Comments attacking violent games on news articles, filled with BS, Surprise!!!!

For years, I have been seeing BS comments on newspaper articles that attack video games for controversial reasons such as causing school shootings, violent content, etc. Calling violent games "trash", "junk" or "garbage" is a common one I have seen thousands of times since 1999. Always being bugged by crap excuses like this and people saying crap about gamers, I committed myself to studying just how many of the comments from articles I found, could be considered inflammatory toward gamers, games, the industry, and most important, spread lies about violent games. The results were quite shocking, to say the least...
So I embarked on this study last year. The total results were from 7 parts published on my wordpress blog and the details are cited below... Part 6 is available here as well. (The first 5 out of 7 were deleted due to possible libel complaints down the road... I wanted to avoid that, but the specific comment types were recorded in another post online, but that was accidentally deleted last night)


"I am continuing my study into the nature of comments attacking violent games on articles in newspaper sites online. By definition the comments must fit these categories to be considered ‘attacking violent games’…

A) Spread lies about violent games

A2) Making up new lies about violent games .

B) Call for games to be banned outright

C) Call for games to be restricted to adults

D) Enforce negative gamer stereotypes

D2) Shows dislike, hate, or a grudge towards gamers.

E) A Bias towards gaming, such that the person commenting thinks games don’t deserve 1st amendment

protection,  the industry is marketing “trash” to my kids, etc.

F) Not sure what violence effects on kids are a restriction might be in order…

G) Attacking the ESRB due to some flawed thing like the FTC study or the fact ‘my 9 year old’ could get bulletstorm.

H) Wants violent game manufacturers sued or games boycotted.

The Previous 6 parts of the study found that, out of 77 comments, 57% were spreading lies about violent games, 31% had a clear bias towards violent games, 7% wanted violent games banned, or violent game makers sued, and 4% wanted violent games restricted to adults.

Results:

Out of all 97 comments in parts 1-7, 64 are spreading lies about violent games. That’s 65%

Out of 97 comments in parts 1-7, 26 have clear bias towards violent games, violent gaming companies, or the industry. That’s 26%

Out of 97 comments, 5 wanted violent games banned, and 5 more wanted the companies that make these game sued. that’s dropped to 5% for each.  3% wanted violent games restricted to adults.

Out of 97 comments, 7 made up totally new lies about violent games. that’s 7%. It’s small but still significant that this is happening.

Out of 97 comments, 4 enforced negative gamer stereotypes.  (4%)

Out of 97 comments,  4 showed a clear hate or dislike towards gamers. (4%).

Lies that are made up from the blue seem to be getting more popular in the last few articles. These lies are brand new, and are being spread by commenters. They are not from various news articles, or psychologists. These ones are troubling. Who would gain from complete nonsense being spread about a violent game by people who knowingly spread these lies that they know are not true? If you make up a total nonsense claim about a violent game you know you haven’t heard before, you have to know it’s a lie… Right? So who would gain?

Do anti-gamers sign up under fake names and spread more lies?

I can’t say. But these lies seem to hint at that. These aren’t the things I have heard from the so-called “experts” on media violence. These are totally new to me….  And they are false… But…  Do we really have a generation of libeling right wing anti-violent games groups hiring members to sign up with fake names to make up BS claims about violent games and post them in comments? I think we do. But I can’t prove it. But if they ARE doing this… It is VERY alarming… I will keep track of these lies that seem to be made up by commenters to see if others repeat them in other articles. I have an idea to see how many people are gullible enough to believe nonsense that is spread. More on it later…."

Now to read the worst of the comments and my response (if I responded to it in the original surveys at all):

(A certain comment, quoted from part 6)

“And it games cause violence, so be it. If a gamer tries to be violent with you, remember this one rule of thumb, so to speak. Since gamers spend a lot of time inside playing games, they are physically weak. As long as you can avoid their powerful, unnaturally strong thumbs, you should be able to subdue them.”

Pitiful. Who in the hell actually thinks that “violent gamers” should be “subdued”. Someone who hates gamers who think gamers cause school shootings, like that idiot who threatened to kill me on the newspaper forum back in 1999 after Columbine. This goes beyond a mere perpetrating anti-gamer stereotypes and goes to wanting them physically hurt. Is this a trend? First we’re bullies, and now we need to be “Subdued”. Moronic.

Source : https://www.npr.org/templates/story/storyComments.php?storyId=137660609&pageNum=1

(source story DELELTED to cover it up?)

“others are using pseudo facts to support their bias towards games in the guise of anti-censorship”.

