Sign in to follow this  
Magnetic Ether

Stop Online Piracy Act

Recommended Posts

That article's last few quotes just proves my point.

Big businesses FEAR small business because they don't want them taking their money/customers. They don't want competition. Why do you think they push for such ridiculous bills? Because they want CONTROL, COMPLETE CONTROL.

This is somewhat off topic, but I'd like to point out this little slice from a website I frequent often, THE-GHETTO:

http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/used-video-games-the-new-software-piracy

BOLD text is my edit....

In the face of declining music industry profits, the Recording Industry Association of America has pushed for mandatory FM radios in cell phones* and sues the hell out of people who download their music for free through the internet. They do this to control distribution. Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T? They oppose net neutrality. They want a world where internet service provides can set up tiered pricing plans and turn that series of tubes into cable television. Where you pay an additional five dollars for the privilege of accessing YouTube. Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T want to control distribution.

Why does Microsoft respond to the most financially successful period in the history of computer gaming (the late nineties) by releasing a video game console? Because the personal computer is an open-source platform. Anybody can make a game for the personal computer. At the turn of the century, “creating a closed-source platform and convincing people to make games for that platform” seemed like the only way Microsoft could charge companies for distribution and licensing fees on a Microsoft operating platform. And I’m sure Bill Gates spent the years after Steam’s release jamming an icepick into his eyeballs. By the time Microsoft responded to Valve’s wunderkind with Games For Windows, the product felt so irrelevant and poorly designed that it had a “Bush Did 9/11″ feel to it, as if it was deliberately designed to distance people from computer games and towards their Xbox 360. Microsoft created the Xbox as a means to control distribution.

Why would Activision CEO Bobby Kotick state that he is interested in developing versions of Guitar Hero where the software does not require a gaming console?* Where the software and the hardware come as a single package? To circumvent the distribution policies of a Microsoft or a Sony. Where Activision has to pay a fee to those companies every time a copy of Guitar Hero is sold on either one of those platforms. Activision wants to design their games so they can circumvent the distribution process. Activision wants to control distribution.

Why did Blizzard Entertainment code Starcraft II without any offline functionality? (“Connect to the server and tell the server you want to play offline” does not count.) It wasn’t piracy. People will get around that eventually. It was to make sure that the South Koreans and Western tournament organizers cannot create televised Starcraft tournaments and play the game without paying licensing fees. Blizzard wants to control distribution.

Why do companies fling themselves at an unproven startup like OnLive? In a market that is already saturated with the means for playing the software? Because it would give developers and publishers peace of mind. A fourteen-year-old prodigy couldn’t hop on the internet and charter for assistance in how to unlock and distribute the data on his copy of Call of Duty 9. Because there would be no copy. In a world where OnLive is the only dominant gaming platform, that kid wouldn’t have an easy means of getting access to the data. The companies who support OnLive want to control distribution.

Controlling used game sales is a means of controlling distribution. And like all of the actions above, none necessarily provide for a better product. Hell, it hasn’t been established that they provide for a more profitable product. If those decisions had transformed video games into the Silicon Valley Casino, we would not be talking about controlling the distribution of used video games. And controlling the distribution of video games will not make for a better or more profitable product.

I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, let's build visible walls and fences. That'll solve everything.

The image of jurassic park came into my head,

just the image of information bursting out even after they have this bill out would be amazing to see.

This act just reeks of 1984 style totalitarian state.

Control and manipulate what you can and can't do.

Really can't wait until the "old money" as toadofthesky put them, become extinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The image of jurassic park came into my head,

just the image of information bursting out even after they have this bill out would be amazing to see.

This act just reeks of 1984 style totalitarian state.

Control and manipulate what you can and can't do.

Really can't wait until the "old money" as toadofthesky put them, become extinct.

Won't necessarily happen, a major economic crash would have to happen, even then, just like a cockroach, I think the old money would survive a nuclear holocast. Companies operate as a corporate hive mind. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a company making profit, nobody has ever said that on either side of the political pond. The WAY they go about making profit is the problem. The MENTALITY is the problem.

