Bill S. 978

[kvnchrist]

 

"It puts control back into the hands of those who own the product. If you want to do something with it, you ask first."

 

Streaming video games does not effect profit, it would help profit. The companies do not mind. It is simply just talking about the game.

 

So what is the difference between typing something on these forums about the game? It is not a copyright issue since it clearly does not effect profit.

 

Lets stop the quote pyramid here. You know very well what my point is.

 

If the companies don't care why would they sue. You seem to think that laws are not disobeyed anywhere in the world. All you need to do is go to any torrent site to see how many people obey laws already on the books.

 

You guys seem to think this bill is some type of a death sentence. Companies don't have the time or money to go around stamping out every fire that pops up. They are not going to shut down anybody, unless there is a clear effect on their bottom line. It's simply not cost efficient.

 

My entire problem with this whole thing is the seeming overwhelming attitude on the internet that property don't matter and profit is an ugly word.

I've had this conversation before, on other sites and it is always the same thingt. The nasty companies are out to destroy everyone's right to someone else's property and how dare they take actions to protect what is theirs. I bet if these companies stopped creating these products, it would be there fault as well.

Illegally downloading games and streaming video from the games are not even close to being the same thing.

 

For profit and morality of companies, that's for another thread.

 

Also, people don't like to obey copyright laws. How would this bill help then?

 

Who's property is it? What is the definition of theft.

 

If the laws that have been created before this bill was created, were obeyed, do you really think anyone would have brought this bill up. There hardly would have been the need.

[marharth]

 

"It puts control back into the hands of those who own the product. If you want to do something with it, you ask first."

 

Streaming video games does not effect profit, it would help profit. The companies do not mind. It is simply just talking about the game.

 

So what is the difference between typing something on these forums about the game? It is not a copyright issue since it clearly does not effect profit.

 

Lets stop the quote pyramid here. You know very well what my point is.

 

If the companies don't care why would they sue. You seem to think that laws are not disobeyed anywhere in the world. All you need to do is go to any torrent site to see how many people obey laws already on the books.

 

You guys seem to think this bill is some type of a death sentence. Companies don't have the time or money to go around stamping out every fire that pops up. They are not going to shut down anybody, unless there is a clear effect on their bottom line. It's simply not cost efficient.

 

My entire problem with this whole thing is the seeming overwhelming attitude on the internet that property don't matter and profit is an ugly word.

I've had this conversation before, on other sites and it is always the same thingt. The nasty companies are out to destroy everyone's right to someone else's property and how dare they take actions to protect what is theirs. I bet if these companies stopped creating these products, it would be there fault as well.

Illegally downloading games and streaming video from the games are not even close to being the same thing.

 

For profit and morality of companies, that's for another thread.

 

Also, people don't like to obey copyright laws. How would this bill help then?

 

Who's property is it? What is the definition of theft.

 

If the laws that have been created before this bill was created, were obeyed, do you really think anyone would have brought this bill up. There hardly would have been the need.

Theft is obtaining someones property without the contest of the owner. That is not what streaming video games is, that is what downloading video games is.

 

If the laws were not obeyed, what is making people obey this law?

 

Sites will pop up that do the things the bill makes illegal, it really won't matter.

[kvnchrist]

 

"It puts control back into the hands of those who own the product. If you want to do something with it, you ask first."

 

Streaming video games does not effect profit, it would help profit. The companies do not mind. It is simply just talking about the game.

 

So what is the difference between typing something on these forums about the game? It is not a copyright issue since it clearly does not effect profit.

 

Lets stop the quote pyramid here. You know very well what my point is.

 

If the companies don't care why would they sue. You seem to think that laws are not disobeyed anywhere in the world. All you need to do is go to any torrent site to see how many people obey laws already on the books.

 

You guys seem to think this bill is some type of a death sentence. Companies don't have the time or money to go around stamping out every fire that pops up. They are not going to shut down anybody, unless there is a clear effect on their bottom line. It's simply not cost efficient.

 

My entire problem with this whole thing is the seeming overwhelming attitude on the internet that property don't matter and profit is an ugly word.

I've had this conversation before, on other sites and it is always the same thingt. The nasty companies are out to destroy everyone's right to someone else's property and how dare they take actions to protect what is theirs. I bet if these companies stopped creating these products, it would be there fault as well.

Illegally downloading games and streaming video from the games are not even close to being the same thing.

 

For profit and morality of companies, that's for another thread.

 

Also, people don't like to obey copyright laws. How would this bill help then?

 

Who's property is it? What is the definition of theft.

 

If the laws that have been created before this bill was created, were obeyed, do you really think anyone would have brought this bill up. There hardly would have been the need.

Theft is obtaining someones property without the contest of the owner. That is not what streaming video games is, that is what downloading video games is.

 

 

 

 

 

What images are being used to create these streaming threads Who is the owning authority?

 

f the laws were not obeyed, what is making people obey this law?

 

Sites will pop up that do the things the bill makes illegal, it really won't matter.

 

Precisely, which will again make the authorities create another bill, and another one after that. I have my values, which I have stated. My question to you is if everybody will end up doing what they want anyway, why is this bill so appalling to so many.

[Vagrant0]

I think people misunderstand... If this bill passes, it also includes images of copyrighted works. Meaning that the image share section and potentially all images related to mods posted after the date of this bill are also illegal under US law.

 

And sadly, this isn't just some misinterpretation of the bill. The language of this bill is actually broad enough to cover this much as well.

[kvnchrist]

I think people misunderstand... If this bill passes, it also includes images of copyrighted works. Meaning that the image share section and potentially all images related to mods posted after the date of this bill are also illegal under US law.

