Jimquisition: Sony, Nintendo, EA and SOPA
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
I've been signal-boosting regarding this horrible bill. Besides seeming self-destructive, it's frighteningly vague, and I've been considering abstaining from purchasing products made by the companies who have supported this. I do not pirate, and I do not support piracy, but this is just plain ridiculous.
As a side-note, I also ended up buying Haunting Ground after watching a playthrough of it online and becoming intrigued. It's not one of my favorite horror games. If I hadn't watched that playthrough, I never would have bothered with the purchase.
As a side-note, I also ended up buying Haunting Ground after watching a playthrough of it online and becoming intrigued. It's not one of my favorite horror games. If I hadn't watched that playthrough, I never would have bothered with the purchase.
I heard that BSA (Business Software Alliance), a supporter of SOPA and associated with Microsoft and Apple, no longer supports it. Now if only there was a way to convince Sony, Nintendo, Electronic Arts, and the ESA about why SOPA should not be supported. I should also note that Nintendo of America and Sony are both members of the CEA (Consumer Electronics Association), who doesn't support SOPA, and CEA may cancel its membership to the United States Chamber of Commerce because it supports SOPA, just like Yahoo! did, and Google may cancel its membership to the USCoC as well.
Oh sweet crispy jesus christ...Kojima was right, i get the feeling that man is laughing manically right now proclaiming "I TOLD YOU!"
If this gets through, then things are probably going to get really fucking bad really fucking quickly. *sighs* God i hate this planet sometimes...Ah well, here's to hoping that it won't get through at all in any way, shape or form whatsoever. I might be in australia, but i know this will put a big dent in the internets freedoms. And considering what Australia's been through in regards to that and games recently, i really wouldn't want to inflict such a thing on the rest of the world.
If this gets through, then things are probably going to get really fucking bad really fucking quickly. *sighs* God i hate this planet sometimes...Ah well, here's to hoping that it won't get through at all in any way, shape or form whatsoever. I might be in australia, but i know this will put a big dent in the internets freedoms. And considering what Australia's been through in regards to that and games recently, i really wouldn't want to inflict such a thing on the rest of the world.
Oh Jim. I've not always been your videos' biggest fan, but you both had your heart in the right place and hit the nail on the head this time. Congress has been trying to get this kind of bullshit passed for years and it has to stop. It is literally good for nobody, and cannot but be spearheaded by people who truly do not understand what the internet is or how it benefits everybody in modern society.
A scorched earth policy is not the way to go whether you're trying to scour the world of pirates or of perverts. And it will bite you in the ass because there will be another, less censored internet created that you have cut yourself off from and from all the potential revenue stored therein.
A scorched earth policy is not the way to go whether you're trying to scour the world of pirates or of perverts. And it will bite you in the ass because there will be another, less censored internet created that you have cut yourself off from and from all the potential revenue stored therein.
Sony, Nintendo and EA? Huh, looks like Microsoft doesn't feel the need to directly join the retard parade. At least not every corporation has jumped on this wagon. I don't actually know how they're 'indirectly' supporting this but let's just hope it goes no further.
Won't this just mean that online publications/companies like The Escapist here, will just pick up and move to a different country?
Jim's right, this will kill jobs.
Jim's right, this will kill jobs.
There is a way. The same way everyone got EA to change the redonkulous EULA on their Origin service.ultimatevideogamer said:
http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/js51f/ea_origin_spyware_issue_silently_boycotting_will/
Email and send letters to their PR departments and publicists telling them that you're never going to buy another product from them again if they continue to support this. Make sure you do this after you call an your senator/ reps.
I'm planing on including a link to this video in my emails to EA.
Jim, you didn't get nearly angry enough, honestly.Jimothy Sterling said:My voice broke like a squeaky little girl in no less than two places.BrotherRool said:
Not acted at all, otherwise I'd control that shit.
The bill is to "stop piracy," which is a stupid losing battle at this point, but the funniest/most offensive part is the pirates are already laughing at the bill, because it won't stop shit. They've already cited that the blocking methods used by other countries are easily circumvented by direct linking to the IP and ignores the DNS. And Pirate Bay has already started talks for a decentralized DNS system like they did with torrent hash tables. All this bill will be able to do is rape more jobs in a time where the country is in a complete shithole of unemployment already.
Jim Sterling, you magnificent bastard.
It is heartening to see actual passion come across in relation to this corrupt piece of legislature.
The greedy shysters should hang their head in shame.
Also the name of it needs to be changed to more accurately portray what it is, personally, I think the "Corporate Underwritten Net Tyranny Act" would be more logical.
Bear in mind, a miniature version of this had been passed in my country, basically outlawing torrents as a data transfer protocol, it snuck into law at the same time as the "Civil Defence Emergency Management Act", in relation to a natural disaster.
Looks like we'll all be under a Deus Ex/ Ghost in the Shell/ System Shock/ Bladerunner style dystopia sooner than predicted; minus all the cool shit with all of the crap - exactly halfway between 'Brave New World' and '1984'.
Am I doomsaying and scaremongering? Maybe.
But it's on par with the massive kneejerk this bill/ act/ law/ whatever is based on.
It is heartening to see actual passion come across in relation to this corrupt piece of legislature.
The greedy shysters should hang their head in shame.
