Gracinfields Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 again read the post. If they aren't loosing money they won't have a case. Yet that won't stop them from Trumping up charges just to get it taken to court. Cause there is someone out there that would really actually push a case. You know how? They could claim why bother buying the game when you can catch the story by watching someone else play. Or they could claim that no ne bought the game because someone streamed video of how bad the game play or story was. You know it to be true that some company would claim that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 What is wrong with attempting to protect their property. These people have invested large sums of money to produce these things and deserve to be compensated for their efforts. I doubt very seriously, if these people who pirate these items would be as open to allowing people to enter their own home and take what they wanted. As far as netflix is concerned. I'm sure they have an agreement with those who produced these movies and are protected in some fashoin from this bill.This bill has nothing to do with piracy, I have said that quite a few times now... Streaming copyrighted movies and TV shows is already illegal. Downloading games is already illegal. Read the second post in this thread. If the owning authority has been financial effected, then what else can you call it. You want to use someone else's property, you ask themPeople buy games to play them, not to watch them. Its illogical to think that you can lose profit from streaming game play. Game companies do not want this bill to pass, do you really think this bill is for good? again read the post. If they aren't loosing money they won't have a case.Why would it matter if they had a case or not? You don't need factual information to pass laws, you just need to be able to trick enough people into believing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 What is wrong with attempting to protect their property. These people have invested large sums of money to produce these things and deserve to be compensated for their efforts. I doubt very seriously, if these people who pirate these items would be as open to allowing people to enter their own home and take what they wanted. As far as netflix is concerned. I'm sure they have an agreement with those who produced these movies and are protected in some fashoin from this bill.This bill has nothing to do with piracy, I have said that quite a few times now... Streaming copyrighted movies and TV shows is already illegal. Downloading games is already illegal. Read the second post in this thread. If the owning authority has been financial effected, then what else can you call it. You want to use someone else's property, you ask themPeople buy games to play them, not to watch them. Its illogical to think that you can lose profit from streaming game play. Game companies do not want this bill to pass, do you really think this bill is for good? again read the post. If they aren't loosing money they won't have a case. That won't stop them from suing though. Seems everyone loves litigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ub3rman123 Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 There's also the possibility that they aren't going to go after the people who do things like upload music videos to YouTube or Let's Play videos. They're going to go after the hosts. What happened to that YouTube lawsuit earlier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 again read the post. If they aren't loosing money they won't have a case. Yet that won't stop them from Trumping up charges just to get it taken to court. Cause there is someone out there that would really actually push a case. You know how? They could claim why bother buying the game when you can catch the story by watching someone else play. Or they could claim that no ne bought the game because someone streamed video of how bad the game play or story was. You know it to be true that some company would claim that. What I know is that companies are out there for the big bucks and there isn't that much to be had when you pay a big time lawyer to go after something that doesn't effect their bottom line. At most they will send out a cease and desist notice. If someone wants to push them, then they are just asking to be made an example of. This bill is just a cover all bill that will give the companies the tools to go after people that are causing them trouble. I still say there is no reason why these companies would go after someone just posting some small sample of their product. Most companies do more than this, just to advertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 again read the post. If they aren't loosing money they won't have a case. Yet that won't stop them from Trumping up charges just to get it taken to court. Cause there is someone out there that would really actually push a case. You know how? They could claim why bother buying the game when you can catch the story by watching someone else play. Or they could claim that no ne bought the game because someone streamed video of how bad the game play or story was. You know it to be true that some company would claim that. What I know is that companies are out there for the big bucks and there isn't that much to be had when you pay a big time lawyer to go after something that doesn't effect their bottom line. At most they will send out a cease and desist notice. If someone wants to push them, then they are just asking to be made an example of. This bill is just a cover all bill that will give the companies the tools to go after people that are causing them trouble. I still say there is no reason why these companies would go after someone just posting some small sample of their product. Most companies do more than this, just to advertise. While you may not see any reason for it, that does not necessarily imply the companies think the same way you do. If they see an opportunity to prosecute a case, that may or may not have any merit, if it 'sets an example' that using the material in ANY way that doesn't make the company money...... they will sue. Corporate america is just like that. (even if it is FREE advertising.....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 What is wrong with attempting to protect their property. These people have invested large sums of money to produce these things and deserve to be compensated for their efforts. I doubt very seriously, if these people who pirate these items would be as open to allowing people to enter their own home and take what they wanted. As far as netflix is concerned. I'm sure they have an agreement with those who produced these movies and are protected in some fashoin from this bill.This bill has nothing to do with piracy, I have said that quite a few times now... Streaming copyrighted movies and TV shows is already illegal. Downloading games is already illegal. Read the second post in this thread. If the owning authority has been financial effected, then what else can you call it. You want to use someone else's property, you ask themPeople buy games to play them, not to watch them. Its illogical to think that you can lose profit from streaming game play. Game companies do not want this bill to pass, do you really think this bill is for good? again read the post. If they aren't loosing money they won't have a case. That won't stop them from suing though. Seems everyone loves litigation. May I remind you guys that in many states the looser has to pay the court costs. The corporate world is far less sue happy as many individuals are. They have much more to loose by running around trying to stamp out small fires everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 again read the post. If they aren't loosing money they won't have a case. Yet that won't stop them from Trumping up charges just to get it taken to court. Cause there is someone out there that would really actually push a case. You know how? They could claim why bother buying the game when you can catch the story by watching someone else play. Or they could claim that no ne bought the game because someone streamed video of how bad the game play or story was. You know it to be true that some company would claim that. What I know is that companies are out there for the big bucks and there isn't that much to be had when you pay a big time lawyer to go after something that doesn't effect their bottom line. At most they will send out a cease and desist notice. If someone wants to push them, then they are just asking to be made an example of. This bill is just a cover all bill that will give the companies the tools to go after people that are causing them trouble. I still say there is no reason why these companies would go after someone just posting some small sample of their product. Most companies do more than this, just to advertise. While you may not see any reason for it, that does not necessarily imply the companies think the same way you do. If they see an opportunity to prosecute a case, that may or may not have any merit, if it 'sets an example' that using the material in ANY way that doesn't make the company money...... they will sue. Corporate america is just like that. (even if it is FREE advertising.....) Companies think of the bottom line. If they bring suit against someone who can't pay, either way and they can't show where they are loosing money, then they will be the one's that front the entire cost of the litigation. Court fees and everything. Companies are not stupid. Ifr they were they wouldn't be companies they would be bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gracinfields Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Actually a lot of companies love to swing the sue hammer at times just to deal with compitition with each other and with small moding groups. Microsoft and Bungie brought a Cease and Disist order with the thread of suing a moding group which created their own mesh, sounds and textures for a C&C Generals mod that brought Halo to the real time Strategy relm. A few months after the order Bungie announce it is working on a Halo RTS game which later got known as Halo: Wars which turned into a nasty flop. However the people who got to test the beta of the C&C Generals mod where prasing it as a great Total Conversion for Generals. Hasbro took the makers of the GI Joe mod for C&C Renegade because they didn't cease their work which was totally their own work besides the name of the characters & equipment, Hasbro also slapped the GI Joe Ghost Recon Mod team with a cease and disist order as well with threat to sue. As for an example between companies sueing over little stuff look at the court case Macross vs Steam and Tinker (The team working on the New Mechwarrior: Reboot) they sueing because the Warhammer Battlemech which appeared in the Teaser Trailer looks to much like one of their design. So don't say the companies are not sue happy because that is just wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientSpaceAeon Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 While I don't know much about these things, but from what I have read/heard it seems like that this will affect areas outside the US too. Is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now