Topic: PlayStation Vita (PS Vita) - previously known as NGP

[broodwars]

SOPA is good for everyone except people who pirate media or support those who do.

No, it isn't.  The law is written so spectacularly broadly that it could easily be used to shut down sites like Youtube or ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, either directly or by blocking the funds from their advertisers until the site shuts down from lack of funding.  Also, if I remember correctly the law only blocks access to sites via their domain names, so if you know the site's numerical address you can still access it.  Because of that, it wouldn't block the pirating sites anyway.

Heaven knows I've been anti-piracy and whatnot over the past year or so, but that law is so badly written that you can forget the slippery slope.  We'll already be at the bottom with a gaping pit just ahead.

[oohhboy]

PPPPPPPFFFFFFFFF HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA. YOU'RE NOT SERIOUS RIGHT? SOPA and it's sister document would give corporations, not the government cart blanch to shut down almost any website for an indefinitely long time from US users without the slightest due process that even DMCA grants. No site would be safe. Even Nintendo Wold Report could be shut down if it ended up on a computer generated list where programs look for key words or somebody posting an unauthorised screenshot of a game that a company doesn't like since it could be considered a copyright violation. Low review scores could mean retribution of the highest order.

The entire web runs on copyright violations. Reviews, screenshots, lets plays, riff tracks, home video clips, user comments, I mean literally every part of the web has some element of CP violation. Every one of those can be used to shut down a site on a whim.

I kid you not, even you TJ Spyke are safe. Given how awful the American justice system has shown it self time and again, laws like SOPA are a clear and present danger to everybody.

[Chozo Ghost]

SOPA is good for everyone

Would CM Punk agree?

[BranDonk Kong]

Virtually
Impossible
To
Afford

[Morari]

SOPA is good for everyone except people who pirate media or support those who do.

Really?
You should actually look into and research the subject a bit before gobbling up the propaganda. I'll leave you to do that on your own though, as I'd hate to get "all political and stuff"... even if the existence of NWR itself very likely depends upon it.

[Chozo Ghost]

I think TJ was just trolling, because he hasn't said anything further to back up his statement or respond to anything anyone has said. He probably just read all the replies and is laughing to himself over how he "got" everyone by saying something inflammatory and getting people worked up. I think that's what he's been doing to us all along, because how could anyone really be so strongly anti-individual freedom and so pro-corporations as he consistently is?

Oh yeah, and he hacked his PSP...just saying.

[BranDonk Kong]

Come on now it's not fair to point out that he hacked his PSP, after all, he only bought the thing in the first place because it was so easy to hack and that way he wouldn't have to buy games. Err...

[oohhboy]

He maybe trolling, but he is trolling with some very dangerous ideas. He might not believe them, but another idiot might. Better safe than sorry and rebut it than silently approve by inaction. For all we know he might be a mentally sick person in need of help, but this is the internet and we may never find out. Even then if he has issues, I doubt I could at this point, summon enough pity to even want to help him.

Oh yeah, and he hacked his PSP...just saying.

  . You do know how to bring a smile to my face Chozo.

[Shaymin]

Virtually
Impossible
To
Afford

+10000

[Urkel]

ONE HUNDRED AND NINETEEN YOU ESS DOLLARS
 
IT'S RIIIIIIIIIIIIDGE RACER with three tracks and five cars

[oohhboy]

^^^^^^^^^^

Only funny because it's terrible. Please try again.

[Ymeegod]

Actually the SOPA isn't as bad as what people make it out to be.  Basically the publisher can file an complaint with the Department of Justice about an site's illegal activity and then an investigation is started.  Basically it's working with the Protect IP law which gives the Publisher rights over their own IP.

As for User generated content, as long as the site regulates it's own like this one than it isn't going be an problem. 

[oohhboy]

That's not even half the picture. The EFF provides a far more succinct picture than I can. The current Bills are a one, two hit. SOPA, and Protect IP serve the same functions as a blacklist via different mechanisms. I will try and explain them as plainly as I can.

SOPA attacks sites financially with only a 5 day window to respond regardless of the veracity of the claim or whether the notice as even been received. It doesn't matter if there is any real infringement going on, you stop receiving ad revenue or your shop can't take payment, your site is dead. The IP holders have shown time and again that they do not care about standing laws on fair use nor verify¹ the claims they make and will pursue litigation at a drop of a hat.

