# American Censorship Day



## Valwin (Nov 16, 2011)

Apparently, Congress is holding a hearing today about an American Internet Censorship System.

They have the potential to radically alter or shut down sites like YouTube, Flickr, 4chan, others, and all new companies that follow

Should this go into effect, most of us can kiss our hoo-ha's goodbye. Many sites will be unavailable due to infringement.

many sites may become a "blocked" site for those of us in the U.S.. You posted a piece of the lyrics to a song on Facebook? Red lights flashing. Youtube? Their going to have a field day with this. You want free anime and music? You receive the scraps that the publishers give you. Remember reading manga online? Time to buy a physical copy and translate it yourself.

Also, many sites that are currently following the "order" of the DMCA will be in hot water.

So many things come about from this restriction and preemptive prosecution. The mere thought that this is reaching the Senate has me wondering, "WTF?!"

http://americancensorship.org/


----------



## 1234turtles (Nov 16, 2011)

dear god please do not let this happen.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 16, 2011)

Mind you this gives them the power to do it but the odds of them shutting down a major site like Youtube or spending the time to censor lyrics on your Facebook page is probably never gonna happen.

Also, free anime and music is pretty much copyright infringement unless they have consent from the distributor or whatever. For example, Funimation has a Youtube channel and they actually keep entire series of anime on there. Will they be taken down? No, because they're the company responsible for their properties. Same deal goes with a lot of artist Youtube channels (even then, you see things such as live concerts and such taken down on Youtube for copyright infringement anyway).

I agree that the measure is unnecessary but complaining about how it will give them the potential to stop you from clearly performing copyright infringement is just being a whiny pirate.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Mind you this gives them the power to do it but the odds of them shutting down a major site like Youtube or spending the time to censor lyrics on your Facebook page is probably never gonna happen.
> 
> Also, free anime and music is pretty much copyright infringement unless they have consent from the distributor or whatever. For example, Funimation has a Youtube channel and they actually keep entire series of anime on there. Will they be taken down? No, because they're the company responsible for their properties. Same deal goes with a lot of artist Youtube channels (even then, you see things such as live concerts and such taken down on Youtube for copyright infringement anyway).
> 
> I agree that the measure is unnecessary but complaining about how it will give them the potential to stop you from clearly performing copyright infringement is just being a whiny pirate.


Wrong, It takes away our rights, We should be able to browse anything we want on the internet, illegal or not, should we not be able to get in trouble? I think that should stay the same, but we should have the option to browse freely.
Especially Americans.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 16, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> We should be able to browse anything we want on the internet, illegal or not, should we not be able to get in trouble?



Okay, I'm just gonna go browse some child porn and then complain when the police bust down my door and call me a sick fuck. They're infringing on my rights!

Also, you want the right to do illegal things? That's like completely contradictory. The purpose of making things illegal is to take away someone's right of doing something which society has deemed morally wrong. For the record, you are not society, so if you don't think pirating is "morally wrong", too bad, everyone else does. Some people think the death penalty is perfectly acceptable, others don't, but in the end we're a country run by majority rule.

A bill like this gives the government a lot of power to govern our internet, and some people may not like government encroachment, but in the end I doubt, if the bill is passed, that you'll wake up tomorrow and find the entire internet full under attack. Not a shit will change most likely.


----------



## Evilengine (Nov 16, 2011)

are thy able to block all proxy sevices of the whole wide world? even in china you can unlock free internet throught ultrasurf, etc. but of course such behavior, of the country, you are living in, sucks. freedom of speech and of your free chosen opinio0n is the most important thing you have.


----------



## Hadrian (Nov 16, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Wrong, It takes away our rights, We should be able to browse anything we want on the internet, illegal or not, should we not be able to get in trouble? I think that should stay the same, but we should have the option to browse freely.
> Especially Americans.


Well done you've won "stupid whiney comment of the week". Every part of what you said was stupid.


----------



## AlanJohn (Nov 16, 2011)

Isn't like the American senate retarded?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 16, 2011)

Alan John said:


> Isn't like the American senate retarded?



Yeah, pretty much.

Although they're elected officials by the people so I guess by some sort of transitive property, we're retarded.

Well not me, I didn't vote. I wasn't old enough to vote when this one came around.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

Hadrian said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, It takes away our rights, We should be able to browse anything we want on the internet, illegal or not, should we not be able to get in trouble? I think that should stay the same, but we should have the option to browse freely.
> ...


How is that stupid, I pay for internet, I should have the right to upload what I want, and reap the bad after effects if i so choose.

This law can screw over so many people that make money off things like youtube, and fuck over companies.

@ Guild, Apparently you cannot read, I said that there should be repercussions for illegal things, but we should have the option to browse whatever we like.



And just a heads up, if this law passes in current wording, The government has the right to shutdown sites like Youtube, and put people in prison that like to make music covers, gameplays etc. They can be classified as a felon.


----------



## RupeeClock (Nov 16, 2011)

I'd like to take action and support this, as much of what happens in America influences Britain as well one way or another.
But I don't know if I actually can and all, being British.


----------



## Depravo (Nov 16, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> I should have the right to upload what I want, and reap the bad after effects if i so choose.


Contradiction. These 'bad after effects' only happen because you _don't _have the right.


----------



## BrightNeko (Nov 16, 2011)

unsure if good or bad. Only know that if it goes through there will be tons of rage


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 16, 2011)

Alan John said:


> Isn't like the American senate retarded?



Yep. They've always been that way. If this BS keeps up, I'm moving back to Japan.


----------



## prowler (Nov 16, 2011)

BrightNeko said:


> unsure if good or bad. Only know that if it goes through there will be tons of rage


It's bad.

YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, 4chan, Tumblr, etc could be shut down.


----------



## Hop2089 (Nov 16, 2011)

It won't change much this won't be outlandishly enforced like Canada's loli ban or China's firewall.  Stop panicking and think for a minute.  Youtube shutting down I doubt it, it's all scare tactics, while possible, it's highly unlikely without a huge shitstorm occuring.


----------



## BrightNeko (Nov 16, 2011)

-edit-
Nvm I forget sometimes the good that can come from the bad


----------



## boktor666 (Nov 16, 2011)

Why is it that always the American Government comes up with f**ing stupid new ideas to ruin the internet, because people are having fun. It's a retarded idea that will and shall never work, because there always is another way. I don't see the US govvy's like, tracking every freaking thing on the internet. So shitty and pointless, and they earn a income doing this.. What's next, censoring Pr0nz?


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 16, 2011)

prowler_ said:


> BrightNeko said:
> 
> 
> > unsure if good or bad. Only know that if it goes through there will be tons of rage
> ...


Im not sure why 4chan is randomly thrown in with those sites
that one deserves to be shut down


----------



## prowler (Nov 16, 2011)

boktor666 said:


> What's next, censoring Pr0nz?


Porn sites also come under this.





Joe88 said:


> prowler_ said:
> 
> 
> > BrightNeko said:
> ...


Because 4chan is a big enough website to be with those. As for if it deserves to shut down, that's debatable.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

Depravo said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > I should have the right to upload what I want, and reap the bad after effects if i so choose.
> ...


The "right" in the sense of freedom, not legality. Right as in Ability.


----------



## ProtoKun7 (Nov 16, 2011)

This makes about as much sense as something that doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Depravo (Nov 16, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Depravo said:
> 
> 
> > brandonspikes said:
> ...


So no steps should be taken to prevent crimes? Crimes should be *allowed* to happen and then punished?

Did you lock you house/car today?


----------



## DeathStrudel (Nov 16, 2011)

Depravo said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > Depravo said:
> ...


When the method of preventing the crime fucks over people who aren't doing anything wrong, then yes.


----------



## Nujui (Nov 16, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Depravo said:
> 
> 
> > brandonspikes said:
> ...



So I should have the ability to come into your house and take anything I want?


----------



## Magmorph (Nov 16, 2011)

I have to be skeptical of the objectivity of a website called americancensorship.org


----------



## DeathStrudel (Nov 16, 2011)

Nujui said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > Depravo said:
> ...


You do have that ability, it's called breaking and entering and it's a serious crime, but there are no laws that prevent you from committing the crime in the first place. brandonspikes has a good point, he just presented it poorly and people are misinterpreting what he's saying


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

Depravo said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > Depravo said:
> ...


Yes they should be, human beings should be able to do whatever the want, not to say bad people shouldn't be punished, HOWEVER, this is exactly why I don't follow a religion, and I live MY life the way I want.

I do understand that there are rules, but shouldn't we as a people be allowed to make stupid decisions? When you limit what one can do, and you take away ones ability to do something, even more problems happen than in the first place.

At the same time I'm not saying its okay for somebody to slaughter people, that has nothing to do with it, I'm talking about sharing and uploading things on the internet.

Hell, Wasn't this website a Rom sharing website at one point? Doesn't this site share the name of scene released video games?  I'm sure that 90+% on gbatemp do illegal things, yourself included, So don't try and act like a White Knight of the internet, when this can effect you aswell, more so than you know.

Lasty, this is my opinion, I'm entitled to it, So take it as you want, I love debating, and I don't personally despise anyone, So don't take it as me trying to offend you in any way.



Nujui said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > Depravo said:
> ...


Sure you do, but You would have a hard time.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 16, 2011)

Kinda too far. Isn't it possible to have this site shutdown?


----------



## marcus134 (Nov 16, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Also, free anime and music is pretty much copyright infringement unless they have consent from the distributor or whatever.


not necessarily, there's a gray zone caused by jurisdictions and licensing rights.

EX: I create content, the intellectual property of the said content belong to me and any unauthorized distribution of this content is illegal in Canada. But If someone form another country distribute it, i can't sue him because he is in another jurisdiction and it will be that way as long as I don't license the content for distribution in that country.  But even if I license the content, in most country there are provision that protect the citizen from being sued for the distribution that has been made before the day of licensing.  As long as the person stop distributing the content before the content is licensed, nothing illegal have been done.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

KingVamp said:


> Kinda too far. Isn't it possible to have this site shutdown?