Source : http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10430358-17.html

"games have 'passive and casual avatar rape and murder' in them"  

2 Words : Custer’s Revenge. 1989! Stop making this damn fake claim of rape simulators up… It’s idiotic. These people read biased articles that keep putting that lie in the game and everyone believes this  tripe. It’s ridiculous.

Source : The same link that was deleted above

“Remember when the cigarette companies kept saying that no one had “proven” that cigarettes CAUSE cancer? So we continued to let the ads run where all the kids could see them. Lots of people died. Has it yet been scientifically proven that cigarettes cause cancer? Do you believe they do anyway?

Here’s the future of gaming: TVs as big as your entire living room wall. Life size enemies. Realistic wireless game guns with a loud bang and a huge kick. Maybe actual gun makers will make a wireless game clip that you can pop in the real gun where the bullet clip goes. Maybe someone will make an accessory that throws fake blood all over you when you shoot a game enemy at close range.

That’s OK, because no one has scientifically proven that violent games make the players more prone to violence. Until they do, let the carnage continue! “

Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10430358-17.html

Now you can see the idiocy being spread by commenters and how many comments attacking violent games are filled with anti-gamer stereotypes, hate towards gamers, games, the industry, etc, and how much they spread complete lies, fabrications, all designed to make violent games look bad after a school shooting. Every time I heard the media using fake claims like "violent games make kids violent/aggressive", "violent games are used in the military to break down the inhibition to kill", "violent games link to real life violence is greater than cigarettes link to cancer", "Violent games are being marketed to kids", "violent games are recruitment tools", "violent games that allow you to rape and pee on people", "violent games that allow you to stalk virtual women and rape them", "violent games are training tools", etc, I always here at least 1 commenter per article respreading them, and in some of the claims, you get "special anonymous advertisers" repeatedly and maliciously advertising the book for the author who made up the "video games are being used in the military to break down the inhibition to kill" BS claim, on talk shows after Columbine, a Hack Psychologist. You also get TONS of comments, on how gamers are psychopaths, sociopaths, how gamers should be subdued, how we're "gamer shitheads", how we are "gamer druggies", how gamers are all potential school shooters, and much worse. It's a real problem, because the exact same claims made about gamers being sociopaths/potential school shooters/violent people were also made by certain anti-gaming fundies on newspapers as well, after 1 or 2 immature gamers threatened their lives.... Being a death threat victim myself from similar people to the people  who claim they are being threatened (and multiple ones claim they did, without proof of course), it makes them look like complete hypocrites, because they unknowingly (or knowingly) support people who intentionally make other peoples lives miserable on message boards just to prove "gamers get violent", as  the moron troll on the message board of a newspaper did to multiple gamers 24/7 for 3 months, and said "I have enough evidence that gamers get violent" (the responses to their death threats probably), has been swept under the rug and covered up. It's pathetic. The fact that there are people out there that think all gamers are sociopath's because of people like Eric Harris, or any other damn reason, I don't give a fuck, is sick in itself....  I know at least 10 guys who have played video games before, 5 were serious gamers, NONE were sociopaths. Maybe 1 or 2 gamers are "sociopaths" but that's just a goddamn coincidence, not proof that games take completely normal children and turn them into sociopaths... Sheesh..

Now to show off comments making complete NEW lies up, all completely false, but apparently some people besides wackos in anti-gamer right wing religious groups like to make up false claims about violent games...

“But the videos in question, which the court ruled that kids can see, allows them to virtually stalk, beat, rape, and defile virtual women in a range of perverse and degrading ways. That is purely sick”

THERE ARE NO GAMES THAT ALLOW PEOPLE TO DO THESE THINGS….

Source : http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/sex-and-the-supremes/

“It’s offensive and embarrassing the Supreme Court will afford murder in all its contexts—self-defense, revenge, military mission, zombie killer, mobster—and variety–disembowelment, decapitation, abassination, guns, chainsaws—more protection that sex.”

Most of these things aren’t even murder…… Only assassination, mobster are… The rest are either military combat, “self-defense”, or combat…. how is “zombie killer” murder? Idiots like this astound me. Especially when they bring up disembowelment, and and decapitation, which are rare in most violent games!

Source : http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/sex-and-the-supremes/

"1 comment of type A2) Making up new lies about violent games – Claims violent games as training tools to recruit military at young age, says violent games ‘permanently burn memories’ into the minds of children, blah-blah blah… Common. Back up your crap. You can’t therefore it’s a lie."

Source : http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10430358-17.html

1 Comment of type A2) Making up new lies about violent games – Claims violent games and action movies have too much things happening at once, overloading the brain, causing ‘anti-social behavior’ in kids. WTF?

