ginnyfizz Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Two things: 1. SOPA was vetoed. 2. The taking-down of MU was not caused by SOPA or PIPA. It was caused by a two-year FBI investigation that is not related to SOPA or PIPA. As in, this was happening before both bills were even drafted. The timing of it is incredibly unfortunate, so it's understandable why people are making the distinction. I think Obama has threatened to use his veto, depending on what happens when it comes up before Congress again early next week. Hence the timing of the internet blackouts and protests. The fact that the takedown was NOT prompted by SOPA or PIPA is exactly the point - they already have the power to take down offending sites, so where is the point of new laws? @Vagrant0, I hear what you're saying, can the Nexus staff not see the hidden files? If not, perhaps they should be able to. I agree Nexus COULD in theory be affected, but there is nothing to gain and potentially a lot to lose for game companies in taking such an action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzerfong Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I don't see the massive foray of game companies worrying that much about their assets (other than their creators, which is understandable, but they're not the ones suing). After all, it's free advertisement for their game: and what's more, by suing a gaming community, they damage their PR quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingHigh10000000 Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 Arthmoor, must you be so abrasive with the way you present your argument? At this point you're not even presenting an argument; you're just laughing at people with differing opinions, and to be quite honest, it's coming across as more than a little bit rude and ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Perhaps me "not presenting an argument" is an illustrative attempt to show that nobody else is either? There sure is an awful lot of ignorance on display. I'll refrain from being more specific than that, lest I offend sensitive minds. Perhaps I genuinely think it's hilarious that anyone truly believes Obama is a champion of free speech? Constitutional professor he may be, but if that's the case, he knows better than to frame this as a free speech issue. The 1st Amendment does not protect criminal behavior and he knows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 @Vagrant0, I hear what you're saying, can the Nexus staff not see the hidden files? If not, perhaps they should be able to. I agree Nexus COULD in theory be affected, but there is nothing to gain and potentially a lot to lose for game companies in taking such an action.The real issue here is that they really don't even need proof if these bills pass... Or potentially under the DMCA. All they need is something to suggest that an IP is being infringed upon. For example, a mod which adds Zelda themed weapons and equipment into Oblivion/Skyrim could potentially fall under SOPA, or PIPA, even if the models, textures, and other assets are made from scratch by a user. This is because the names and likeness of these objects are part of an intellectual property owned by Nintendo. Companies like this normally do not act on fan-made creations which replicate their IP because it usually isn't worth the long, drawn out process of investigation, or proof. The burden of proof with these things however is becoming less and less or a hindrance to these companies against content creators. These things may be allowed for the moment, but like with fan-fiction, it is subject to change and depends largely on if the parent companies feel that these things are a reason for declining sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginnyfizz Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Ah yes, there's a creeping erosion of freedoms and that is the worrying thing, the shifting of the burden of proof, indeed the abolishing of the need for it by SOPA, is what I can see to be a dangerous development, I'm with you on that for sure, Vagrant0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzerfong Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 @ Vagrant: If that's true, that means that this site nearly ceases to exist save for not a lot of things remaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keastkannegaard Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Well currently its ILLEGAL to print a kids drawing of Mickey Mouse on a cake in the states... Do you really think its legal to make a Mickey Mouse Mod for Skyrim? With SOPA they will be able to shut down any user submitted drawings of Mickey Mouse if they want! Thats the reality... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bben46 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 First, SOPA has not been vetoed. It has not even come up for a vote yet. All of the internet protests have just managed to postpone it - hopefully for ever. Obama never said he would veto these bills, He just said he would seriously consider it - which is his job with every piece of legislature that crosses his desk. Now, The entire reason for copyrights was to protect the artist or creator of an original work from having his work used by others without his permission or being paid for that work. Today, most copyrights are owed by the mega media corporations and not the original creator. These companies are the ones lobbying for more stringent copyright protection and longer copyrights. Explain to me how a creator can benefit from a copyright lawsuit after he has been dead for years? The mega corps claim it protects his 'family' - when in reality, the family gets nothing after the original copyright has been assigned. The reality is it protects the profits of the corporation and no one else. My own suggestion is to have a copyright last for the life of the original creator plus one year. One of the unintended consequences of this will be to cause the copyright owning companies take better care of their artists while they are alive just to keep the money flowing. As for tha argument that the family somehow benefits - My family will not get any benefits from my work when I die (beyond the life insurance that I pay for) Why should an artist be treated any different? Patents, which are also original work, are good in the US for either 14 or 20 years. Then they expire, Which is much more reasonable than copyrights which are now seemingly valid forever as they keep extending the time. And the US Supreme court has just ruled that works that are already in the public domain can be placed back under copyright. :rolleyes: If you want to know how they can do this, Follow the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stabbykitteh Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The bills have been officially shelved, albeit temporarily. Guess we'll see what happens.Whether you think the reaction was silly or not, it's nice to know that the peons can still have some effect here... Now if people could only cry this loudly over our crappy foreign policy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts