|
United States22883 Posts
On June 16 2011 13:56 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 13:51 Jibba wrote:On June 16 2011 13:44 VIB wrote:Haha, I was so 100% sure you were gonna reply that. Indeed you don't know what their stance is  They're buying Nortel patents to defend themselves. Exactly because they believe in fighting in the market instead of fighting in courts. Nortel's portfolio's will make Microsoft less likely to keep attacking Google (ie. hurting innovation). And save Google billions in trying to defend themselves against lawsuits. Google themselves have never attacked anyone. In short, what you posted proves precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Next time bother learning about the subject instead of just posting the first search result you find ^^ You don't think Google was patenting their services long before that (hint: they were) or have never countersued anyone (hint: they have)? Did you not read what I post? How does that change anything? Google believes IP lawsuits hurts innovation. Have always defended themselves against lawsuits. (which they claim are done by companies who cannot compete with them in the market, so have to resort to that). And have never attacked anyone. And these guys, with that stance, happen to be the most innovative tech company in the planet.
Everything they do makes money through advertising. If Google didn't have AdSense and AdMob everything would be a paid service. They can afford to take that stance because it's the world's largest advertising company. That is their business.
When someone restreams an NFL game, how much extra advertising revenue is being generated and how much goes to the NFL? Absolutely none. If Google didn't get paid for advertising on their services, they'd be broke.
|
Honestly I'd wish the United States government good luck in stopping something that is a global problem.
ITS NOT GONNA STOP NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO
|
On June 16 2011 13:58 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 13:56 VIB wrote:On June 16 2011 13:51 Jibba wrote:On June 16 2011 13:44 VIB wrote:Haha, I was so 100% sure you were gonna reply that. Indeed you don't know what their stance is They're buying Nortel patents to defend themselves. Exactly because they believe in fighting in the market instead of fighting in courts. Nortel's portfolio's will make Microsoft less likely to keep attacking Google (ie. hurting innovation). And save Google billions in trying to defend themselves against lawsuits. Google themselves have never attacked anyone. In short, what you posted proves precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Next time bother learning about the subject instead of just posting the first search result you find ^^ You don't think Google was patenting their services long before that (hint: they were) or have never countersued anyone (hint: they have)? Did you not read what I post? How does that change anything? Google believes IP lawsuits hurts innovation. Have always defended themselves against lawsuits. (which they claim are done by companies who cannot compete with them in the market, so have to resort to that). And have never attacked anyone. And these guys, with that stance, happen to be the most innovative tech company in the planet. They can afford to take that stance And you don't think that's a sign that maybe it's possible to make money (and consequently innovation) without having to go to courts to attack IP infringement? Or do you think they are the only business in the world who can afford to take that stance?
While old-school and outdated game companies like nintendo and ea are fighting are arming themselves to the teeth against piracy. The single richest and fastest growing game company in the whole world is distributing its games for free.
Doesn't that give you any hint that maybe the world is changing. And that in the current state, you can make a shitload of money and innovation without IP litigation? And consequently IP disputes hurt innovation more than they help.
|
They can't police it worldwide. Their the USA, not the World Police, they can only enforce this upon US Citizens. But don't worry, they're home of the "free".
All jokes aside, this is fucking stupid, especially seeing as streaming is still a very young emerging industry. Greed is all that fuels this law.
|
Perhaps greed does fuel their motivations, but they are a corporation and they should try to make profit. Should they change their business model to fit the changing landscape-yes. However, I don't think you can argue that they are not entitled to the right to their property. That is what this bill is for, it is protecting what is theirs. Ultimently we are the ones watching something that we have not paid for.
|
On June 16 2011 13:24 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 12:52 Jibba wrote:
They're speaking of technological/scientific progress, which by all types of evidence, is actually progressed through IP management. O.o Let me guess, you never even heard of Groklaw? And you have absolutely no idea what the world's most innovative tech company (google) stance on IP is?
Google would make a ton of money if there were fewer laws against IP, so why should we expect them to have any other stance? Also, how does a case study of one company prove that fewer IP laws lead to greater innovation?
|
Blizzard would never pursue something like this on users like you and I.
Now if it were a big corporation gaining a ton of profit then they'd file. Rightfully so.
But no need to worry Day[9], blizzard loves you and Gom.
|
The thing is, people only pirate when they can't afford it in the first place. If people cannot pirate the material they will simply never see it. That does not increase the revenue of the people who "own" the copyrighted material. Not to mention that this law gets more and more broad when they keep adding another comma and another word to describe mediums. First it was hard copies then it was downloads, now it is streaming. Eventually everyone is pirating something from everyone else because the only time you are not breaking the law is when someone doesn't mind you using their info. Then you are trusting companies to not want to sue people where they can get free money instead of working for it. Obviously Blizzard won't sue Destiny for streaming without a license to do so, but they will say something to Day[9] about music he played. Where is the line and where is the consistency? This is why things need to be rewritten for modern times. We need to stop clogging up the courts with frivolous lawsuits. A lot of this happens because there are so many out of work lawyers fresh out of law school with tons of debt and no job offers. (There isn't a lot of money in doing bankruptcies for people.) These laws are getting close to the IRS tax laws which are so complex that everyone thinks they did something wrong so they won't dare draw any attention to themselves even if they think they had to pay too much. Everyone is scared to death of getting audited by the IRS even when they went to H&R Block or some reputable place and tried to do it right. By creating this fear, you stop speaking out as much. You stop creating revolutions in the Middle East and Africa via social networking, which includes streaming, to spread new ideas of how you want to live. They just want you to think this is about the industries being robbed of money.