Source : http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10430358-17.html

“But the videos in question, which the court ruled that kids can see, allows them to virtually stalk, beat, rape, and defile virtual women in a range of perverse and degrading ways. That is purely sick”

Source : http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/sex-and-the-supremes/

"The Commenter Claims just because he drove around for days and because of the length, he was forced to automatically do things without knowing he did them, the ‘kids that play games 18,20,24 hours a day will go into kill mode!’ Is this another hack psychologist worshipper unknowingly or knowingly advertising his best seller?"

Now they are making up utter crap about games in comments.... Some of these comments seem like something a moron in a right wing pro-censorship group would say, like the "perminantly burn memories", and "overloading the brain", and the "going into kill mode" ones...  In my honest opinion we have a bunch of pro-censorship morons both saying things like this, all completely made up to the media, especially after school shootings, and also on forums with fake names. I can't prove it, but those 3 comments are too suspicious to ignore, in light of all the very similar nonsense made up claims anti-gamers keep on making on talk shows, newspapers, etc after a school shooting. I have heard every single goddamned fake claim being made up about violent games by the anti-gamer right wing morons. I know them all by heart... These ones are new to me... What actual gain would a normal person have to actually post some claim they made up to make games look bad on a message board? None. Now what gain would a right wing anti-gaming moron from one of  those anti-gaming groups that keep spreading crap about violent games in the media, have to post something like this on forums? More people could believe the lies they post, and their claims could be spread to other forums. It all spirals out of control when one person online says one fake claim, others repost it quite quickly, everyone believes it because people today have been brainwashed to believe everything they hear.  This effect, greatly aids such right wing violent game censors, trust me it does..

This whole spread of lies is, IMHO, part of a much bigger scheme to get violent games banned for 1 reason, they offend religious right nutjobs.  There is evidence to suggest in many places that the media makes up utter crap about violent games, and the politicians believe it. But that isn't enough to get a ban to happen, because they need faked evidence to sway the supreme court, to fight against a claim of unconstitutionality. Faked evidence in the form of hoaxes were spread in April/May 1999 and in an Amicus Brief done by a right wing pro-family group, these hoaxes were cited as evidence to prove violent games make people violent.... This group has been known to recycle 2 very false claims about violent games over and over again, the claims that games have "decapitation of prostitutes" and "sodomizing victims with broomsticks". This groups claims cannot be true, because research done by me on my wordpress blog revealed how fake these 2 claims are. 

This whole thing is been engineered to create the violent game bans the censor/anti-gamers want.... The thing is that the media spreading lies and hoaxes being made by the media and others are being used to hijack the supreme court now.... You then add in justices who are for violent games through the election of a conservative christian president (like the candidate who supports a complete game ban), and what's to stop the supreme court from having a hung jury (and going back to the law that was passed before they looked at it on grounds of unconstitutionality), or even finding it constitutional via faked evidence in Amicus Briefs and 4 justices who support the idea of a violent games ban. This could happen if you add these 2 things in, the faked evidence in Amicus briefs and new justices who support bans... It's scary... Something must be done about it and the lies being spread... More on that for another article or video... Stay tuned gamers

Surveys about violent games not to be trusted (old post)

(this is an old post from my wordpress blog that got deleted there by accident a long time ago, after it was published in 2011 or 2010. I thought it was important that I republish it here)

So the anti-gamers are at it again.... A new 'phone survey' says that 67% of adults surveyed want violent games restricted to adults. No suprise there... But the real issue, is that the survey also says that 39% of adults surveyed think that violent game makers should be held liable when "it can be proven that a violent game causes a real life crime to happen".

You might think this is some honest survey, but trust me it is not .Here is the wording of the study, according to the gamepolitics article I got it from (look in the comments):

"For those wondering, here is the wording and order of the questions in their survey:

1* How concerned are you about the level of violence in many video games today?

2* Do violent video games lead to more violence in our society?

3* Should states be allowed to prohibit the sale or rental of violent video games to minors?

4* Who is more responsible for limiting the amount of sex and violence children are exposed to in video games – video game makers, the government or parents?

5* Should the makers of violent video games be held liable in court if it can be shown that their games led to someone committing a violent act?"

Question 1, makes the viewers think about the violent games link to violence, and question 2, makes them think about their opinions on whether violent games cause real-life violence, biasing their answers after that.  Question 4 then uses that bias to incite a yes response! This is especially troubling, because what it does is that it makes certain people want to sue, or advocate lawsuits against, violent game makers. If question 1 and 2 were never asked, the chance is greater that question 4 would have had less people who say "yes, sue the assholes marketing violent trash to my 2 year old!"