Very much so. with how its worded, "anything can happen."


* "Risk of Jail for Ordinary Users*

*It becomes a felony with a potential 5 year sentence to stream a copyrighted work that would cost more than $2,500 to license, even if you are a totally noncommercial user, e.g. singing a pop song on Facebook."

An example would be, Say the GBAtemp news team posted a Youtube Video that links to a video game, THE GOVERNMENT, has the right to shut down/ban GBAtemp for sharing video's without youtube/the video game companies permission.*


----------



## slaysme (Nov 16, 2011)

If you don't see the issue here, and why this is bad,You're a brainwashed moron. ThIs is nothing more than money buying " justice" the people who are pressing this are not who we need to have that amount of power. Piracy aside, LOTS of things are subject to IP and copyright laws. Have fun with the net when you cannot show a single copyrighted image, vid, even text?, this may seem extreme, but a few folks lining their pockets more is not worth our platform of free speech. Censorship is wrong. 
Say whatever you want about the seedy shit, they keep taking away our power bit by bit. If you don't See it, you need to wake the fuck up and get your head out of your gameboy.


----------



## Sheimi (Nov 16, 2011)

For the love of god, I hope this does not pass. I deleted my YouTube in fear of this. I don't even know what I will do if this passes.


----------



## Lube_Skyballer (Nov 16, 2011)

*censored*


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

Sheimi said:


> For the love of god, I hope this does not pass. I deleted my YouTube in fear of this. I don't even know what I will do if this passes.


Too bad, the law cannot effect anything prior to the day its out.


----------



## Veho (Nov 16, 2011)

What about Fair Use and such stuff?


----------



## rasputin (Nov 16, 2011)

Well you all gave your freedom away by refusing to speak out about 911.

They can do what they like now.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 16, 2011)

Those responsible for this type of censorship (youtube, facebook, etc) can sod off for all I care. Looks like I'll need to use TOR, VPN or something that will
allow flash videos to be viewed via proxy.


----------



## Recorderdude (Nov 16, 2011)

the_randomizer said:


> Those responsible for this type of censorship (youtube, facebook, etc) can sod off for all I care



Uh, buddy, Youtube and Facebook and Google and all the sites "responsible for this type of censorship" are fighting this bill tooth and nail. It would kill ALL of them if passed.


----------



## HaniKazmi (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe any form of censorship is bad, as it's sure to escalate as companies realise they can get away with more and more. 
Not that censoring is likely to work. Just look at newsgroups in the uk


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 16, 2011)

personuser said:


> Uh, buddy, Youtube and Facebook and Google and all the sites "responsible for this type of censorship" are fighting this bill tooth and nail. It would kill ALL of them if passed.



Right, and I still stand by what I said; if those morons are trying to kill off these websites, there will be Hell to pay.


----------



## mameks (Nov 16, 2011)

ITT: stuff happens that doesn't really affect me and brandonspikes thinks that people have the right to commit crimes because you're _capable_ of doing so.

Anyways.

This is such bollocks, I mean seriously the senate's moronic. I mean sure it's reasonable to censor copyrighted material but to close whole site like this?
Nah, that's just ridiculous. Closing sites like Fbook, YouTube and Twitter's stupid and I doubt they'd do it.
Unless they're really stupid.
O wait they're American 
Just kidding.
But seriously, I doubt it'll happen properly.

Also I find it amusing that if the USA's going to be using the same software as the Chinese then:

the Chinese can hack 'em super easy
they'll be using a version of the software my old school uses to filter the internet


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

shlong said:


> ITT: stuff happens that doesn't really affect me and brandonspikes thinks that people have the right to commit crimes because you're _capable_ of doing so.
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> ...



Can you read? Like please go back and read, because you seem to not understand anything.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 16, 2011)

I hope someone sends that censorship website a friendly DDOS attack.


----------



## Recorderdude (Nov 16, 2011)

the_randomizer said:


> personuser said:
> 
> 
> > Uh, buddy, Youtube and Facebook and Google and all the sites "responsible for this type of censorship" are fighting this bill tooth and nail. It would kill ALL of them if passed.
> ...



Ah, I do believe I misinterpreted what you're talking about. Never mind. Thought you meant that google, facebook, etc were behind SOPA.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

the_randomizer said:


> I hope someone sends that censorship website a friendly DDOS attack.


What website?


----------



## LuigiBlood (Nov 16, 2011)

...It better not pass, what if Europe wants to do the same thing if it did?

They just don't know what to protect. Between copyright and free speech, they don't get what's more important.
Copyright is outdated since a few years. I consider that stopping piracy only make things worse. It can't be done.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 16, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> the_randomizer said:
> 
> 
> > I hope someone sends that censorship website a friendly DDOS attack.
> ...




That American censorship website posted in the first post in this thread.


----------



## Sheimi (Nov 16, 2011)

I been watching the debate over this, they are mentioning piracy more. Some on it will hurt a lot of businesses, etc.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 16, 2011)

i can see more occupy protest over this either that or a 2nd american revolution this feelsv like an upgraded colonial era but our own country is doing this if this occurs i am leaving the US (the censorship)


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

the_randomizer said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > the_randomizer said:
> ...


You know that website is to STOP the law.. right.?


----------



## ProtoKun7 (Nov 16, 2011)

Sheimi said:


> I deleted my YouTube in fear of this. I don't even know what I will do if this passes.


Bit presumptuous.


----------



## Velotix (Nov 16, 2011)

So the Senate is trying to look relevant again huh? Those poor bastards. But really, Trying to censor the INTERNET is damn near impossible. This seems more likely to hurt then senate rather then make them look good.


----------



## nando (Nov 16, 2011)

i hope it goes through. seems like things need to get really bad for people to wake up. this is just an example of how government is not representing the people. seems like the dmca has more power than the president these days.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

nando said:


> i hope it goes through. seems like things need to get really bad for people to wake up. this is just an example of how government is not representing the people. seems like the dmca has more power than the president these days.


You do understand that if sites like Youtube or 4 Chan gets taken down, what kind of danger the US government will have to deal with? You can be sure that a lot of people will get murdered.


----------



## mameks (Nov 16, 2011)

Spoiler






brandonspikes said:


> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> > Mind you this gives them the power to do it but the odds of them shutting down a major site like Youtube or spending the time to censor lyrics on your Facebook page is probably never gonna happen.
> ...


*Here you say that we should be allowed to browse through illegal material freely.
Should we also be allowed to 'browse' through a drug dealer's wares?*



brandonspikes said:


> Hadrian said:
> 
> 
> > brandonspikes said:
> ...


*Again using the drug dealer scenario, should I have the right to sell drugs and then "reap the bad after affects if I so choose"?
You don't have a choice of reaping the bad after affects, as you're breaking the law so it's automatic.
This bill is the repercussion for piracy, albeit in an extreme form.*



brandonspikes said:


> Depravo said:
> 
> 
> > brandonspikes said:
> ...


*Why should someone have the right to commit a crime, seriously?
Say someone is able to commit murder does that mean they're allowed to? No, because it's wrong to do so.
You said (I believe) that you agree it's wrong to steal, and yet piracy's just that. Uploading material that doesn't belong to you is piracy.*





brandonspikes said:


> shlong said:
> 
> 
> > ITT: stuff happens that doesn't really affect me and brandonspikes thinks that people have the right to commit crimes because you're _capable_ of doing so.
> ...


I've done what you told me to do, see the above spoiler


----------



## Sicklyboy (Nov 16, 2011)

brandonspikes, I don't see why so many people have a hard time getting what you're saying and understanding it.  I side completely with your views on it, though.

So people, let me explain what he is saying (since the multiple times HE explained it obviously wasn't enough).  Hell, I'll even give you guys an example.

There is very little in effect to *prevent* us from committing crimes.  The only way people are going to be prevented from committing a crime is by knowing about the consequences of committing it, and those with sense/fear/conscience will shy away from doing so.  However, those more risky/stupid/without a conscience will do so.

Why?  We all *damn well have the ability to do whatever the hell we please*.  Not saying it's right, but we can physically do whatever the hell we want.  Nothing is stopping us from doing it.  However, that doesn't mean we can't get punished after the fact.

Now, my glorious example - I downloaded a bunch of Wii and Gamecube games from my _source_ this past week.  There is nothing in effect to effectively stop me from doing so, just fear tactics of the consequences of getting caught.  So I downloaded them.  Now the punishment I could suffer could be anywhere from a C&D email or letter from my ISP to my ISP shutting off my internet to getting fined to getting jailed.

The first two haven't happened yet, and since they haven't I don't have much belief that the last two will either.  End result, I get my games, the internet isn't censored, and my crime goes unpunished.  Is Nintendo out anything?  Nothing on the GC games since they're not made anymore.  The Wii games, that's more of a grey area, because I wouldn't have bought those games in the first place probably.  You could say that they lost the potential for a sale, but in the end if I like the game a lot I'll go buy it.

Also -


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

Pretty much, My point was more so the fact that innocent people will get fucked over by a pointless power control law.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Nov 16, 2011)

Will this hearing be on tv?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

Ericthegreat said:


> Will this hearing be on tv?


Unless it happen's it wont make news.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Nov 16, 2011)

[censored]


----------



## Ericthegreat (Nov 16, 2011)

Well I am pretty sure the senate should destroy this for being way to broad, no way it can happen....


----------



## Sora de Eclaune (Nov 16, 2011)

prowler_ said:


> YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, 4chan, Tumblr, etc could be shut down.


You know what else could be screwed over? GBATemp.