Protect IP basically sends the government to handle what is normally a civil case and bear the cost, while exploiting government powers on IP holders behalf. While it has been modified so they won't mess with the DNSs anymore, the seizure component remains via unrelated government agencies like ICE. It also attacks safe habour statuses of places like Youtube where it is much to big of a site to monitor and filter effectively. Given the language of the bill it will only take one link to another site for the shutdown process to begin. Even China with tens of thousands of people specifically employed by the government to manually filter and suppress, unsuccessfully, political dessent, how would even the smallest site with any user content be effective at making sure every single link is sanitised or the comments themselves are not infringing whether they be movie quotes, verses or lyrics.

In any event, the purpose of these bills is not to protect ip or anything of the sort. They are tools with which the large content providers would use to break down the internet into their respective content blocks like cable channels for their own profit and control. Imagine if the internet got broken up into a dozen AOL like nets, filled with only sites approved by that section's provider. What makes the internet useful and effective would be gone. The internet is one of the last places where there is a high level of free speech that cannot be easily suppressed that supersedes any nation that is still in the hands of the average person. I wouldn't trade it to any government even over the greatest of national security concerns, let alone hand it peacefully over to unaccountable corporations.

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security - Benjamin Franklin

With these bills your not even trading your freedoms for your own security. As for your DoJ, they have no requirement to follow legal or ethical rules. You are very mistaken in your belief that "SOPA isn't as bad as what people make it out to be". They are written to be abused from multiple directions.

¹I chose this since this is easily the most absurd notice served given the subject matter on the site in relation to the subject matter in the notice. The rest of the site is NSFW.

[ejamer]

Although I would love to see piracy curbed and IP protected, I agree that SOPA raises a lot of red flags. But is it worse than the current situation? It's difficult to fairly weigh the problems of potential SOPA abuse against the certainty of rampant piracy and IP abuse.  (Edit: Not meant as an endorsement of SOPA. It's not something I would support although I can understand and even sympathize with some of the intent.)

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security - Benjamin Franklin

First, let me clarify that I'm not saying anything about you personally. This is just an observation based on other internet posts - not this particular use of the quote.

It's sad that the people who most enjoy this quote are often them same ones who consider liberty to mean "freedom to do/take whatever I want".

[oohhboy]

A lot of people take that quote far too literally. There is always a trade off and most societies as a whole do a pretty good job. You need agencies like the FDA, EPA, that limit freedoms to some extent so you or other people don't openly pollute the drinking water, sell diseased meat, gas the nearby town or sell radioactive water as medicine. Absolute freedom is anarchy, which is a step below Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome in places I want to live. What is important about that quote is the understanding there is a trade off and your natural rights like freedom of movement and speech should not be traded or left to be forfeit lightly. Of course, this is based on the assumption that the government works for the greater benefit of all it's citizens. For the people, by the people.

Th current situation is generally a stalemate with some progressive moves like the moves to ensure net neutrality. While the DMCA isn't good law by any stretch, it's somewhat self defeating since it's fairly toothless on average which is fortunate given the extremely high number of blindingly obvious false positives.

Piracy isn't something that will be "Solved" even with the most brutal of tactics, never mind the blowback that would occur. Piracy has existed since people made copies of manuscripts on parchment or simply memorized it, verbally repeated songs and folklore. It's ridiculous to even to even try to completely own an idea or story. Such concepts aren't even contemplated with physical items. Only games like Skyrim would make an absurd assumption that when you pick up something you have stolen it. It would be like me taking your photo and you claiming I stole your soul. Asinine. In the end, it's not about piracy, but control.

[Chozo Ghost]

You need agencies

I disagree.

But this is politics and there is a rule on this site against discussing politics (and for good reason).

[Ymeegod]

"Given the language of the bill it will only take one link to another site for the shutdown process to begin"

No, not sure where you read that but the site has to be dedicated to privay.  Two, in both cases you have to file with the DoJ and I'm not sure where you get "As for your DoJ, they have no requirement to follow legal or ethical rules." but they have the same freaking red tape as anything else?  An case has to be opened and viewed before an judge and god knows how long that's freaking going to take.  The judge is the one that's going issue an cease order."

it's still has to follow due process.

[TJ Spyke]

You need agencies

I disagree.

But this is politics and there is a rule on this site against discussing politics (and for good reason).