The hive mind these corporations have is that they must make profits NO MATTER THE COST. It doesn't matter if they're stripping people of their freedom, or their rights. It doesn't matter if they're pulling the rug from under people's feet, or strapping them with debt. It's all money money money. Hey, I like money too, but anybody can tell you just from watching the way this world is going, that it corrupts oh so easily.

Getting back on topic, major businesses/corporations still seem to struggle in a technological world that consistently outpaces them, and they're tired of trying to keep up. They want to be the ones who write the rules, not the consumers. This is why we have $80 cell phone plans with access to the internet, and then be stricken with a 2gb limit. This is also why companies decry used game sales when the quality of their games speaks for themselves.

I'm really not trying to sound like an OWS protestor here, because I've had these thoughts for years before people starting protesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that time when David Wise, Bean, and someone else collaborated on Serious Monkey Business' "Re-Skewed"? The OST composers came here to our projects to build upon their own previous work. Similar things have happened with other projects, IIRC. That begs the questions: If it would cost the game companies business, why would they do it? If our activities don't bleed the game industry, why would they want O-Clocked shut down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember that time when David Wise, Bean, and someone else collaborated on Serious Monkey Business' "Re-Skewed"? The OST composers came here to our projects to build upon their own previous work. Similar things have happened with other projects, IIRC. That begs the questions: If it would cost the game companies business, why would they do it? If our activities don't bleed the game industry, why would they want O-Clocked shut down?

For the same reason that so many homebrew projects based on Square-Enix games get C&D letters... because it might affect their bottom line. That, and there's that whole "protecting our IP" business.

OCR's existence is based around copyrighted music, from copyrighted games. It even hosts the original songs that were remixed, via emulated music formats. Because of this, it operates in a gray area that thus far, no one's been all that concerned about. But that can change at literally any moment. All a company has to do is decide it wants to protect its IPs, and request that DJP take down any and all remixes based on the music from their games. DJP would then have little choice but to comply (unless he likes legal battles to decide if remixes fall under any aspect of "fair use").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't think of any hypothetical opportunities to use OverClocked to cut into video game industry profits even if I wanted to. I don't see how anything in O-Clocked defeats the purpose of buying the corresponding item or service from any game company. The only reason money is sent to O-Clocked is in the form of donations simply to keep it running or make the hard copies of the albums, which, the way I see it, doesn't circulate enough money to really "profit" off the music.

But even if we could prove their bottom lines weren't suffering at our hands... if they would shut us down to "protect" their IPs, they must think we're "invading" them. What constitutes "invading" an IP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't think of any hypothetical opportunities to use OverClocked to cut into video game industry profits even if I wanted to. I don't see how anything in O-Clocked defeats the purpose of buying the corresponding item or service from any game company. The only reason money is sent to O-Clocked is in the form of donations simply to keep it running or make the hard copies of the albums, which, the way I see it, doesn't circulate enough money to really "profit" off the music.

But even if we could prove their bottom lines weren't suffering at our hands... if they would shut us down to "protect" their IPs, they must think we're "invading" them. What constitutes "invading" an IP?

Doesn't matter if OCR makes no money or profit. An IP is still copyrighted, and the companies can protect it or not protect it as they see fit. If a company dubs OCR as a threat to their IP for any reason, that company has the right to ask DJP to remove anything related to, or based on, what they own the rights to. They don't need a reason beyond "Because I said so."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't matter if OCR makes no money or profit. An IP is still copyrighted, and the companies can protect it or not protect it as they see fit. If a company dubs OCR as a threat to their IP for any reason, that company has the right to ask DJP to remove anything related to, or based on, what they own the rights to. They don't need a reason beyond "Because I said so."

And they will use that excuse. Don't be surprised if Nintendo and Square were to both ask for all their remixed music to be taken down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And they will use that excuse. Don't be surprised if Nintendo and Square were to both ask for all their remixed music to be taken down.

