For those unaware, CISPA is yet another cyber security bill (somewhat similar to SOPA and PIPA) that was proposed last April. A "revised" version of the bill was proposed recently, and it's pretty much the same.
CISPA would allow companies and the government to bypass privacy protections and share all sorts of information about what Americans do online. The legislation makes it far easier for authorities and private companies to spy on your email traffic, comb through your mobile texts, filter your online content and even block access to popular websites.
To be fair, the guy who wrote the bill did clarify that it was not intended as an anti-piracy thing and "intellectual property" refers to research and development. That said, it's still a really, really bad bill and if the language is vague enough, the copyright nazis will use it as an excuse to go nuts. Fortunately, I think Obama is smart enough not to sign it because if he did, he'd be remembered as the worst president in our history and he wouldn't want that.
I'm not a glitch, I just have pixlexia.
Raiiban wrote:That's a moral dilemma. Capitalism has no morals.
AppleQueso wrote:Man this stuff is getting tiring.
I do wonder though, is there any possible potential anti-piracy legislation that wouldn't greatly upset people?
I don't think so. Any legislation like this means that there will be some cut into the perceived privacy of the internet. What makes all of these bills particularly bad is how vague their wording is, so they could be applied far too broadly. But even a bill with very tight language will cause internet outrage.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
AppleQueso wrote:Man this stuff is getting tiring.
I do wonder though, is there any possible potential anti-piracy legislation that wouldn't greatly upset people?
I don't think so. Any legislation like this means that there will be some cut into the perceived privacy of the internet. What makes all of these bills particularly bad is how vague their wording is, so they could be applied far too broadly. But even a bill with very tight language will cause internet outrage.
That's pretty much what I thought. Companies need better business models, not legislation.
johnny turbo wrote:Where is that inazuma guy when you need him.
This would be a 40 page thread if he were still around. I can't imagine he's happy about this.
johnny turbo wrote:Where is that inazuma guy when you need him.
This would be a 40 page thread if he were still around. I can't imagine he's happy about this.
you see, the thing about this bill is that it's very dangerous and ridiculous. so what if i don't want to pay for the games i buy? maybe companies should worry less about money and more about making games that i want to play. it's simple, really; and if you don't get it, you must be an idiot. why would i pay for something that i'm not sure that i'll like? it just doesn't make sense, and if you think it does, you are a moron. i think that game companies and all intellectual property holders should be placed in a time-manipulator, transformed back into their womb-laden selves, then aborted. i am perfectly okay with abortion because i don't let religion rule my mind like a thoughtless sheep. why would someone let religion poison their very idea of what is so valuable, the process of creativity? that's my main problem with this whole bill: it just doesn't address the poison of religion and religious institutions in their endless quest to ban guns, abortions, and video games. it's a simple concept, one that any non-idiot will be able to grasp with relative ease. i just don't understand where parents get off telling their kids not to download movies, music and video games. how else are we to escape the torments of your shitty parenting? that's why i think abortion should be legal, and that's why you should think that it's okay for video games to abort their parents.