Thanks to the EPA, we no longer have rivers that catch on fire because they are so polluted.

To get this thread back on topic. I have to admit that the Vita looks nice and I wouldn't mind owning one, but I am not gonna pay $250 +tax for it.

[oohhboy]

That site doesn't have to be about software piracy. Let me bring up those 2 paragraphs.

First, the legislation now includes a private right of action for intellectual property owners. This means that IP owners as well as the government can seek injunctions against websites "dedicated to infringing activities" in addition to court orders against third parties providing services to those sites. (Notably, IP owners can also bring actions to enforce the court orders.) Consider whether Viacom would have bothered to bring a copyright infringement action against YouTube—with the attendant challenges of arguing around the DMCA safe harbors—had it had this cause of action in its arsenal. The act includes language that says it's not intended to "enlarge or diminish" the DMCA's safe harbor limitations on liability, but make no mistake: rights holders will argue that safe harbor qualification is simply immaterial if a site is deemed to be dedicated to infringement.


Second, the scope of the language has been expanded to include additional categories of third-party providers that can be subject to court orders. Under the new act, "interactive computer services" and "servers of sponsored links" can be required to cease linking to particular websites. We'd heard about a potential "search engine provision," but these additions arguably go much further. An interactive computer service (the term, and its definition, are borrowed from the Communications Decency Act) could include not only Bing but also sites like Facebook, Twitter, and potentially any service or web page where a URL might turn up.

The first paragraph explains the process a very large site like Youtube which currently has safe harbour status can be revoked and become a "Place dedicated to piracy". The second paragraph explains how any site can become a target. The DOJ link is there to show that the deck is stacked. It means prosecutors no longer needs to provide all evidence in discovery and would not be held in contempt for it since unless expressly ordered before said evidence was excluded. Simply the court room is no longer an even playing field. They could destroy evidence of your innocence and there would be nothing you can do about it unless a judge issued an explicit order before hand. That is the level of threat that small sites cannot survive just from attrition alone due to legal costs and extends to every case to goes to court with a DoJ prosecutor. Prosecutors could openly cheat like in the first Phoenix Wright game, but unlike that game, they get to go free. If you can't see why it's related and how it's bad at this point, I can't help you. At it's most basic level it is an open corruption of the court system.

[oohhboy]

In other related news, the custom memory format is there to prevent piracy and to interact with a PC, it ill require an iTunes type app. See it here. Japanese source.

[Chozo Ghost]

In other related news, the custom memory format is there to prevent piracy and to interact with a PC, it ill require an iTunes type app. See it here. Japanese source.

That will last about 2 hours before someone hacks it.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Heavily Discounted Digital Retail Games?
upto 40% off hard copy prices!?
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/12/04/rumor-downloading-psn-games-on-vita-40-cheaper-than-retail.aspx

Sony has hinted in the past that downloading games on the Vita will be a cheaper option than buying them off the shelves. The scuttlebutt from a recent Sony event is that the savings could be a dramatic 40 percent for ditching the box.

According to Thrifty Nerd, Vita games will be capped off at $39.99 at retail. Downloading a game at the same price would only cost around $23, however, saving you a pretty penny by going digital. Many gamers gasped at the Vita's spendy memory cards (4GB: $30, 8GB: $45, 16GB: $70, 32GB: $120), but these savings, if true, could soften that blow.

While this prospect is exciting for prospective Vita owners, keep your expectations low until we have official confirmation from Sony.

I always expected non physical copies to be cheaper, but not that much cheaper.

[Stogi]

Like it seyz, it's offset by the price of the memory cards. I.e., not really a discount.

Until someone hacks the Vita, I don't see it flying off the shelves.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I am almost convinced that someone will be selling a PS Vita Mem -> MicroSD adapter at or soon after launch. I'm pretty sure the initial batch will fly off of shelves just like any enthusiast backed product, but it's the shipments after that I would imagine shifting slowly, especially if that adapter doesn't show up sooner rather than later.

[Chozo Ghost]

But it also needs to be noted that you can't resell digital games. If you beat a physical media game and are done with it you can sell it and get at least some, if not most of your money back, which can then be reinvested towards other games. With digital downloads you can't do that. So even with this 40% reduction it might not necessarily be the cheaper way to go in the long run, because every digital thing you buy is something you will never be able to sell or trade off.


Mod Edit: Do not refer to GameStop by that name again. Not cool.