----------



## junkerde (Nov 16, 2011)

f*** off B!&[email protected] i see gbatemp supports this by the way my message is looking....


----------



## Thesolcity (Nov 16, 2011)

*[CENSORED FOR YOUR SAFETY]*


----------



## Sterling (Nov 16, 2011)

I agree with Brandon Spikes this time. We all have the capacity and the ability to commit and carry through crime. Whether this be downloading something, or killing someone. There is very little keeping us from doing anything. We have the right to freedom, and the includes committing crimes. It isn't right, it's against the law, and it can be punished. There is a saying, "You reap what you sow."


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

Sterling said:


> *I agree with Brandon Spikes this time*. We all have the capacity and the ability to commit and carry through crime. Whether this be downloading something, or killing someone. There is very little keeping us from doing anything. We have the right to freedom, and the includes committing crimes. It isn't right, it's against the law, and it can be punished. There is a saying, "You reap what you sow."


Screenshotted


----------



## alidsl (Nov 16, 2011)

tbh this is everyones fault for pirating too much, also I see no reason why google don't just move to Europe and it will all be OK, the law of America shouldn't affect other countries.

I blame America

Sterling is whiny because the US is trying to prevent crime


----------



## ZaeZae64 (Nov 16, 2011)

alidsl said:


> I blame America


Really? You're blaming* America* for making a law in *America*?
NOW WHO WOULDA THOUGHT?


----------



## Zetta_x (Nov 16, 2011)

Prove that piracy does greater bad than good.

What is a crime is dependant on law, what has always made law are opinions. Therefore, by making this law, they make you eat and live by their opinions.

If their opinion was to install limiters on every car that mandates your speed to at most the speed limit, then half of you people would change their minds on allowing the government to do this.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Nov 16, 2011)

Like most ignorant people, I'm gonna blame the American citizens.

My reason: ... Uh...

IT'S FUCKING AMERICA!


----------



## godreborn (Nov 16, 2011)

then I guess the entire entertainment industry will have to be shut down as well--nice logic...  let's also put all political candidates behind bars as well since no campaign is complete without an individualized soundtrack ripped from others.  the U.S. government must be the most pathetic joke ever conceived.  there's already considerable unrest in the country, so the more corporations exercise control over people's lives will create an ever-increasing likely hood of revolution.


----------



## alidsl (Nov 16, 2011)

Zetta_x said:


> Prove that piracy does greater bad than good.


You didn't honestly just say that?


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 16, 2011)

GBatemp is full of trolls. I doubt the majority of this forum actually agrees with this bill.


----------



## Sterling (Nov 16, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Sterling said:
> 
> 
> > *I agree with Brandon Spikes this time*. We all have the capacity and the ability to commit and carry through crime. Whether this be downloading something, or killing someone. There is very little keeping us from doing anything. We have the right to freedom, and the includes committing crimes. It isn't right, it's against the law, and it can be punished. There is a saying, "You reap what you sow."
> ...


Heh.



alidsl said:


> tbh this is everyones fault for pirating too much, also I see no reason why google don't just move to Europe and it will all be OK, the law of America shouldn't affect other countries.
> 
> I blame America
> 
> Sterling is whiny because the US is trying to prevent crime


I'm sorry for posting my opinion which is perfectly in my right to do so. I am not "whiny", I merely wish to be perfectly frank in my opinion that the United States Government is overstepping their bounds. No matter what you do, there will always be crime. You cannot prevent someone from busting your window open and stealing your valuables.

One more thing. Laws are for people who abide by them. There will always be people who wish to violate these rules. If there weren't _people _who wanted to do such things, then we would be in a perfect world. Last time I checked we aren't in a perfect world.


----------



## alidsl (Nov 16, 2011)

Sterling said:


> alidsl said:
> 
> 
> > tbh this is everyones fault for pirating too much, also I see no reason why google don't just move to Europe and it will all be OK, the law of America shouldn't affect other countries.
> ...


Prevention is better than prosecution

Also I don't agree with how extreme the bill is, I'm just arguing that they are trying to prevent crime (and are failing to do so)


----------



## Zetta_x (Nov 16, 2011)

alidsl said:


> Zetta_x said:
> 
> 
> > Prove that piracy does greater bad than good.
> ...



I just honestly said that. Are you gonna say something about it because I can guarantee anything you say to try and "Prove" it will be just unintelligent garbage.

The fact that good and bad are opinionated means you would have to start the proof assuming good and bad are well defined (when in actuality is not). It's impossible to prove that piracy does greater bad than good and the other way around that piracy does greater good than bad because it is heavily influenced by opinions (which are never consistent).

So if you are going to say something, bring it on


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

alidsl said:


> Sterling said:
> 
> 
> > alidsl said:
> ...


No, they are trying to make more money, and they don't care who they fuck over.


----------



## godreborn (Nov 16, 2011)

well, u do know what they say about the downfall of democracy: it doesn't happen suddenly, but it's taken away a piece at a time.


----------



## Kiaku (Nov 16, 2011)

This bill must not be passed! While I understand that it prevents copyright infringement, it still isn't worth taking away a majority of the popular websites!! Where's our freedom then?


----------



## alidsl (Nov 16, 2011)

Zetta_x said:


> alidsl said:
> 
> 
> > Zetta_x said:
> ...


Piracy harms nearly every industry that involves computers, I can tell you now that small time companies (especially iOS game devs) are massively harmed by piracy, so many people have jailbroken their iPhones and iPod touches that small time devs make much less money than they should. Also most of my friends don't pay for their music anymore and prefer to just download it, thus hurting the music industry. 

Pretty much what you are saying is that piracy is good for everyone because it means that people like you don't have to pay for games that people have spent years creating. Next time think about what you say before you post


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 16, 2011)

Basically people are whiny bitches on "infringements of personal rights" when it, by some unlikely chance, can stop them from either A) illegally obtaining content or B) watching porn.

I fucking love the internet.

Also, you all realize that any major site like Youtube, Facebook, etc, would never get taken down by the US government unless we turned into 1984 overnight since they're parts or are giant corporations. Youtube is owned by Google. Google is fucking huge. Facebook is owned by, you know, Facebook. Facebook is also fucking huge. "Mom and pop" sites like this would never get taken down because there's no fucking reason for it. We don't do anything illegal. We have strict policies against it and even then, we're rather small in the whole scheme of things.

If this law goes into effect I promise you that you will notice not a single thing has changed except for the bunching ratio in the panties of a few bitches.



Hyro-Sama said:


> GBatemp is full of trolls. I doubt the majority of this forum actually agrees with this bill.



"Agreeing with this bill" and "not making such a big fucking deal about it because jack shit will change" are two completely different things. Do I support this bill? Absolutely not. Do I think George Orwell will be doing the "I told you so" dance in his grave because of this? Absolutely not.


----------



## chartube12 (Nov 16, 2011)

Except sites hosting the files needed for hacking will be block in the u.s and thus making gbatemp kind of useless.


----------



## DjoeN (Nov 16, 2011)

I would say *"Censored"* and *"Censored"* Whatever the*"Censored"* will do it only *"Censored"* because as you can read here, the *"Censored"* *"Censored"* *"Censored"* will do that.
It is SO *"Censored"* that the can *"Censored"*

*"Censored"* Whatever, this *"Censored"*

Goodbye US *"Censored"*

With kind regards,
*"Censored"*



Guild McCommunist said:


> ... Do I think George Orwell will be doing the "I told you so" dance in his grave because of this? Absolutely not.


He can't, because he doesn't have the space in his coffin to do the dance!
He would if he had the space to do his "I told you so" dance!


With kind regards
*"Censored"*


----------



## alidsl (Nov 16, 2011)

It's like that British bill that happened ages ago NOTHING CHANGED


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 16, 2011)

chartube12 said:


> Except sites hosting the files needed for hacking will be block in the u.s and thus making gbatemp kind of useless.



They're not illegal so they won't. FileTrip won't be taken down because we host nothing illegal on it.

EDIT: The Patriot Act has been in effect for ten years. How many of you have noticed the government monitoring your internet activities and using this information against you?


----------



## Zetta_x (Nov 16, 2011)

alidsl said:


> Piracy harms nearly every industry that involves computers, I can tell you now that small time companies (especially iOS game devs) are massively harmed by piracy, so many people have jailbroken their iPhones and iPod touches that small time devs make much less money than they should. Also most of my friends don't pay for their music anymore and prefer to just download it, thus hurting the music industry.
> 
> Pretty much what you are saying is that piracy is good for everyone because it means that people like you don't have to pay for games that people have spent years creating. Next time think about what you say before you post




You haven't proved anything yet... I told you everything that you said is just unintelligent garbage. All you are doing is looking at a small subset of observations and saying it's a proof. Get real and get out.

Here are two valid proof with games and piracy:

Under the opinion that good is defined as more people playing games. Since the number of people playing games only increases by piracy, this implies that piracy creates good.
Under the same opinion, it would be bad if less people played games. Therefore overall piracy has greater good than bad.

Number two:

Under the opinion that good is defined as when there is not people playing games for free while others are buying them, since piracy encourages free games, this implies that piracy creates bad.
Under the same opinion, it would be bad if more people were played games for free. Therefore overall piracy has greater bad than good.

*The reason why there does not exist a proof whether piracy is bad or not is because it requires an opinion and since there is ultimately many opinions (who is to say one opinion is better than the other) all proofs are nothing but an opinion.*

Your argument:
I think that piracy harms every industry even when I'm not even capable of fully analyzing every aspect of how piracy influences industries. So I'm just going to say under my opinion what I think about piracy and say it's a proof that piracy is greater bad than good. I'm 15 and I think I can do proofs

Shut your hole and talk in the trashcan because your posts are nothing but garbage when it comes to proofs


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 16, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Basically people are whiny bitches on "infringements of personal rights" when it, by some unlikely chance, can stop them from either A) illegally obtaining content or B) watching porn.
> 
> I fucking love the internet.
> 
> ...




