so.

I'm kind of curious about this, but I'm certainly not going to bother with the research. I guess there's probably some kind of thing where people running prisons get huge amounts of money for having prisoners. That makes some sense. But if they can pass arbitrary laws, wouldn't a "give me all your money" bill be better? Or if that would be too direct for the omniscient council of vagueness, maybe push for the banning of alcohol again? That effectively made everyone a criminal last time. Going after people who post video game Let's Play's (which this bill does not imply but seems to be what you are talking about here) just seems kind of inefficient. Like, "ridiculous conspiracy theory" inefficient.

And just how are the copyright holders going to make money of this? Since it's now a criminal matter, the suspects will be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and someone will actually have to show beyond reasonable doubt that a copyright violation has taken place, and that it is valued at at least 2500 dollars, and that it was performed by the person being accused.

Also, the bill specifies "streaming", which I think refers to live streaming, making YouTube completely exempt from everything it entails.

[SalmonGod]

But if they can pass arbitrary laws, wouldn't a "give me all your money" bill be better? Or if that would be too direct for the omniscient council of vagueness, maybe push for the banning of alcohol again? That effectively made everyone a criminal last time. Going after people who post video game Let's Play's (which this bill does not imply but seems to be what you are talking about here) just seems kind of inefficient. Like, "ridiculous conspiracy theory" inefficient.

And just how are the copyright holders going to make money of this? Since it's now a criminal matter, the suspects will be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and someone will actually have to show beyond reasonable doubt that a copyright violation has taken place, and that it is valued at at least 2500 dollars, and that it was performed by the person being accused.

Also, the bill specifies "streaming", which I think refers to live streaming, making YouTube completely exempt from everything it entails.

I don't see how this qualifies as conspiracy theory... It's been an ongoing legal debate for the last 15 years, and the executive level influence and greed of the film and music industries in their lawsuit campaigns is pretty well documented, along with the plenty of debunking of their stated goals of protecting the artists. 

But the RIAA lawsuit campaign failed (at least in making money directly... it succeeded in some other ways), and so will this if it plays out in similar fashion... just like you're saying.  I fully expect them to try some different tactics, though.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But the RIAA lawsuit campaign failed fully

I think that this may have to do with the RIAA being insane. They suied a Russian MP3 sharing site for 1.65 trillion USD in damages. There are nations that don't have that much money.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, but they managed to generate some paranoia around the act of pirating, solidify the law's stance on file sharing as stealing, make a huge media shitstorm of the issue to convince a very considerable portion of the population to think of it as stealing (many of whom may have never have been even aware of the issue otherwise), and make direct attacks on major hubs.

How much of an effect this has had is highly debatable.  The majority of people who aren't very internet savvy have been scared away from the idea of file sharing anything, but the minority who are internet savvy are more rabid and efficient about it than ever.  Attacking file-sharing services and hubs has turned out to be like cutting the head off a hydra.

And this is ignoring the other stuff that the RIAA/MPAA has done on the side and more recently in gaining leverage on ISPs and more successful lobbying.

[Aklyon]

They are good at media and turning a legal distribution system into the devil because of what its partially used for.
What they are not good at is technical literacy.

[Neonivek]

Also the whole law they passed, that DID succeed, that actually eliminated the "Parody, Education, Review" exceptions under the law indirrectly.

So how is it a conspiracy if... it actually happened?

Mind you... the law was taken down later.

[Soadreqm]

I don't see how this qualifies as conspiracy theory... It's been an ongoing legal debate for the last 15 years, and the executive level influence and greed of the film and music industries in their lawsuit campaigns is pretty well documented, along with the plenty of debunking of their stated goals of protecting the artists. 

What do the film and music industries have to do with it? I thought we were talking about prisons pushing for the criminalization of arbitrary things to get more prisoners to get more money. The RIAA is in on it too? What are they trying to achieve by criminalizing video streaming? Another scare campaign? Well, that definitely sounds more plausible, although still kind of overelaborate.

So how is it a conspiracy if... it actually happened?

You have an organization working in secret to achieve a nefarious goal. I don't see how achieving the goal would make it any LESS of a conspiracy. >:] Well, to be fair, I didn't say "conspiracy", I said "ridiculous conspiracy theory", which kind of implies a scenario that could never take place. To be even more fair, I said it in reference to prison profiteers trying to criminalize Let's Plays in order to get more inmates, which I still maintain does sound ridiculous.

[Aklyon]

I don't see how this qualifies as conspiracy theory... It's been an ongoing legal debate for the last 15 years, and the executive level influence and greed of the film and music industries in their lawsuit campaigns is pretty well documented, along with the plenty of debunking of their stated goals of protecting the artists. 

What do the film and music industries have to do with it? I thought we were talking about prisons pushing for the criminalization of arbitrary things to get more prisoners to get more money. The RIAA is in on it too? What are they trying to achieve by criminalizing video streaming? Another scare campaign? Well, that definitely sounds more plausible, although still kind of overelaborate.

The industries have something to do with it because the MPAA/RIAA are directly related to them, but do you really expect their plan to make sense?

[SalmonGod]

I wasn't saying that the prison system was directly in on it.  Just saying that they would profit, and I know that this can be a factor in legislation, as it has especially been so in the war on drugs. 

I only mentioned it because it irks me when people say "but that will cost so much money!!", because they're forgetting that one person's cost is another's pay.  What you need to pay attention to is where that pay will be going.

Hell, the wars in the middle east have been costly as hell.  The defense industry sure isn't complaining.

[ggamer]

I'm biding my time until this thread turns into Democratic/Republican flame war.

jk.

I can'y believe this would even be considered. Someone earlier said it hasn't been introduced to the floors of either house, meaning someone made a big deal about recommending it to a congressman.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, it was only introduced last month. It's a very young bill, and might not be voted on for a while.

[612DwarfAvenue]

Bah, unlikely to get passed, very likely to be taken down due to pressure from everybody if it does. That's all i can say.

[Neonivek]

You have an organization working in secret to achieve a nefarious goal. I don't see how achieving the goal would make it any LESS of a conspiracy.

There is a connotation that "Conspiracy theory" means "false"

and no I am not joking... I've been accused of telling conspiracy theories that were done right out in the open and told openly too.

It is only a conspiracy if there is a conspiracy.

Anyhow you can't "secretly pass a law" anyhow.