 

And sadly, this isn't just some misinterpretation of the bill. The language of this bill is actually broad enough to cover this much as well.

 

Would they be illegal if there was an agreement between the owner of this site and the owning authority?

[HeyYou]

I think people misunderstand... If this bill passes, it also includes images of copyrighted works. Meaning that the image share section and potentially all images related to mods posted after the date of this bill are also illegal under US law.

 

And sadly, this isn't just some misinterpretation of the bill. The language of this bill is actually broad enough to cover this much as well.

 

Would they be illegal if there was an agreement between the owner of this site and the owning authority?

 

It would seem to me that a forum like this promotes products.

 

That makes far too much sense though.....

 

The person posting the image would be the one that had to obtain permission to post such a shot though. The site could be held responsible for hosting images that do NOT have the appropriate permissions.

[Vagrant0]

I think people misunderstand... If this bill passes, it also includes images of copyrighted works. Meaning that the image share section and potentially all images related to mods posted after the date of this bill are also illegal under US law.

 

And sadly, this isn't just some misinterpretation of the bill. The language of this bill is actually broad enough to cover this much as well.

 

Would they be illegal if there was an agreement between the owner of this site and the owning authority?

 

It would seem to me that a forum like this promotes products.

The problem is securing such an agreement, for every case. If just this site has to contact 4 or 5 different publishers, imagine what other sites would have to do, let alone how many those publishers must get. THAT is the stupidity of this bill. It doesn't pertain just to illegally uploaded movies and video, but to ANY "public transmission of copyrighted work". And THAT is the problem.

[kvnchrist]

I think people misunderstand... If this bill passes, it also includes images of copyrighted works. Meaning that the image share section and potentially all images related to mods posted after the date of this bill are also illegal under US law.

 

And sadly, this isn't just some misinterpretation of the bill. The language of this bill is actually broad enough to cover this much as well.

 

Would they be illegal if there was an agreement between the owner of this site and the owning authority?

 

It would seem to me that a forum like this promotes products.

The problem is securing such an agreement, for every case. If just this site has to contact 4 or 5 different publishers, imagine what other sites would have to do, let alone how many those publishers must get. THAT is the stupidity of this bill. It doesn't pertain just to illegally uploaded movies and video, but to ANY "public transmission of copyrighted work". And THAT is the problem.

 

 

I always thought that forums like this were already known to the people who own the material we are discussing.

 

It would seem to me that a forum like this promotes such products. What financial loss could be applied to having pictures, that promote a product.

 

My whole take from this is that people who can be proven that they have caused a financial loose to the owner of the material need only be worried about it.

 

Maybe I'm above my head here, if I am then I stand corrected.

[HeyYou]

I think people misunderstand... If this bill passes, it also includes images of copyrighted works. Meaning that the image share section and potentially all images related to mods posted after the date of this bill are also illegal under US law.

 

And sadly, this isn't just some misinterpretation of the bill. The language of this bill is actually broad enough to cover this much as well.

 

Would they be illegal if there was an agreement between the owner of this site and the owning authority?

 

It would seem to me that a forum like this promotes products.

The problem is securing such an agreement, for every case. If just this site has to contact 4 or 5 different publishers, imagine what other sites would have to do, let alone how many those publishers must get. THAT is the stupidity of this bill. It doesn't pertain just to illegally uploaded movies and video, but to ANY "public transmission of copyrighted work". And THAT is the problem.

 

 

I always thought that forums like this were already known to the people who own the material we are discussing.

 

It would seem to me that a forum like this promotes such products. What financial loss could be applied to having pictures, that promote a product.

 

My whole take from this is that people who can be proven that they have caused a financial loose to the owner of the material need only be worried about it.

 

Maybe I'm above my head here, if I am then I stand corrected.

 

Well, that would all depend on the definition of "financial loss". Some could interpret the posting of material from a game as an 'unveiling of a mystery', which may prompt the viewer to NOT buy the game....... (I know, quite a stretch, but, given some of the crap I have seen fly in our legal system, SOMEONE would attempt just such an argument.)

[kvnchrist]

I think people misunderstand... If this bill passes, it also includes images of copyrighted works. Meaning that the image share section and potentially all images related to mods posted after the date of this bill are also illegal under US law.

 

And sadly, this isn't just some misinterpretation of the bill. The language of this bill is actually broad enough to cover this much as well.

 

Would they be illegal if there was an agreement between the owner of this site and the owning authority?

 

It would seem to me that a forum like this promotes products.

The problem is securing such an agreement, for every case. If just this site has to contact 4 or 5 different publishers, imagine what other sites would have to do, let alone how many those publishers must get. THAT is the stupidity of this bill. It doesn't pertain just to illegally uploaded movies and video, but to ANY "public transmission of copyrighted work". And THAT is the problem.

 

 

I always thought that forums like this were already known to the people who own the material we are discussing.

 

It would seem to me that a forum like this promotes such products. What financial loss could be applied to having pictures, that promote a product.

 

My whole take from this is that people who can be proven that they have caused a financial loose to the owner of the material need only be worried about it.

 

Maybe I'm above my head here, if I am then I stand corrected.

 

Well, that would all depend on the definition of "financial loss". Some could interpret the posting of material from a game as an 'unveiling of a mystery', which may prompt the viewer to NOT buy the game....... (I know, quite a stretch, but, given some of the crap I have seen fly in our legal system, SOMEONE would attempt just such an argument.)

 

 

Well, I've seen a grandma sue McDonalds for getting burned after she put a cup of steaming coffee between her legs and remove the top, in a moving car, so I can see your scenario happening. My only hope that if it does happen the judge will be fair enough to require satisfactory proof of this loss.