I think that you're severely underestimating the power of this bill. Although I do agree that some people including myself are overexaggerating.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 16, 2011)

Zetta_x said:


> *stuff*



Not gonna really do anything relating to this argument but it's useful to quote whoever you're counterpointing so it doesn't seem like you're taking random shots at random people. This thread is getting a lot of posts so I highly suggest you quote whatever you're countering.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> chartube12 said:
> 
> 
> > Except sites hosting the files needed for hacking will be block in the u.s and thus making gbatemp kind of useless.
> ...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAtSfNh9B0c
 

 First off, I dislike DSP, but his point in this video is 100% true, on pretty much everything, Have a watch before you post again.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 16, 2011)

Hyro-Sama said:


> I think that you're severely underestimating the power of this bill. Although I do agree that some people including myself are overexaggerating.



I know the power of this bill, I also know that it will probably never be used to its fullest.


----------



## alidsl (Nov 16, 2011)

Zetta_x said:


> You haven't proved anything yet... I told you everything that you said is just unintelligent garbage. All you are doing is looking at a small subset of observations and saying it's a proof. Get real and get out.
> 
> Under the opinion that good is defined as more people playing games. Since the number of people playing games only increases by piracy, this implies that piracy creates good.
> Under the same opinion, it would be bad if less people played games. Therefore overall piracy has greater good than bad.


So because piracy means more people play the game ILLEGALLY that means piracy is good, also my age makes no difference on the situation whatsoever, piracy hurts companies by giving them less sales (even though some people might not buy the game anyway)


----------



## Zetta_x (Nov 16, 2011)

alidsl said:


> Zetta_x said:
> 
> 
> > You haven't proved anything yet... I told you everything that you said is just unintelligent garbage. All you are doing is looking at a small subset of observations and saying it's a proof. Get real and get out.
> ...



I have repeatedly told you that you are looking at it from only one opinion. There are multiple opinions.

Here is a counter example to your argument: The more people who play a game, the more sales it generates.

Imagine two extreme scenarios, what do you think will make more revenue on a game in the next 9 months:

Game A - No people pirated, only 1 person bought.
Game B - 100,000 people pirated, only 1 person bought.

Obviously, in the next 9 months, Game B would make more sales due to it's popularity. Since the only difference between them is the number of people who pirated them, this implies that piracy also increases sales.

Even when you take it from your limited opinion and perspective, you still have not constructed a valid proof (I just shown a counter example)

---

*This all started with you saying this bill is passing because of piracy. Whether or not piracy does greater good than bad does not even contribute to the discussion of this topic. I have so much work to do it is not even funny. If you want to continue this, PM me, otherwise it's left at this.*


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

Zetta_x said:


> alidsl said:
> 
> 
> > Zetta_x said:
> ...


Winner
http://www.destructoid.com/team-meat-doesn-t-f-cking-care-about-piracy-206455.phtml


----------



## GreatZimkogway (Nov 16, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > I think that you're severely underestimating the power of this bill. Although I do agree that some people including myself are overexaggerating.
> ...



You obviously underestimate the lengths corporations are willing to go to.  ...Or is this the wrong thing?  I'd have to go find the source and read it, and to my just-waking-up-brain, it's not worth it.


----------



## alidsl (Nov 16, 2011)

Zetta_x said:


> alidsl said:
> 
> 
> > Zetta_x said:
> ...


That's a very extreme example and I agree that game B will sell more, but in the case of something like pokemon I'd guess maybe 150,000 of the 270,000 members on this site alone would pirate a pokemon game (if it was made available for all systems), of this about 125,000 would buy the game if piracy didn't exist, these people would _probably _have bought one of the original DS trilogy (Pearl Diamond and Platinum), HG or SS or B/W, I know I would have bought three out of them. that means about 375,000 sales have been lost to Ninty FROM THIS SITE ALONE, thousands more people who aren't members visit this site regularly and others that pirate the game have never been to GBAtemp, so a large scale game like that could potentially lose half a million sales because of piracy


----------



## Sterling (Nov 16, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > I think that you're severely underestimating the power of this bill. Although I do agree that some people including myself are overexaggerating.
> ...


The key word is _probably. _If there is even the slightest chance that this will be abused, then the people of the United States should make it known that they dislike the bill. This should be shot down now, and every time it's proposed.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 16, 2011)

Zetta_x said:


> alidsl said:
> 
> 
> > Zetta_x said:
> ...



Well, the increase in sales is based on the piraters spreading the word of a game's popularity to those "willing" to buy it, not from the actual piracy itself. If such pirate informers were only informing other piraters, then it would increase the piracy, not the sales. It's only when those that are informed, but do not pirate, that are what increase the sales, but that can only be tallied on how many pirates it took to get to those non-piraters that generate the sales. If it was one pirate for each purchaser, then I'd find that to be a good thing in terms of sales. If it took 10 pirates per purchaser, then I'd be worried. Of course, with the internet, a single person can spread the word to thousands and more "potential" sales, which can either be more pirates or purchasers.


Anyways, back on topic:

My main problem with this whole thing is that rather than giving us a choice, they are taking away that choice, or *our freedom to choose*, because they think they know what's best for us. Over that past many years, since when have they truly had the in their minds *what was best for us*? Even if it turned out to be a good thing in the end, they had broken the rules of the nation, and such cases would continue to occur within government with no consequences to those breaking the rules.


----------



## Zetta_x (Nov 16, 2011)

alidsl said:


> That's a very extreme example and I agree that game B will sell more, but in the case of something like pokemon I'd guess maybe 150,000 of the 270,000 members on this site alone would pirate a pokemon game (if it was made available for all systems), of this about 125,000 would buy the game if piracy didn't exist, these people would _probably _have bought one of the original DS trilogy (Pearl Diamond and Platinum), HG or SS or B/W, I know I would have bought three out of them. that means about 375,000 sales have been lost to Ninty FROM THIS SITE ALONE, thousands more people who aren't members visit this site regularly and others that pirate the game have never been to GBAtemp, so a large scale game like that could potentially lose half a million sales because of piracy



But then I will just say prove that piracy didn't make the game as popular as it is today. What if piracy didn't exist, would there be so much potential buyers? How many people pirated yellow version but then bought the new DS ones? This is why trying to find a proof is impossible. Under the opinion that if industries make more money is better, there will exist a counter example that prevents you from making a valid proof.


----------



## alidsl (Nov 16, 2011)

Zetta_x said:


> alidsl said:
> 
> 
> > That's a very extreme example and I agree that game B will sell more, but in the case of something like pokemon I'd guess maybe 150,000 of the 270,000 members on this site alone would pirate a pokemon game (if it was made available for all systems), of this about 125,000 would buy the game if piracy didn't exist, these people would _probably _have bought one of the original DS trilogy (Pearl Diamond and Platinum), HG or SS or B/W, I know I would have bought three out of them. that means about 375,000 sales have been lost to Ninty FROM THIS SITE ALONE, thousands more people who aren't members visit this site regularly and others that pirate the game have never been to GBAtemp, so a large scale game like that could potentially lose half a million sales because of piracy
> ...


How can you not accept that piracy doesn't hurt the industry, I would have bought so many games if it wasn't for piracy just losing one sale hurts the gaming industry, and since there are lots more like me who have 20+ games downloaded for free and atleast 10 of those I would have bought legally, there is no way in hell that piracy doesn't hurt any games sales it's ignorant to believe that


----------



## godreborn (Nov 16, 2011)

this bill has far greater implications than mere piracy: I think I'll shut down this website, because I don't like the color of the font.

 

the airport-like screening truly pisses me off and it should for anyone.  if that were to become the norm, it would destroy the industry in far less time than piracy.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 16, 2011)

alidsl said:


> Zetta_x said:
> 
> 
> > alidsl said:
> ...



Can piracy hurt the industry? Yes, it can, but in many instances, it can do the opposite. Taking only the immediate circumstance shows it to be a bad thing, as a single pirate does not equal a sale (but understand it is not a loss of a sale, in that someone would have to buy two copies to make up for it), but somewhere down the line, the pirater may have influenced several people who originally weren't interested, but now are. That would make several "potential" buyers out of several "uninterested" people, making 0 possible sales to 0+ possible sales. Granted the entire lot might pirate it, but that isn't always the case. People are still skeptical with piracy because of the possible problems that can come from them, such as a flashcard or hardware/software mod bricking the system, getting caught pirating online, etc., so those that are influenced may not go the piracy route, leading to sales.


----------



## godreborn (Nov 16, 2011)

well, the problem with piracy is that u'd have to lump used sales and rentals into the same category.  the industry makes nothing from all three, so the argument doesn't really make sense. 

maybe if the industries made better products more people would buy them.  how many remakes and sequels do we really need?  has hollywood become so full of untalented people that they have to rely on classic films?  of course, the game industry is no better: selling a six-hour game for $60???  y anyone would willingly allow themselves to be ripped off like this???  it's a complete rip off!  and, who can forget the ridiculously over-priced dlc or the lack of testing?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 16, 2011)

Valwin said:


> Apparently, Congress is holding a hearing today about an American Internet Censorship System.
> 
> They have the potential to radically alter or *shut down sites like YouTube*, Flickr, 4chan, others, and all new companies that follow
> 
> ...


Surely this is illegal/impossible.
Wouldn't they get intense backslash from other countries?
I can understand copyright, copyright, etc, so I'll leave this up to the public to fume over.


----------



## alidsl (Nov 16, 2011)

The difference between renting and pirating is that renting is for trying a game out, meanwhile piracy is meant to be for trying a game out


----------



## Valwin (Nov 16, 2011)

many torrents site i been today have the censorship ad omg this is bad  if it happens


----------



## Nujui (Nov 16, 2011)

alidsl said:


> The difference between renting and pirating is that renting is for trying a game out, meanwhile piracy is meant to be for trying a game out



You could possibly also finish the rented game or the pirated game as well. I use to rent PS2 games from a local store when I was little, I finished I think 5 out of the maybe 8 or so I did rent from there.