|
On June 16 2011 10:50 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 10:10 xarthaz wrote:Intellectual property is cancer to society. It creates scarcity and conflict where none is necessary. Media can be peacefully and globally shared without anyone pointing a gun toward someone else. It is purely barbaric to punish people for using content that takes nothing away from anyone else. On June 16 2011 10:01 cfoy3 wrote:
I think some people here are being a little ridiculous. I mean corporation's have rights too. Hollywood spends a lot of money making quality entertainment. They need revenue. If this law starts to clamp down on the illegal streaming of entertainment, such as tv shows, then I think its a good thing. If we do not make the business of producing entertainment profitable, then their wont be a business. No, you dont understand. The artificial scarcity is twhat is ridiculous. It is purely evil, due to enforcement of violence over rights that no one need have. You know theres easier way to let people know youre a moron. People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you.
It is strange youre using that argument - when all that is necessary to make profits in a non-IP world in those same fields (gaming, music, movies, entertainment) is altering of business models. As a self respecting person, you are surely aware of the scarce/nonscarce distinction between physical property and IP. As such, all that is necessary for those business fields to be profitable without ip is concentration on the scarce aspects of the product - like delivering a service, physical bonuses, advertisement or merchandise based model. Im sure you are aware that for smaller businesses engaging in IP production that is the focus anyway - as the cartelized system of IP revenue enforcement is more suitable for the corporations and already established product lines.
|
i don't think i'll ever stop finding reasons to want to move somewhere else when i'm prepared to lol.
|
Will this really affect sc2 streams given you don't stream any music/video? I find it very unclear if this applies to video games because you're not able to play the game by watching a stream thus making it a lot less of a crime in comparison to streaming of music/videos where you basically get the whole product for free.
|
+ Show Spoiler +The thing is, people only pirate when they can't afford it in the first place. If people cannot pirate the material they will simply never see it. That does not increase the revenue of the people who "own" the copyrighted material. Not to mention that this law gets more and more broad when they keep adding another comma and another word to describe mediums. First it was hard copies then it was downloads, now it is streaming. Eventually everyone is pirating something from everyone else because the only time you are not breaking the law is when someone doesn't mind you using their info. Then you are trusting companies to not want to sue people where they can get free money instead of working for it. Obviously Blizzard won't sue Destiny for streaming without a license to do so, but they will say something to Day[9] about music he played. Where is the line and where is the consistency? This is why things need to be rewritten for modern times. We need to stop clogging up the courts with frivolous lawsuits. A lot of this happens because there are so many out of work lawyers fresh out of law school with tons of debt and no job offers. (There isn't a lot of money in doing bankruptcies for people.) These laws are getting close to the IRS tax laws which are so complex that everyone thinks they did something wrong so they won't dare draw any attention to themselves even if they think they had to pay too much. Everyone is scared to death of getting audited by the IRS even when they went to H&R Block or some reputable place and tried to do it right. By creating this fear, you stop speaking out as much. You stop creating revolutions in the Middle East and Africa via social networking, which includes streaming, to spread new ideas of how you want to live. They just want you to think this is about the industries being robbed of money.
I disagree with your starting assumption that people only stream when they do not have the money to watch the content legally. I think a good percent stream tv, not because they cannot afford it, but because it frees them up to spend money on other things they can not get for free. Now as to your comments regarding courts and what reforms they should undergo, I can not comment. I am simply not an expert in court structure and what problems they currently have. Perhaps if you could link to sources that explain these problems more fully with comments from experts/rebutals I could debate the merits of such a proposal.
Further, I have commented a few times and no one seems to debate the basic notion that in the current legal framework the corporations have the right to ask for this law. So far I have seen only arguments that deal against the general act of capitalism and then treat immorality of IP rights as a derivative result. I feel while this argument has some merit it does not pertain to this specific issue and a new thread made debating the merits of capitalism and IP rights could potentially be brought up in that context.
|
Another reason for me to leave the US ... I can't believe the government would even consider something this stupid. eSports is starting to grow in the world, and this would seriously hamper it's progress in the US. I hope this does not happen.
|
I think for once I'm grateful to live in the land down under.. But it's only time until we adopt the same law ;_;
|
Currently this is discouraging. But I am going to try not to worry about it too much and carry on. The bill seems too vague at this point, and it will probably take a while for it to get through legislation. However, I would keep an eye on it, and if it goes to vote I would write your representative.
|
On June 30 2011 12:03 Jonny55 wrote:
Another reason for me to leave the US ... I can't believe the government would even consider something this stupid. eSports is starting to grow in the world, and this would seriously hamper it's progress in the US. I hope this does not happen.
go to canada man. i heArd theres no internet problems there
ez
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