Also the name of it needs to be changed to more accurately portray what it is, personally, I think the "Corporate Underwritten Net Tyranny Act" would be more logical.
Bear in mind, a miniature version of this had been passed in my country, basically outlawing torrents as a data transfer protocol, it snuck into law at the same time as the "Civil Defence Emergency Management Act", in relation to a natural disaster.
Looks like we'll all be under a Deus Ex/ Ghost in the Shell/ System Shock/ Bladerunner style dystopia sooner than predicted; minus all the cool shit with all of the crap - exactly halfway between 'Brave New World' and '1984'.
Am I doomsaying and scaremongering? Maybe.
But it's on par with the massive kneejerk this bill/ act/ law/ whatever is based on.
I feel the heart of Jim's message wasn't so much this bill is so fucking evil (though that was part of it), because any gamer aware of the bill already knows that. The title and content suggested the real focus was Sony, Nintendo, and EA (among others) hopping on board this bill against their own self-interest. They're showing their true colors as greedy, abusive, dumbasses who get sold on concepts too easily. These companies are at the top of the industry, they should be the ones defending gamer rights. Instead, they're supporting an evil evil bill that in all honesty works against them, not for them. They'd rather spit in the face of the people who make them their money and who have stood behind them for decades. WHAT. THE. FUCK.
(P.S. This may not have been Jim's message, it was my interpretation of it, and at the very least I think it's a good point.)
(P.S. This may not have been Jim's message, it was my interpretation of it, and at the very least I think it's a good point.)
As obnoxious as this Bill is, I don't see it becoming law. Maybe my relaxed attitude is due to being in Australia, which has already rejected any concept of an internet filter (shame about the gaming classifications, though).
Yes, it could conceivably become law. Yes, it is far too broadly framed and should be severely cut back - if not outright dropped - if the legislators responsible are genuine about their stated objects. Yes, it could be used in an utterly draconian manner, and in the ways that Jim Sterling asserts. I'd be much more worried about the privacy and reporting aspects of the Bill, which seem much more likely to get through in a modified format.
Some of the other provisions - particularly regarding the "avoidance of confirmation" aspects of the Bill - are absolutely chilling. The protectionist elements of the Bill should have the low-regulation conservatives screaming (unless they're hypocrites). It's a potential job-killer, not just for media-based sites and organisations, but for prospective investors and existing tech companies (by creating the possibility of new and ill-defined commercial liabilities). The message that the Bill sends is antithetical to the concepts the internet promotes and the essential dynamics of a capitalist system. As much faith as I have in the justice system to resolve things appropriately, aspects of this Bill need to be removed (or voted down like a raise for company directors) and the thresholds for bringing actions under this Act need to be substantially raised.
PS: Just in case it got lost in the text... well said, Jim. Maintain the rage, because crap like this is exactly what any responsible government is supposed to prevent.
Yes, it could conceivably become law. Yes, it is far too broadly framed and should be severely cut back - if not outright dropped - if the legislators responsible are genuine about their stated objects. Yes, it could be used in an utterly draconian manner, and in the ways that Jim Sterling asserts. I'd be much more worried about the privacy and reporting aspects of the Bill, which seem much more likely to get through in a modified format.
This was my first thought when I read the Bill. There is no way in hell it could operate as broadly as asserted without violating the First Amendment, even if it does become law. The power to shut down sites depends on obtaining a court order, and that's going to be hard act to pull off. The SCOTUS won't let it through unless the conservatives on the bench suddenly abandon all sense of principle (I can't see Scalia doing that, and I think Thomas would act similarly). I'm no US constitutional scholar, but my understanding of the First Amendment is that it wouldn't allow such uses of such a law unless the company's property rights were so badly affected that the infringement of free speech was justified. Given some of the previous decisions on freedom of speech, you'd pretty much need to be decimating the company's sales to have a solid case (at least, for domestic sites). That said, my understanding is that it wouldn't necessarily prevent someone from being liable for copyright infringements, and it may not prevent foreign sites from being shut down or rendered inaccessible from within the US.portal_cat said:
Some of the other provisions - particularly regarding the "avoidance of confirmation" aspects of the Bill - are absolutely chilling. The protectionist elements of the Bill should have the low-regulation conservatives screaming (unless they're hypocrites). It's a potential job-killer, not just for media-based sites and organisations, but for prospective investors and existing tech companies (by creating the possibility of new and ill-defined commercial liabilities). The message that the Bill sends is antithetical to the concepts the internet promotes and the essential dynamics of a capitalist system. As much faith as I have in the justice system to resolve things appropriately, aspects of this Bill need to be removed (or voted down like a raise for company directors) and the thresholds for bringing actions under this Act need to be substantially raised.
PS: Just in case it got lost in the text... well said, Jim. Maintain the rage, because crap like this is exactly what any responsible government is supposed to prevent.
I think by streaming he meant "playing it live like the Desert Bus crew," not "torrenting it."Therumancer said:
But its not a panic scenario. This is literally what will happen. There's no fabrication, no lies, nothingZachary Amaranth said:
There is absolutely no way the industries involved in trying to make this a reality will not abuse it, because the way its written allows them to do everything he said they could and more.
Its not exaggerated and if you think corporations won't do this, then your naieve. We already see this in our own industry with EA testing the waters on digital consumer rights, which is small compared to the crap other industries get away with. Read up on it, instead of accusing Jim of spreading false information