You're reasoning under DMCA logic still. Under SOPA, if Nintendo or Square decide that there may be infringing material on OCR, they tell the Justice Department, who then blocks all access to the website (unless you happen to know the IP address), and cut off all financial transactions in and out.

Of course, OCR still has five days to appeal the shutdown, but good luck trying (it's very hard to do).

EDIT: By the way, Nintendo (and Microsoft) no longer support SOPA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, same here. Last time I checked Nintendo was joining the fun with the likes of Sony, EA, Capcom and Square (among others). :-|

I find it hilarious that Microsoft quietly backed out of supporting that bill because they could stand to get into trouble themselves. Of course, ask them to even use any sort critical thinking on this vague bill would be like asking them to make their next console affordable. :roll:

As far as seeing who else is on the list, it doesn't surprise me. EA Capcom and Square would more than likely try to use that bill as a means to kill used games. I wouldn't be surprised there would be legal loophole for them to be able to do it somewhere in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forgive me for being blind as a fruit bat but where does it say that Nintendo oppose this now? i see only Microsoft and AT&T which i believe is a phone company.

Sorry, my bad. I assumed that Nintendo was part of the Business Software Alliance, like Microsoft and Apple. They aren't

The BSA was a strong supporter of SOPA until recently, and I was referencing the part of the article that said that the BSA said that SOPA needs some work first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bill is more liberal bias so there's definitely a good chance of this thing passing unless we get lucky and Obama is a fan of YouTube and decides he's going to lose his favorite site, but I doubt it.

As to the idea of Anonymous opposing this bill, all I can say is lulz...

You guys realize this bill gives Anon more power then they could possibly ever want. Now they can take out every internet business they choose that has an option to upload. So I doubt they are going to be to much against this bill, but I'm sure for PR purposes to keep the bs about them being "heroes" up that they'll hack a gov site or two.

Any hows, this bill sucks major donkey balls and I also agree you people should be calling representatives and making petitions. This bill will effectively and legally close off any type of uploading to the internet. With this same backwards logic, why don't just kill off everyone that is capable (Not meaning that they would but having the capability of committing a crime) of committing a crime to stop crime in the world. Truly this only again shows that our government would be better off run by monkeys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes bipartisan with a liberal slant since media companies are more supported by dems the repubs

Introduced by Representative Lamar Smith [R-TX]. Doesn't get much more liberal than a Republican from Texas, right? That must also be why Nancy Pelosi is opposing it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Introduced by Representative Lamar Smith [R-TX]. Doesn't get much more liberal than a Republican from Texas, right? That must also be why Nancy Pelosi is opposing it...

presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX), who joined nine Democrats to sign a letter to other House members warning that the bill would cause "an explosion of innovation-killing lawsuits and litigation

Who pays the pockets of the dems?

Majority Leader Harry Reid [D, NV], who, by the way, has already taken $665,420 this year from interests that support it.

the Motion Pictures Association of America last year (2010) hired one of the most powerful members of Congress in recent history — former Senator Chris Dodd [D, CT] — to serve as their Chairman and CEO. While Google does have one former member of Congress lobbying for them this year (Dick Gephardt), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has six.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX), who joined nine Democrats to sign a letter to other House members warning that the bill would cause "an explosion of innovation-killing lawsuits and litigation

Who pays the pockets of the dems?

Majority Leader Harry Reid [D, NV], who, by the way, has already taken $665,420 this year from interests that support it.

the Motion Pictures Association of America last year (2010) hired one of the most powerful members of Congress in recent history — former Senator Chris Dodd [D, CT] — to serve as their Chairman and CEO. While Google does have one former member of Congress lobbying for them this year (Dick Gephardt), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has six.

I'm not saying Dems don't support it, because obviously they do. The idea itself, though, isn't typical of their platform (see the vote on the net neutrality rules). Instead, they support this bill because Hollywood supports a lot of other liberal issues (gay marriage, etc), so the Dems don't want to get on industry's bad side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this