----------



## alidsl (Nov 16, 2011)

Nujui said:


> alidsl said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between renting and pirating is that renting is for trying a game out, meanwhile piracy is meant to be for trying a game out
> ...


renting costs money though, people don't like spending money and then complain when they are forced to do things legally


----------



## Nujui (Nov 16, 2011)

alidsl said:


> Nujui said:
> 
> 
> > alidsl said:
> ...



I'm not complaining to spend money to rent games, I did it for most of my childhood, and I know of many people that use Gamefly as well and don't mind it either. 

Though you are right, there are people that do complain about doing things such as that.


----------



## alidsl (Nov 16, 2011)

Nujui said:


> alidsl said:
> 
> 
> > Nujui said:
> ...


renting's never been that popular for games, it's because in a years time you might want to go back to said game and play it for nostalgia's sake, I also rented games when I was 5, but that's only cause I wasn't set on completing games like I am now


----------



## Nujui (Nov 16, 2011)

alidsl said:


> Nujui said:
> 
> 
> > alidsl said:
> ...




Well actually I rented Jak 3 like 3 times from where I rented games before just so that I could beat it, but that's just me , but yeah, now that I think about renting's not that popular anymore.


----------



## Gh0sti (Nov 16, 2011)

does anyone know if this got passed?? whats the news about this


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 16, 2011)

Valwin said:


> many torrents site i been today have the censorship ad omg this is bad  if it happens



Piracy sites are usually run by a bunch of "couch activists" who want to be all "down with the government!" and rebellious. Of course they don't want this to pass, anything that has the word "government" in it unless it's preceded by "burn the" will be boo'd by slacktavists.

Also because pirates think it's completely okay to illegally download content and whine if people actually try to stop that. It's illegal, deal with it.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 16, 2011)

You guys are putting too much stock into this. Similar measures to this one have been voted down recently, so precedent dictates that the same will probably happen to this. Plus, companies (and their lobbyists) would in no way support this - they'd lose a shit ton of money if their sites were even partially shut down due to copyright infringements.

And as Guild say, let's say, by some divine intervention, it does get passed, the internet as we know it will not disappear over night. Plus, you can bet your ass that this would immediately be taken to the court system, and likely reach the Supreme Court if they see it as a big enough issue.

Take a deep breath and relax.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 17, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> How many of you have noticed the government monitoring your internet activities and using this information against you?



The more I find out how much they're actually seeing us do on the internet, the more likely I'll resort to using proxies, VPNs and TOR. What right do those sodding jerks have to spy on us?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 17, 2011)

You guys need to watch this.

Skip to 1:57, or watch the whole thing, He's my hero.

And guild, Watch this video, Just because YOU don't understand how laws work, Doesn't make it less true.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 17, 2011)

Brandon, I'm not gonna waste 8 minutes of my time watching some slacktavist talk about how freedom of speech is dead even though him posting a video proclaiming the death of freedom of speech completely contradicts that statement.

Type something out, don't link me to shit Youtube vids.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 17, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Brandon, I'm not gonna waste 8 minutes of my time watching some slacktavist talk about how freedom of speech is dead even though him posting a video proclaiming the death of freedom of speech completely contradicts that statement.
> 
> Type something out, don't link me to shit Youtube vids.


You just cant admit that you're wrong, I almost feel bad for you.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 17, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Brandon, I'm not gonna waste 8 minutes of my time watching some slacktavist talk about how freedom of speech is dead even though him posting a video proclaiming the death of freedom of speech completely contradicts that statement.
> 
> Type something out, don't link me to shit Youtube vids.



Don't worry about the video; it's the Amazing Athiest/the Distressed Watcher. You're really not missing much (unless you're in the market for pretentious blowhards).


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 17, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> You just cant admit that you're wrong, I almost feel bad for you.



You can't admit that you sound pretty mad.

Personally, I prefer my panties in an unbunched fashion.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 17, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > You just cant admit that you're wrong, I almost feel bad for you.
> ...


Honestly, it really doesn't bug me, You just have a high horse attitude, you remind me stuck up highschool girl at times.

You came here trying to say that this law wouldn't effect anyone but pirates, but clearly you cant comprehend simple concepts.



Gahars said:


> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> > Brandon, I'm not gonna waste 8 minutes of my time watching some slacktavist talk about how freedom of speech is dead even though him posting a video proclaiming the death of freedom of speech completely contradicts that statement.
> ...


He's probably one of the most sane people on this planet, everything he says makes perfect sense.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 17, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Honestly, it really doesn't bug me, You just have a high horse attitude, you remind me stuck up highschool girl at times.



And stuck up highschool girls have friends and bang the hottest dudes so no issue there.

But you clearly sound pretty mad.


----------



## Bobbyloujo (Nov 17, 2011)

I betcha Anonymous will have something to say about this if it gets passed.

I see that Mozilla is supporting this... good bye Firefox. It's been nice knowin' ya.


----------



## Depravo (Nov 17, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> *snip*
> 
> You guys need to watch this.
> 
> Skip to 1:57, or watch the whole thing, He's my hero.


He seems like a well-balanced individual. He has a chip on _both_ shoulders.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 17, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, it really doesn't bug me, You just have a high horse attitude, you remind me stuck up highschool girl at times.
> ...


I like how instead of trying to have a mature conversation you go typical childish responce, but yeah, I'm clearly raging.



Depravo said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > *snip*
> ...


Was that suppose to be remotely funny?


----------



## chyyran (Nov 17, 2011)

America is turning into the PRC. 

First the Censorship..

Give it 5 years, and America will be a communist state.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 17, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > Guild McCommunist said:
> ...



That honestly doesn't speak very well for you.

While he has a few points, he is such a pretentious asshole that it hurts me to admit that (embarrassment by association, basically). In his world, he is the one with all of the answers. Do you disagree with him on a topic, say, the validity of religion? Then you are a slack jawed idiot holding back the human race.

He's certainly a far cry from the title of "one of the most sane people on this planet".


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 17, 2011)

Punyman said:


> America is turning into the PRC.
> 
> First the Censorship..
> 
> Give it 5 years, and America will be a communist state.



A communist state? You mean where there is no government and everything is run by the people?

Sounds exactly like the track we're going on.

Also, if this was true, we'd have been a communist state on October 26th, 2006.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 17, 2011)

Gahars said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > Gahars said:
> ...



All I have to say, without changing the topic that, Religion is a joke, its an escape from reality, its a means of control and power.


----------



## Midna (Nov 17, 2011)

Punyman said:


> America is turning into the PRC.
> 
> First the Censorship..
> 
> Give it 5 years, and America will be a communist state.


>Implying that censorship is communism, or that censorship only occurs in communist systems
Why does 21st century America still subscribe to cold war propaganda?


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 17, 2011)

Bobbyloujo said:


> I betcha Anonymous will have something to say about this if it gets passed.
> 
> I see that Mozilla is supporting this... good bye Firefox. It's been nice knowin' ya.




They'll always have something to say about something.
Not worth mentioning imo.

Personally I never liked firefox...
Nor do I like Chrome.

They can't censor the internet, they simply can't.


----------



## chyyran (Nov 17, 2011)

Midna said:


> Punyman said:
> 
> 
> > America is turning into the PRC.
> ...



I was implying that America is turning into the People's Republic of China, which have craploads of sites, including Youtube, censored already.


----------



## Midna (Nov 17, 2011)

Punyman said:


> Midna said:
> 
> 
> > Punyman said:
> ...


China is not Communist.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 17, 2011)

Bobbyloujo said:


> I betcha Anonymous will have something to say about this if it gets passed.
> 
> I see that Mozilla is supporting this... good bye Firefox. It's been nice knowin' ya.



Show me proof. Then I will switch over to Safari .

@brandonspikes: No shit. People love power and control. Religion will always be there to provide it for them. So people will never live in this "real world"  you speak of.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 17, 2011)

What do people mean that Firefox/Mozilla is supporting this!!?


----------



## Osaka (Nov 17, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, it really doesn't bug me, You just have a high horse attitude, you remind me stuck up highschool girl at times.
> ...


Wow. what has GBATemp turned into? who exactly are you and how did you ever get a position on the staff, let alone the magazine staff? It makes me really sad to see that they have someone like you involved with them at all.


----------



## Midna (Nov 17, 2011)

Osaka said:


> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> > brandonspikes said:
> ...


Half the time I agree with Guild and the other half I end up thinking this.

The rest of the time I think "Why is he posting in all these Nintendo topics to talk about Sony?"


----------



## Densetsu (Nov 17, 2011)

Let's please stay on topic or we may have to close this thread.


----------



## chyyran (Nov 17, 2011)

Midna said:


> Punyman said:
> 
> 
> > Midna said:
> ...



The People's Republic of China does have a communist government. It's even in the country's name..
People's Republic = Communist State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic

Whereas Taiwan, or the Republic of China is actually a Republic.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 17, 2011)

I don't really care, I just dont like when people try to act better than most people, I do it on a joking level, but he just acts stuck up sometimes.

Anyways, can we get back on topic, I would like people to be aware of this.


----------



## chartube12 (Nov 17, 2011)

Well our the U.S government does owe China nearly 30 trillion u.s dollars.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 17, 2011)

Punyman said:


> The People's Republic of China does have a communist government. It's even in the country's name..
> People's Republic = Communist State
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic
> 
> Whereas Taiwan, or the Republic of China is actually a Republic.



Not even Russia was communist. It's like absolutism. Everyone wanted it but no one actually fit the definition.

