For those that do not know what these bills are, basically it would give the US government, more specifically whatever agency is put in charge to enforce the bills, the ability to shut down websites that contain material that violates copyright law. By shut down that means they would tell the service carrier hosting the site to cancel the sites' service and they would get any advertisement agencies to stop advertising on the site removing monetary support for those sites. The purpose of the bills is to prevent media piracy. The more likely outcome is it will not prevent internet piracy (people have found ways around "blocked" sites for years) and it will instead give the government power to censor sites that they do not like. Or more specifically, sites that big Lobbyists who fund the government do not like. Here are some resources to read through to get more of the specifics of the bills. Some of which might be for the bills passing. PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet on Vimeo SOPA/PROTECT IP Would Be Hideously Bad For Video Gamers | Techdirt Protect IP Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Case For The PROTECT IP Act And DNS Filtering - Forbes Leahy's Protect IP bill even worse than COICA | Politics and Law - CNET News Edward J. Black: Sure SOPA Will Add Jobs... for Trial Lawyers, Government Bureaucrats, Pornographers Don't Censor the Net » Full Text of the PROTECT IP Act of 2011
Would affect, Facebook, Youtube, etc. O hell naw! riot riot! anyways, So copyrighted materials aye. So that would shutdown Machinima's/(any other user's) channel because they upload game trailers that don't belong to them? correct meh if i'm wrong
That would be up to the discretion of the copyright holder. For video games that would mean the publisher would have final say. In most cases machinima/game trailers/help videos/guides etc spur interest in games and spread knowledge of games to more people meaning more sales so I'd say as far as games are concerned we're pretty safe. But, that isn't to say that publishers couldn't be dicks and decide outside players shouldn't post their game content and they could use the bill as a gag order to stop sites saying negative things about their products.
Comments about affecting major websites are absurd, but this is an issue that needs to be killed as soon as possible, even if it's something that won't pass. It shouldn't get that far to begin with.
They are looking at it from a political aspect, like what they want personally, this could just worsen the economy, major, MAJOR sites like Youtube and Dailymotion would be dead, and game sales would undoubtedly go down. Many would lose their jobs at say, RoosterTeeth and Machinima. I feel like this isn't going away any time soon. Were trying to advance technology. Our political leaders have been becoming less and less interest in the public opinion, and this is just an example of how oblivious they have become.
Machinima has the rights to upload every trailer it does upload. They have an extensive department which is on the phone with developers and publishers at all times of the day making sure their content is legal to be uploaded.
I feel like enforcement would be half-hearted and half-assed thus it would make almost no difference on the internet. Sure it could end up just annoying people, but when we're trying to cut the budget on everything I doubt even politicians are stupid enough to throw money into a department for internet censorship.
The basis of the bill is to prevent piracy, which the US government does not like. However, included in the bill is power to completely block sites like YouTube and Facebook. And the government is also known for abusing new found powers.
Some of the largest opponents of this bill are major web companies like Google So if they oppose it then it certainly is not absurd. Whether you think the bill would make a difference against those multibillion dollar companies isn't the point. It would give the government final say over things that are out of those companies control. Actually it doesn't. Machinima has built its reputation and gained insider friendships that make it unlikely that a publisher would pull the plug from the group as it were. However that does not mean those companies have any special licensing agreement with the publishers. At the end of the day, Microsoft, ZeniMax, Sony, Capcom, Nintendo, THQ, whomever own the copyrights. If they feel someone is violating them, under the bill, they would have the right to end the sources of those violations. So there is a fine line between "legal" and a mutually beneficial agreement between friends. Machinima/roosterteeth/gametrailers etc promote games and increase awareness of video games thus are a free source of advertising and increase sales and the publishers agree not to sue for spreading copyrighted material around. The reality of how the bill would be enforced and its overall impact on society is of course subjective and will be unknown until and if the bill passes and time goes by but that isn't the point. Its the potential for the bill to cause some really bad things to happen which is what makes it so bad. Laying down the bureaucratic groundwork for censorship and limiting free speech sets a precedent. Once precedent is set its hard to win in cases going against it. Also it wouldn't be the government's money going into this. The main advocates of the bill are extremely wealthy entertainment conglomerates like Viacom, Time Warner, Sony Corporation, Universal Music Group, etc. The added parts of the bill also have other very wealthy companies backing it because of the ability to essentially silence competition if certain lame conditions are met. Well the bill just went through The House judicial committee yesterday and will get a full vote in the house soon. (The SOPA part of the bill anyway) so just claims of "it won't pass" aren't good enough anymore. If you don't want it to pass, do something about it. I've signed about as many petitions and emailed all the congressmen I could without having to donate money to them (the bastards).
Machinima and GameTrailers may not have the copyright, but they are granted express permission to post everything. For both of those two companies, they have the giant legal departments making sure everything they do IS legal. Roosterteeth, however, only has an agreement with Microsoft and yes, the rest are just mutual agreements with companies.