This is another sly tactic to win viewers over, to make them believe the nonsense that violent games make kids violent, when the only people who said that were biased talk show guests misrepresenting studies that were biased in themselves, that seemed to prove violent games make kids more aggressive. It's mind control, plain and simple... In a sense...


Take the amount of people who thought violent games should be outright banned or sued (11% of 44 comments, 38% of all comments wanting legal action performed (banning, suing, restricting to adults) to all age groups on my study of comments (here), and you see more people want game makers sued than ever before. It seems it's a new fad, "sue ID software,etc" after a school shooting. More people are believing these lies spread around, even in an Amicus Brief for SCOTUS (whose lies were debunked here), and it's scary..

Another issue I would  like to bring up, is that the sample size of the survey is a mere 1000 people (probably 1000 people who are in right wing conservative communities that believe the nonsense about violent games that the above amicus brief used to try to sway the SCOTUS decision), out of 300 million. That is 3% of the population of america surveyed, less than a population of one state! In fact that 1000 people surveyed, although it seems big to people who don't look at this stuff, is a mere 1/200000 of the population of one state of the US on average... It's tiny. According to true knowledge, the population of Boston, MA was found to be 618,231 in 2011. That's 618 times as much as the survey sample size. So basically the sample size they used skipped 97% of the population! It's just to small! I'm not saying the survey would have to encompass an entire state or the entire US, but 1000 people, is way to small. I think they chose 1000 poeple who were anti violent games being sold..... Just my opinion. They never asked "Do you think violent games should be banned to all age groups?", to anyone, but since so many people wanted violent game makers sued out of the sample size, it makes me think that they wanted them banned too. Usually people who want lawsuits would also not want games they think cause violence, sold to anyone... No matter how old.  Just My opinion...

So basically they are saying the 390 or so people want violent game makers sued out of 1000. That 390 is 39% of 1000, but on the scale of all the people living in an area the same population as Boston in 2011, that's only 0.6% of the population of that area! In contrast, the 67% of the 1000 who wanted violent games restricted to adults (roughly 670 out of 1000) is 1% of that area with the same population of Boston in 2011. That's bigger than the 0.6% but is still tiny..... These survey's don't mean much when 1% of the population of a boston populated area want violent games restricted to adults. There are probably more people in that area who think President Obama should be Impeached.



Speaking of surveys.... I am planning an experiment to see how far the anti-gamers will go. Stay tuned...

Insite into the Controversy Surrounding certain Video game Mods... (old blog repost)

(This blog post was posted on my other blog at wordpress a few years ago but got deleted for some other reason. I am reposting it here)

After reading about that article complaining about the ‘game’ (really a Half-life 2 MOD)  school shooter 2012, I began to wonder how the people writing the biased article linked in that debunking got their hands on the mod. It’s not like the mod was popular. It wasn’t even popular in the HL2 Community, so how the hell did the people attacking the game on the article find out about it?

Mod communities are closed communities. Fans of the game the mod is made for, and only those fans, go to the communities looking for mods for it.  So how does a nanny state representitive who wants to find the newest violent game to complain about find out about a mod, to complain about it?  In the case of a real game like GTA, there is countless ads on TV, articles about it coming out, etc. For mods none of this exists.  So for someone to find that mod to attack it on a site, must mean that they are in the Community releasing the mod, at least I think so. Do the anti-gamers go to gaming mod sites, and then write articles complaining about the mod being released by the mainstream video game press… It seems likely this is the case…

Only problem, is this is the only time that I’ve EVER seen a mod for a game, be targetted like it’s a game, by the violent game attackers. The thing is that this is not the first time someone has made some tasteless school shooting level or mod for a game. Go to Doomworld idgames site (where doom levels are hosted) and you will find this lovely gem, from back in 1997. Overlooked by all the anti-gamers. Was really the same thing as school shooter : american tour 2012, minus the kill yourself ending. Not that I like this kind of game, but….. It’s been done before. What caused SSAT 2012 to get so much negative press? It's content is horrible, making light of the school shooting tragedies, make no mistake, but if this article would never have been written, no one would have commented on it outside the gaming community. There are tasteless mods for many games online... None are complained about in the media.