Also, I really suggest you watch the Koppel on Discovery special about China. It's called "The People's Republic of Capitalism". Not saying this as a demeaning thing, I'm suggesting it because it's a really good documentary. Guess I'm a bit off topic here but if I get you to watch it, you won't regret it. Very interesting look into China and Ted Koppel makes me hard.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 17, 2011)

And all I have to say before going too off topic, brandonspikes, is that you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Religions offer people hope in a seemingly uncaring universe, as well as answers to the great mysteries of life that we all struggle with. Blinding people to the truth? Ignorance and corruption can exist in any institution; whether or not you believe in God, gods, or something else entirely isn't going to change human nature. Sure, some people take their faiths too far, but extremism can exist anywhere as well.

And before you say something like, "Well, you believe in religion, so of course you say that," I don't. I'm agnostic (I believe that the universe is so impossibly complex and grand that there is probably a lot about it that is beyond our understanding - for now, anyway), but insulting people for their beliefs gets us nowhere. You need a foundation of mutual respect to get anywhere.

Guys like TheAmazingAthiest, whether on religion or this, make that process all the more difficult.


----------



## Midna (Nov 17, 2011)

The majority of the world view people like TheAmazingAthiest the same way we view southern preachers telling us we're all going to hell. Believe whatever the hell you want, just don't act like a prick to everyone else because of it.


----------



## 1234turtles (Nov 17, 2011)

so what is the status on the censorship hearing?


----------



## Bobbyloujo (Nov 17, 2011)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Bobbyloujo said:
> 
> 
> > I betcha Anonymous will have something to say about this if it gets passed.
> ...


Wait... I had that backwards. Mozilla is against it. I was confused by the list of organizations at the bottom of the OP's source.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 17, 2011)

Gahars said:


> And all I have to say before going too off topic, brandonspikes, is that you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Religions offer people hope in a seemingly uncaring universe, as well as answers to the great mysteries of life that we all struggle with. Blinding people to the truth? Ignorance and corruption can exist in any institution; whether or not you believe in God, gods, or something else entirely isn't going to change human nature. Sure, some people take their faiths too far, but extremism can exist anywhere as well.
> 
> And before you say something like, "Well, you believe in religion, so of course you say that," I don't. I'm agnostic (I believe that the universe is so impossibly complex and grand that there is probably a lot about it that is beyond our understanding - for now, anyway), but insulting people for their beliefs gets us nowhere. You need a foundation of mutual respect to get anywhere.
> 
> Guys like TheAmazingAthiest, whether on religion or this, make that process all the more difficult.


I'm guessing you never even watched his videos?


----------



## worlok375 (Nov 17, 2011)

Gahars said:


> And all I have to say before going too off topic, brandonspikes, is that you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Religions offer people hope in a seemingly uncaring universe, as well as answers to the great mysteries of life that we all struggle with. Blinding people to the truth? Ignorance and corruption can exist in any institution; whether or not you believe in God, gods, or something else entirely isn't going to change human nature. Sure, some people take their faiths too far, but extremism can exist anywhere as well.
> 
> And before you say something like, "Well, you believe in religion, so of course you say that," I don't. I'm agnostic (I believe that the universe is so impossibly complex and grand that there is probably a lot about it that is beyond our understanding - for now, anyway), but insulting people for their beliefs gets us nowhere. You need a foundation of mutual respect to get anywhere.
> 
> Guys like TheAmazingAthiest, whether on religion or this, make that process all the more difficult.



So it's essentially ad hominem time.

I actually didn't even notice it was TheAmazingAthiest until halfway through, the video has absolutely nothing to do with religion, why bother talking about it? Why say the person who posted to this site doesn't know what he's talking about when he's posting relevant information.


----------



## xxNathanxx (Nov 17, 2011)

Everyone, listen to brandonspikes and Zetta_x. They are the only ones that actually know what they're talking about. The rest of you clearly don't and should stay silent.

Reminds me of a nice quote from someone whose name I can't remember: "If only closed minds came with closed mouths."


----------



## Gahars (Nov 17, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > And all I have to say before going too off topic, brandonspikes, is that you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Religions offer people hope in a seemingly uncaring universe, as well as answers to the great mysteries of life that we all struggle with. Blinding people to the truth? Ignorance and corruption can exist in any institution; whether or not you believe in God, gods, or something else entirely isn't going to change human nature. Sure, some people take their faiths too far, but extremism can exist anywhere as well.
> ...



I'm guessing you haven't given them much thought.


----------



## ferofax (Nov 17, 2011)

and America was supposed to be the Land of the Free... no more.


----------



## YayMii (Nov 17, 2011)

And here I am in Canada, where downloading copyrighted music for free isn't illegal. Hell, we used to have a tax on MP3 players (IIRC it was $10/purchase) because the government confirmed it was legal and was trying to compensate (the tax was abolished around 2004/2005 because I assume people forgot it was legal and started buying on iTunes).


----------



## Midna (Nov 17, 2011)

YayMii said:


> And here I am in Canada, where downloading copyrighted music for free isn't illegal. Hell, we used to have a tax on MP3 players (IIRC it was $10/purchase) because the government confirmed it was legal and was trying to compensate (the tax was abolished around 2004/2005 because I assume people forgot it was legal and started buying on iTunes).


There is so much wrong with this post.
I say this as a Canadian.


----------



## Oveneise (Nov 18, 2011)

Even my anti-pirate friend is against this bullshit. Hell, I think we all are. And whoever isn't needs to wake the heck up and smell the mutant dandruff.


----------



## WolfSpider (Nov 18, 2011)

I really hope that this doesn't happen; if it does then it'll be one step closer to the government ruining people's privacy.


----------



## CarbonX13 (Nov 18, 2011)

Midna said:


> YayMii said:
> 
> 
> > And here I am in Canada, where downloading copyrighted music for free isn't illegal. Hell, we used to have a tax on MP3 players (IIRC it was $10/purchase) because the government confirmed it was legal and was trying to compensate (the tax was abolished around 2004/2005 because I assume people forgot it was legal and started buying on iTunes).
> ...


Actually, what he stated is true. The Copyright Act of Canada, amended in 1997 with the introduction of Bill C-32, includes an exception to the distribution of illegally obtained software. Copyrighted music is able to be downloaded legally under Canada's federal law, because Bill C-32 gave the exception to copying copyrighted music as long as it was "copied for personal use". As compensation for the music industry, the Canadian government levies a tax on all blank recording media to accomodate for the potential losses in profit. In other words, all blank media in Canada like CDs and DVDs are all taxed because of Bill C-32, but it is because the Canadian government created a loophole in federal law to allow for downloading copyrighted music. What's commonly mistaken, though, is that it is still *illegal *to pirate movies, video games, and TV shows; Bill C-32 only applies to music.

Of course, all of this occurred before the era of file-sharing and digital media. Our federal government expressed its concern over the out-dated laws and introduced the Copyright Modernization Act just two months ago through Bill C-11, which will obviously fix this loophole in federal law and set new barriers to piracy. Bill C-11, I don't think, has not passed through the House of Commons and the Senate yet, so it has no effect on Canadian law at this point.

This is also from a Canadian.


----------



## DarkLG (Nov 18, 2011)

We already lost our privacy lol.This would just be adding another way they ruin it


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Nov 18, 2011)

CarbonX13 said:


> Midna said:
> 
> 
> > YayMii said:
> ...


Could you be more precise as to where it states that in Bill C-32?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=4580265


----------



## CarbonX13 (Nov 18, 2011)

Pingouin7 said:


> Could you be more precise as to where it states that in Bill C-32?


Under Section 29.22, Subsection 3 in Bill C-32, it is stated that:
_"In the case of a work or other subject-matter that is a musical work embodied in a sound recording, a performer’s performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording or a sound recording in which a musical work or a performer’s performance of a musical work is embodied, *subsection (1) does not apply if the reproduction is made onto an audio recording medium.*"_

The cited Subsection 1, of Section 29.22, states that:
_"It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce a work or other subject-matter or any substantial part of a work or other subject-matter if the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy; the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced; the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented; the individual does not give the reproduction away; and the reproduction is used only for private purposes._"

Basically, Section 29.22 (3) states that as long as the copy of a performer's work, the music itself, is copied onto an audio recording medium, it is exempt from 29.22 (1) which requires ownership of said work to make the copy. A famous court case from 2004, under the citation _BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe (F.C.), 2004 FC 488, [2004] 3 F.C.R. 241,_ had the judge rule that "the downloading of a song for a person's private use does not constitute infringement," citing this very section. Since Bill C-32 was introduced in 1997, it does not specifically indicate what an "audio recording medium" would be in the era of today with HDDs, media players, etc., thus allowing Canadians to exploit this section as a legitimate reasoning to legally downloading copyrighted music. There have been disputes to this, but since it is not solidified in law, it is considered to be "legal" (although it should be defined as in the grey area).


----------



## YayMii (Nov 18, 2011)

Pingouin7 said:


> Could you be more precise as to where it states that in Bill C-32?
> 
> http://www.parl.gc.c...x?Docid=4580265


Section 29, clause 22.

EDIT: Gah, CarbonX13 beat me.


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Nov 18, 2011)

Thanks for the information.
I'd have looked for it for a while.


----------



## s4mid4re (Nov 18, 2011)

I believe that the copyright holder for whichever product they produced should be credited and benefiting from us.
But I'm a fucking hypocrite. Fuck you America.

Dunno if posted, but Mozilla, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, Yahoo!, and Zynga doesn't like this either (also includes the letter they sent).


----------



## alphamule (Nov 18, 2011)

My main concern is that there are so many laws that we were promised would only be used in reasonable cases, and then some prosecutor stretches the dictionary in order to get a conviction.  Think of the issue where patents aren't de facto evil, but the current implementation of the patent system leads to abuse.

