Quote from WishedHeHadBetaa company wanting less people to steal the product they made = they're greedy bastards? trolololololololol
So if I were to take a video of Fox News and comentate on why Bill O'Reilly is a dumbass, under current law, that's legal, under the new law, that's illegal. That means, somehow in your head, that they want...less people...to watch their shows...or something like that?
I don't think know what your saying, and moreover, I don't think you know what you are saying.
(No offense or anything. Don't want this thread closed too.)
If the bill was that simple, I'd agree. But it's not that simple.
If it was that simple, I'd agree. It's not that simple.
(By the way, you can go to jail for putting a video of you playing Diablo 3 on Youtube. Just fyi.)
Quote from SFJakeNot sure here. I don't see why twice in a row, people take LinkX's post and try to defend the people negatively affected by piracy, like it had anything to do with what he said.
You get used to it. *Shrug.*
The language used could allow me to be sent to PRISON for using the likeness of the character known as Link used in the video game titled "The Legend of Zelda".
Likewise for you and your use of the character known as "Reptar" from the childrens television show "Rugrats".
But we are pirating stuff and thus stealing from companies, right?
Again, I say this: If it was simple piracy, I'd have no problem with the two bills, of which one I linked. But these bills go far and beyond the scope of intellectual property.