Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by choxorn, Jan 16, 2012.
No. He's President of the MPAA. The revolving doors just go round and round.
Or this is what happens when Washington thinks no one is watching and tries to pass crap like this. Then, the you know what hits the fan and everyone backtracks and says more discussion is needed.
They were voted in by more fools.
Reminds me of the Alex Shrub answer in Vice City after being asked why he raises taxes after promising zero taxes and pays the rich to dump toxic waste next to the poor: 'I'll take for fiteen minutes about a completely unrelated subject and then remind everyone that under my government Vice City's had 15% better weather'
Yes, politics are always a small world.
wtf? That is steam's DRM. It's also why I've been boycotting them.
And about these laws: they're great! Because they finally make people start to see that the only way "piracy" can be prevented is through draconian laws. You can either have those laws, and hand over to its overseers the power to arbitrarily persecute anyone when they find convenient (because everybody will be violating them at some time), or you can drop the whole outdated notion of copyright already. Businesses were built around it and will have to be replaced by different ones? It's already happening. People didn't outlaw cars for the sake of the buggy whip makers. They tried, though...
The only "immaterial property rights" requiring legal protection are those of identity, against impersonation/deceit/fraud. So protect brands, protect names, that kind of stuff. To violate that falls under the much older notion of fraud anyway.
But preventing copies? In this "digital era"? No way. Patents and copyright have outlived their usefulness, if they ever had one.
Only a few Steam games actually need Steam to run them. Paradox games, for instance, can easily be run without Steam. For a Steam-based game like Civ V, they would likely be legally obligated to make them still playable, otherwise the makers of those games would get massively screwed over, even if you discount the pissed-off fanbase.
These articles are showing some good signs about new opposition to the bills...
I was part of that massive group calling my Senators and my local House Rep.
Is Ben Quayle of Arizona related to Dan Quayle?
As the representative of my hometown district, I can say with shame... yes. But, he doesn't seem like an idiot from what I can tell.
Saying you're against SOPA is a subjective claim that is impossible to verify, but saying you're for SOPA is not?
So basically what you're saying here is that you are right, and even if you aren't right, nobody can ever prove you wrong ever, they can only prove you more right. Is that what I'm seeing here?
Why are you persisting with this? GOMtv employees and other individuals directly or indirectly sponsored by Blizzard have all spoken out against SOPA/PIPA!
I guess I'm just smashing my skull into a brick wall, though, as you have already stated that it is completely impossible to prove you wrong.
If we drop the entire concept of intellectual property, what alternative do you propose?
Why should it exist at all? It has no benefit and, as this SOPA/PIPA brouhaha proves intellectual property is all about extortion.
Leave people alone.
Interesting. Hollywood and the rest of the SOPA/PIPA/OPEN supporters have succesfully painted themselves as 21st century Shylocks who do provide crappy service and want to take down anyone who might do it better than them at lower cost or, usually, for free.
Methinks Obama stopping SOPA awfully close to the election time isn't by coincidence.
He does seem to be coming out and taking some token "liberal" stances, e.g., his recent shift on the XL pipeline. Although the indefinite detention veto would have been a pretty nice breadcrumb to throw out there, if that was his intention...
The blackout's over; Wikipedia is back up.
But it's worked, I'd hold one every week until all three moronic laws crash to the ground.
Very few people would try hard or invest large amounts of resources to create or invent anything if we didn't have them. There has to be a large financial incentive for innovation.
If you invent something or create something(and your weren't paid by someone else or a company to do so), you(and only you) should have the right to make large sums of money from it for a limited period of time.
While that's true, current copyright law defines "a limited time" as "until 70 years after you die."
Citation goddamn required. I'm sick of seeing the same old tired talking points about how profit motive is the only reason people do anything. It's not, and people did all kinds of things before there was profit motive. I want to see this point substantiated.
Separate names with a comma.