Also, wasn't the copyrights extensions to a century+ essentially supposed to be "helping create jobs"?  Bono act?  Books being dust before you can legally copy them?


----------



## Midna (Nov 18, 2011)

CarbonX13 said:


> Pingouin7 said:
> 
> 
> > Could you be more precise as to where it states that in Bill C-32?
> ...


Well fuck me sideways.

The part that hit me wrong from YayMii's post was laws being changed because "people forgot" and that because there's a tax that means the thing they're taxing to compensate for is legal.

Cite it first next time instead of stating things unsourced in a very dubious looking fashion


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Nov 18, 2011)

Ok, I've just gotten the chance to read this entire thread and I have some things to say about the offtopic and on conversations going on.

@brandonspikes: Hypocrite. "Guild, your *opinion* is wrong because it goes against mine! I have a right to my own opinion and you don't!" Yeah, that about sums up what you and all the other posters attacking Guild are saying.
Now that that is out of the way, lets get to what you're saying. People have the *power* to do what they want, but not the right. Those are two different things. "Rights: legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about _*what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory*_." Get it? I even bolded italicized and underlined it for you. I have the power to punch my grandma in the face, but not the right.

@Guild: I don't usually agree with you, but I think you're right about the fact that chances are nothing will happen because of this and people should just ignore the bill and do jack shit about it.

On Topic now: All the big sites will never go down. It is literally impossible to close these sites down because, as someone else said, these are GIANT FUCKING COMPANIES. The chance of the government closing any of these down are practically 0.


----------



## s4mid4re (Nov 18, 2011)

suprgamr232 said:


> Ok, I've just gotten the chance to read this entire thread and I have some things to say about the offtopic and on conversations going on.
> 
> @brandonspikes: Hypocrite. "Guild, your *opinion* is wrong because it goes against mine! I have a right to my own opinion and you don't!" Yeah, that about sums up what you and all the other posters attacking Guild are saying.
> Now that that is out of the way, lets get to what you're saying. People have the *power* to do what they want, but not the right. Those are two different things. "Rights: legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about _*what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory*_." Get it? I even bolded italicized and underlined it for you. I have the power to punch my grandma in the face, but not the right.
> *snip


The Star-Spangled Banner says otherwise (+Audio)


Spoiler: lyrics



O! say can you see by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
’Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation.
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust;”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave![12]



The US itself is hypocritical.


----------



## Jakob95 (Nov 18, 2011)

So what happened in the end?  Did it get passed or not?  Links?


----------



## s4mid4re (Nov 18, 2011)

Jakob95 said:


> So what happened in the end?  Did it get passed or not?  Links?


"It was all a JOKE!" says Congress.


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Nov 18, 2011)

They can't close the websites, but they probably can censor them.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2011)

As much as I love living here, everyday I wonder how our so-called "leaders" became leaders. Freedom? What freedom?  They're screwing us at every opportunity they get.


----------



## Thesolcity (Nov 18, 2011)

Pingouin7 said:


> They can't close the websites, but they probably can censor them.



AFAIK the bill only touches the URL->DNS bit, you should still be able to input the site's IP and get on just fine.


----------



## Lastly (Nov 18, 2011)

Perhaps this is one step forward into complete censorship... (Mirror Edge?)
Let our last little brink of freedom demolish into the oblivion of immolation.


----------



## ferofax (Nov 18, 2011)

alphamule said:


> My main concern is that there are so many laws that we were promised would only be used in reasonable cases, and then some prosecutor stretches the dictionary in order to get a conviction.  Think of the issue where patents aren't de facto evil, but the current implementation of the patent system leads to abuse.
> 
> Also, wasn't the copyrights extensions to a century+ essentially supposed to be "helping create jobs"?  Bono act?  Books being dust before you can legally copy them?


This also leads to "harassment" thru lawsuits, which shark-type prosecution lawyers and trigger-happy company lawyers are apt to do.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2011)

Thesolcity said:


> Pingouin7 said:
> 
> 
> > They can't close the websites, but they probably can censor them.
> ...



Which is very easy to find out (the ping command being one way), and I guess you'd have to type something like 74.125.239.8 (youtube), then press enter.


----------



## alphamule (Nov 18, 2011)

You mean to use ping to find the IP?  No, it does just like the web browser.  Now, if you meant to test a site using the IP address instead of the domain name, then yes that'll work just fine so long as the ping packet itself isn't being dropped.

"This also leads to "harassment" thru lawsuits, which shark-type prosecution lawyers and trigger-happy company lawyers are apt to do."
Yeah, I guess the jobs were for the lawyers! HAHAHA


----------



## ferofax (Nov 18, 2011)

suprgamr232 said:


> On Topic now: All the big sites will never go down. It is literally impossible to close these sites down because, as someone else said, these are GIANT FUCKING COMPANIES. The chance of the government closing any of these down are practically 0.


GIANT FUCKING COMPANIES can go down, it's just way harder. But they go down harder too. All one needs to do is find something that can be definitely nailed to them, and the rest will follow. Just because Google, Youtube, et cetera doesn't promote/condone piracy doesn't mean their hands are clean. If anything the freedom fosters the unbridled sharing of information/content, which most of the time is copyrighted content. That argument alone can shake these giants' boots, given a sufficiently twisted logic (which copyright lawyers are wont to do).


----------



## MasterPenguin (Nov 18, 2011)

http://mafiaafire.com/

Problem solved.


----------



## Thesolcity (Nov 18, 2011)

the_randomizer said:


> Thesolcity said:
> 
> 
> > Pingouin7 said:
> ...



But you wouldn't be able to ping if the bill took effect.
It'd be censored...


----------



## YayMii (Nov 18, 2011)

Midna said:


> Well fuck me sideways.
> 
> The part that hit me wrong from YayMii's post was laws being changed because "people forgot" and that because there's a tax that means the thing they're taxing to compensate for is legal.
> 
> Cite it first next time instead of stating things unsourced in a very dubious looking fashion


 Sorry...
I was kinda kidding about the "forgot" part. I just figured that with the success of iTunes, music 'piracy' has gone down, which would lessen the need for such taxes. And the taxes make sense if you think about it. Free legal music=less music sales=less profit=taxes to make up for lost sales


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 18, 2011)

suprgamr232 said:


> Ok, I've just gotten the chance to read this entire thread and I have some things to say about the offtopic and on conversations going on.
> 
> @brandonspikes: Hypocrite. "Guild, your *opinion* is wrong because it goes against mine! I have a right to my own opinion and you don't!" Yeah, that about sums up what you and all the other posters attacking Guild are saying.
> Now that that is out of the way, lets get to what you're saying. People have the *power* to do what they want, but not the right. Those are two different things. "Rights: legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about _*what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory*_." Get it? I even bolded italicized and underlined it for you. I have the power to punch my grandma in the face, but not the right.
> ...


--- Edit, I would rather not bother arguing, I'll let people think what they want.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 18, 2011)

If we have learned anything, it's that our governments act when we do not want them to.


----------



## gameandmatch (Nov 18, 2011)

Dear US government,
How come you guys always do things that you know will get many people to rage like crazy and possibly cause many revolts?


----------



## Gahars (Nov 18, 2011)

Seriously, this is still going?

People, seriously, stop with the knew jerk reactions. I know it's fun to complain about how this is the end of freedom and the beginning of an Orwellian-like society, but that just isn't happening here.

A) To people like gameandmatch who ask why the government does stuff like this... it hasn't done anything. People submitted a bill which they believe will help the United States, and it will go through the normal legislative process. Sometimes bills are created that a lot of people dislike, but every one has the same right to be considered. B) People thinking Congress will back this is beyond me. Our congress right now is so disagreeable that we almost defaulted; do you really think these very same people will form enough of a coalition to get an unpopular bill like this passed? C) Lobbyists funded by the companies against this (which is a shit ton) are probably going nuts over this proposed law; they have a lot of money to swing around. D) Even if by some miracle it passes through both houses of Congress, it goes to the President (you know, the guy with veto powers), the same guy who has vocally opposed the bill in the past. If the bill gets passed, it certainly won't be by a wide enough majority to get 2/3 of the members of the House and the Senate to sign back into law.

Have a problem with this bill? Then call or email your local representative and politely state that if he wants your vote, he better vote this down. Ask the people around you to do the same. Otherwise, bitching on an internet forum will get you nowhere.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 18, 2011)

Gahars said:


> Seriously, this is still going?
> 
> People, seriously, stop with the knew jerk reactions. I know it's fun to complain about how this is the end of freedom and the beginning of an Orwellian-like society, but that just isn't happening here.
> 
> ...


This is a forum, we can discuss things, you discuss things on forums, there's no violence. Only words.

Worst case the more people post, the bigger this thread becomes, and more people are aware of this.

If the bill wasn't a big deal, then it wouldn't be a big issue posted on MANY sites.


----------



## chartube12 (Nov 18, 2011)

Sorry supergamer your half wrong. They don't need to force down the big companies' sites. All they have to do is block them like China as done. Else where, the websites will still be viewable. There is a difference between taking down websites and blocking them.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2011)

Now, I just need to remind myself to use a decent VPN if/when this asinine bill passes. DNS blocking? Gimme a freakin' break. People got passed the Great Firewall of China, so people can do the same in the US.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 18, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > *snip*
> ...



I love that as soon as you point out that people are bitching over nothing, they will immediately flock to the "We have a right to discuss things!" argument. Of course you do, but I also have the right to point out how stupid you are for overreacting.

As for your last point... you obviously don't understand the concept of a "knee jerk reaction" or "blind panic".


----------



## Supreme Dirt (Nov 18, 2011)

I was initially going to post "lol America".

Then I thought about it.

And realized that a large amount of websites I browse are based in America.

Which means this WILL affect me. Drastically.