Gametrailers is owned by MTV networks which is owned by Viacom It does not have express permission from anyone but Viacom to do what it does. Now, Viacom has a ginormous legal team and makes tons of deals with game publishers over advertising costs (the advertisements need to go on networks owned usually by Viacom) so like I said before, it is very unlikely that game community and help sites would be affected by the bill due to mutually beneficial agreements that doesn't mean they are legally exempt from it. If gametrailers uses a song in the background of a game that they weren't given permission to use there is nothing protecting them. I also wasn't able to find anything on machinima's site to suggest they have express legal permission to do anything either. For a business that is a really big deal which would show a tremendous amount of trust to allow another company free reign over any content it posts in relation to your company. Just because those are two of the largest game media providers doesn't mean they are exempt from this law. Again, unlikely that they would be affected but still. Roosterteeth's agreement with Microsoft is specifically in regards to Halo and that still isn't express permission to post material copyrighted by Microsoft. For instance, if Roosterteeth posted a video of Windows 20 (I'm making up one), which is a Microsoft Corporation copyrighted product and did not have permission to post the video then the site could be shut down by Microsoft regardless of whatever deal they have regarding Halo.
When i say x has a giant legal department, I'm also referring to the legal departments of those companies which own the other companies. And "express permission" does not mean they own the copyright. It means that they can use the materials as if they own them, monetize them, edit them and use them in any way they would like, provided they give the copyright holder recognition. Every game trailer posted has these logos, so it's not necessary for the channels to post this content somewhere else.
You misunderstood me, Pac. The claims that your favorite sites could be impacted are sensational and over the top. Even if a bill were to pass, it would not do anything so drastic. That said, such a proposal should not even make it to a vote; it needs to be clear how many of us would be opposed to it.
Um no...."The claims that your favorite sites could be impacted are sensational and over the top" was the direct thing I was talking about. The bill is being advocated by major companies and opposed by major companies. So it isn't being sensationalist. How about actually researching it a little bit, the SOPA bill in the senate and the Protect-IP bill in the House are different then previous bills against media piracy And your still missing the point of the bill. It isn't about the effects it has immediately after the bill is passed. Yes, realistically I'm sure nothing will change the day the bill passes if it passed and nothing major might come of it in the short term at all. Its the precedent the bill sets. There are minor laws passed decades ago that still effect major court decisions today. All it takes is the groundwork to be laid for a corrupt government or company to make use of for it to make everything spiral down afterward. Is that a melodramatic statement, possibly but playing it down as can't happen or it will never be a big deal is the attitude people take before **** gets pulled over there heads because they didn't take the time to say not to do it. And it is making it to a vote. It passed the House Judicial Committee which means it will be put on the docket to be voted on soon.
the specific comments I'm referring to are sensationalist. Of course major companies are involved, why wouldn't they be? There are still plenty of valid reasons to oppose this bill that don't involve "oh no, ur facebooks!" I understand they have to appeal to the apathetic and uninformed to garner support, but it doesn't mean I can't point it out. Also, I specifically said it needs to be opposed before it becomes such a major issue because this isn't the kind of thing you can brush off as an impossibility, even if it won't pass.
This is exactly the point, thank you. Our generations all need to start taking a more active interest in **** or our future could potentially be pretty ****ed up. and this.
There's a large amount of difference between "sensationalist" and "apathetic" view point. Saying the world will end as a result would be a sensationalist viewpoint or that we would go into a depression or something as a result would be sensationalist. Saying major sites could close down or at least heavily censor themselves to the point that people don't want to use those sites anymore is a direct consequence of what is in the bills. Whether the government or rival companies would actually do anything is unknown but that isn't the point I'm making. Also if you haven't noticed something about the American populace, they don't do anything, unless they hear some sensationalist person saying how their lives would be affected by something. So just saying things like, "this bill that has no chance of passing might mess with some minor sites you don't really go to" isn't really the right thing to say to get people to act you get me.
The reason people think like that to begin with is because they've been exposed to so much sensational media. The answer shouldn't be to use even more hyperbole to drive a point home. You're only enabling that apathy. It's akin to a drug addict taking larger and larger doses just to feel the same high. Sure, he might reach that high like he wanted, but that's obviously not the best direction to be headed.
First of all, the media is not as sensationalist as shows like Daily Show, Colbert Report, Bill Mahr, or equally sensationalist "entertainers" would suggest. The news most of the time is just that, news. Boring but usually objective, non-sensationalist news, which is what the majority of Americans watch or view online. Yes every now and again someone says something stupid and that's what the entertainers' interns spend hundreds of hours researching to find those quips you see. The entertainers that spew the sensationalist stuff usually have demographics at the very extreme's of the spectrums. Hard core liberals (a relatively small minority of the American populace) listen to shows about how stupid and evil Republicans are and extreme right wing people (also a small minority) listen to shows saying how out of touch liberals are with reality and that they're all commies who don't want to work and want everything handed to them. Also like I said, nothing I've said is hyperbole. The consequences of this bill are what the advocates of the bill want to do. That's the point of backing it. A drug addict getting their fix and getting support to stop a bill that is going to be voted on whether you believe so or not is certainly not the same and is a pretty horrible comparison.