God help us.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2011)

I hope someone kicks Lamar Smith really hard in the *censored* and rips his *censored* off. I hope he burns for this.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 18, 2011)

the_randomizer said:


> I hope someone kicks Lamar Smith really hard in the *censored* and rips his *censored* off. I hope he burns for this.



Because that is a totally calm and reasonable response to someone supporting legislation, created through entirely legitimate means, meant to protect the claims of copyright holders (however misguided it may be).

Oh wait...


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 19, 2011)

So what if I express it that way? Who's to say I'm denied that right? It is a misguided pile of s**t that needs to be eradicated. Sodding idiots.


----------



## gameandmatch (Nov 19, 2011)

Gahars said:


> Seriously, this is still going?
> 
> People, seriously, stop with the knew jerk reactions. I know it's fun to complain about how this is the end of freedom and the beginning of an Orwellian-like society, but that just isn't happening here.
> 
> ...


You are right that they haven't done anything but they still come up with ideas that will get many people to dislike it. "Bitching" on the internet forum calms me down so I won't be yelling at my local representative and speak with them in a calm voice.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Nov 19, 2011)

chartube12 said:


> Sorry supergamer your half wrong. They don't need to force down the big companies' sites. All they have to do is block them like China as done. Else where, the websites will still be viewable. There is a difference between taking down websites and blocking them.



First off, these companies are based in America, meaning others wouldn't be able to view the censored material. Secondly, these companies rely rather a bit on their sites. Not 100% obviously, but they still rely on them. Censoring their sites makes them lose money. Losing money means you can't pay your workers. Being unable to pay your workers means layoffs. Layoffs mean less jobs. Less jobs mean worse economy. You get the picture? Sure it's not likely to happen, but it could and it would just be all around bad. I'd rather not take the chance of having this happen as it would only make everything worse.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 19, 2011)

They should call it "SOD - Stopping Online Douchebags"


----------



## chyyran (Nov 19, 2011)

Should the same people who declared that Pizza is a vegetable really be discussing the future of the Internet, and by extension the world? 

These people _have the potential_ to cause the collapse of the DNS (and by extension, cause alot of all around bad things to happen), and yet they said that Pizza is a vegetable.


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Nov 19, 2011)

If you really want to point fingers, take a look at the biggest supporters of the SOPA bill. 
Many of them are old friends of ours, and people we discuss quite extensively here. 
Nintendo
Sony
Electronic Arts
Capcom
Konami
Epic Games
SEGA
NVIDIA
Microsoft
Ubisoft
And more

It's not just the US Congress to blame here.


----------



## WolfSpider (Nov 19, 2011)

Vulpes Abnocto said:


> If you really want to point fingers, take a look at the biggest supporters of the SOPA bill.
> Many of them are old friends of ours, and people we discuss quite extensively here.
> Nintendo
> Sony
> ...


I doubt this law would stop piracy at all since people will still use proxies.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 19, 2011)

And VPNs.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 19, 2011)

the_randomizer said:


> So what if I express it that way? Who's to say I'm denied that right? It is a misguided pile of s**t that needs to be eradicated. Sodding idiots.



Again, you have the right to say that, just as I have the right to call you an asshole for saying you want a fellow human being "eradicated" for his beliefs. The fact that you call him an "it" certainly isn't helping your cause either.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 19, 2011)

I digress, and to be honest, the whole SOPA thing is freaking me out big time and didn't know how else to react. I don't want to get fined and/or go to jail for uploading walkthroughs on youtube.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 19, 2011)

the_randomizer said:


> I digress, and to be honest, the whole SOPA thing is freaking me out big time and didn't know how else to react. I don't want to get fined and/or go to jail for uploading walkthroughs on youtube.



You probably won't.

This is meant to target major piracy, I doubt they'll spend their time going after small fry pirates and people who have minor cases of copyright infringement. I seriously doubt, say, Nintendo would get on your case if you did a walkthrough of Skyward Sword. It's basically free advertising for them.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 20, 2011)

Alright that part is a relief, but they'd better not start to block youtube, facebook or any sites that many of us care to to visit. If they do, VPN time.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 20, 2011)

the_randomizer said:


> Alright that part is a relief, but they'd better not start to block youtube, facebook or any sites that many of us care to to visit. If they do, VPN time.



Doing that would be suicide. Google and Facebook are two enormous corporations and blocking them all outright would be ridiculous. If anything videos they deem major copyright infringements on Youtube would be removed. I don't see why Facebook would be taken down or censored at all.

EDIT: And the amount of advertisement every other corporation does on these sites is ridiculous. If any of those would be taken down I bet almost every corporation would support reform of the bill.


----------



## PeregrinFig (Nov 20, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> > Mind you this gives them the power to do it but the odds of them shutting down a major site like Youtube or spending the time to censor lyrics on your Facebook page is probably never gonna happen.
> ...


This is probably the stupidest thing I've read in a long time, no offense, or at least as little as can be taken from that. The whole point of something being illegal is that you DON'T have the right to do it. Freedom doesn't mean you have the right to murder people as long as you get punished for it, the entire point of punishment is to make it clear that you do not have the right to do the illegal action.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 20, 2011)

The thing that pisses me off is the fact that the senate thinks that can get away with such asininity. If this passes, there will be Hell to pay...heck, I might be tempted to move back to Japan for a while.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 20, 2011)

Hmmmm. The government tells us which cars to buy, what food we can/can't eat, how much carbon dioxide our factories can produce, what kind of health insurance we have to get, and now if this bill passes, they can tell us what we can/can't visit on the internet. Wow. They should probably stop while they're ahead.

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/celebrity-pictures-joker-bailout.jpg

I can't even use the img code here? FAIL


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 20, 2011)

the_randomizer said:


> Hmmmm. The government tells us which cars to buy,



By having regulations so we don't die? I mean is it a bad thing that our cars have to have seat belts, airbags, and pass safety standards? You can still choose what car you want, just provided its passed these standards.



> what food we can/can't eat



Again, complaining about health standards? Really? If it wasn't for the government, we'd still be in the jungle. And you can still eat mostly everything from a KFC Double Down to nothing but tofu. I mean we have an entire cable network dedicated to food and you're complaining about the government "limiting what food we can eat"?



> how much carbon dioxide our factories can produce



Because I really wish companies just dumped all their hazardous waste into the air and into our streams.



> what kind of health insurance we have to get



You don't need health insurance and our health bill isn't even close to what it was imagined. Only insurance I do believe is mandatory is car insurance.



> they can tell us what we can/can't visit on the internet.



They're telling you that you can't do things that are illegal. I know we all love to pirate but I think we all forget that it's illegal. If we're gonna turn a blind eye to something that's illegal, where does it end?

This post is just ignorance in its prime.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 20, 2011)

But owing a car isn't mandatory, so why should we have to get Obama's? But anyways, what right does the government have to block websites? Granted, there are some sites I wished never existed; I swear they obey the movie industry fearing retaliation.  And yes, piracy is a major issue which should be curtailed as much as possible. Now with youtube (such as Let's Play videos), those I believe do no harm to the videogame industry, but provides free advertising and make people want to play games. What in the he** is wrong with posting videos like that, especially if they don't do it for monetary gain?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 20, 2011)

the_randomizer said:


> But owing a car isn't mandatory, so why should we have to get Obama's? But anyways, what right does the government have to block websites? Granted, there are some sites I wished never existed; I swear they obey the movie industry fearing retaliation.



I'm not quite familiar with this "car" policy but since when were Americans required to buy a car? You can pretty much live without a car if you live in a big city and use public transportation.

And it's the government's duty to stop things they we deem morally wrong. We as a people constitute getting something that's supposed to cost money for free as stealing COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. It's the government's duty to stop it then just as much as theft or murder. Of course I would be upset if they did, but I wouldn't be up in arms about it. I realize why I'm doing is illegal and morally wrong. Trust me, I've pirated things I would much rather buy simply because it's easier to pirate.


----------



## alphamule (Nov 20, 2011)

Copyright gives you the right to control distribution, not the (moral) rights to the information and it's form.  Otherwise, it would be a crime to remember that movie that you just watched.  Not gonna happen!  

If people can't make money, they are less likely to do it for obvious reasons.  Some will do it anyways but they're very rare.  Yeah, the easy-and-almost-anonymous piracy versus unlimited-length&strength monopoly (100+ year copyright with massive criminal penalties) extremes aren't really healthy for the creative industry.  Copyright, wrongly or not is pretty much a dead letter to most Internet users.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 20, 2011)

That's the problem, it's mandatory to get a car insurance, but not to get a car; yet the government thinks it's mandatory for everyone to get socialized medicine. But with youtube yes, there is a lot of copyright-infringing content on there, but the harmless act of uploading videos of people playing videogames? BFD. But getting back to piracy, yes, I used to pirate stuff as well, and I'm not really proud of it. The only "illegal" or "piracy"-related thing I do now is _*obliterating DRM on games I legally purchased*_. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory is a good example. It didn't work on Windows 7, despite StarForce having an "update". I went to *censored* and got the DRM removal patch. _*I fail see how getting DRM removal patches for legitimately obtained games or music hurt the industry (provided you don't give a copy to other people). *_But, hopefully we'll hear something about this internet-killing bill this week.


----------



## alphamule (Nov 22, 2011)

Partially at fault is also the fact that if you don't defend your 'IP' then it can bite you in the *ss when you go after blatant thieves.  It's really doing no commercial harm to have karaoke-via-youtube but the lawyers have a fit.  Someone releasing an album with a cover song and not paying the song writer is obviously commercial harm to the writer!

The way things are going though, you'll see threats of actual prison terms for singing on youtube, until some judge rules the law unconstitutional or backlash does an 'amendment 21' on it like what happened to prohibition.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2011)

Which is why I hope the bill fails. I have every right to upload gameplay videos for no financial gain.


----------