Who is inside these communities finding this stuff to write about? Is it someone being an idiot and seeing all the bad responses to get something to laugh at, because he has a sick sense of humor? Is he someone doing this on purpose to see how idiotic the comments are about violent games, to see what misconceptions they spread? Was the whole mod made for that purpose? Or is the writer some anti-gamer latching onto a mod that is tasteless to use it as ammo to attack Valve software with. It's not like Valve hasn't been hit with lawsuit threats before. Some lawyer threatened to sue valve when 'he' (the lawyer - in a news article, no less) named counterstrike as an influence to the V-Tech Killer's rampage. With no other proof that Cho played counterstrike, presumably to use it as ammo against valve in some big lawsuit, even though valve did not make Counterstrike. The thing is that he said that 'Cho Played Half-life'.  Currently, the articles slamming the Mod (or "game" as they label it for this purpose) don't mention Valve. But what if one did? The company who has developed some of the best FPS games ever (half-life, HL2, Portal, Left 4 dead 1/2) would be ruined.... Out of all the gaming companies that DON'T deserve this kind of link to a school shooting, valve is it.  Their games are usually puzzle intensive, where combat is a challenge, and violence is not rewarded like in GTA. They pretty much started the ideas that formed the tactical shooter revolutioin, and lead to Far Cry, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., etc.


 Valve would get lawsuit threats, a crapload of media complaints, and maybe even another senate hearing that could lead to stronger restrictions, a govt enforced rating system that I think could be abused to 'effectively' ban violent games to all age groups in the US. Is this the purpose of the article......
I don’t know. But I would love to find out

ANOTHER Site Spreading BS about violent games... WHEN WILL IT END?

So I was browsing the net looking for a certain candidates views on violent game bans that I was writing about last week, when I  came across this lovely right wing Conservative site that is spreading utter BS about violent games to people, claiming to be a trustworthy source. Now I will add a disclaimer,  the site may not be Intentionally doing this, but many of the PRO side points are quite suspicious at best, and down right fabrications or bad misinterpretations at worst... Anyone looking at this will believe the points debunked below, because most people believe what they hear: Here is the site I am talking about.

http://videogames.procon.org/

Now on  to the debunking, shall we.. After all, this IS what I do here, debunk BS spread about violent games by ANYONE!

"97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence." Really, 97% of 12-17 year olds played video games? Shocker. Notice it said video games, not Violent ones...  It then tries to claim that this is the reason that the gaming industry made so much money. Then it immediately tried to assume this 12-17 year olds must have played  the violent ones!!! So  "10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence" Shocker!!! Let me tell you one thing. Most violent games aren't even played by such "young kids"... The target demographic is 18-35, according to the ESA. They also say that the average age of gamers are 30 years old... They even did a study proving this, unlike the article linked above, which tries to imply that 12-17 year olds are playing "violent" games. Now Let me define violent game. A game with Combat in it, and killing. Not neccisarily a Uber Violent one like GTA where you run over old ladies, or games where you decapitate people, BLAH BLAH BLAH. The media for years has been using examples of rare tastelessly violent games as a way to say most games are like this, but it's more than wrong because, according to a study I did using a wikipedia list of 605 FPS games released since 1986 on my other blog, only 4% or so were what I think most people would  consider "tastelessly" violent. That's 21 out of 605. Not even 1/10! The real number of tastelessly violent games is actually lower than this because FPS games make up only 1/5 of total violent games and tastlessly violent games, at least to me, seem quite rare... Now on to the more severe lies...

"Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games."

The sample size is not mentioned here, 60% of anything less than  5000 people means nothing... A lot of studies  that try  to prove this stuff use small sample sizes to make it look like it's an serious issue, and by possibly manipulating the results to show high percentages of people pre-chosen to show the result they want they can fudge the study. Recently a study was done saying that 1000 people all supported violent game legislation. 1000 people may seem like a lot to the untrained eye, but 1000 is Tiny, like in 625 times smaller than the Population of Boston, MA in 2011, 625,000 or so. So finding 1000 people who support legislation ignores the other Millions who do not. It's statistically insignificant, and the fact that such studies, more than likely pick and chose 1000 people who support it anyway, means that they should not be trusted. Not saying the study above isn't trust worthy or the one mentioned in the article but you have to learn how to critically examine such studies...



"Video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors. "

Most violent games don't even do this at all. Ones that do are things like GTA, Sure, and uber violent games like blood, but many games don't even make dead enemies drop items at all these days. Very few actually force players  to even kill any enemies, notable exceptions are quake 2, and serious sam type games. So much for rewarding violent behavior. Yes, killing is part of many games, but to kill, in order to survive hostile opponents trying to kill you, isn't really rewarding anything but survival. Very Few FPS games that I have played (and I have played 100's), really give you substantial rewards for killing... The whole realism thing in modern shooters (a BIG thing today) prevents significant rewards because realism requires minimal rewards per kill... A lot of these games focus on puzzles and missions to accomplish as well. Killing enemies is secondary. You can beat 90% of shooters without killing enemies. Just because killing is part of these games doesn't mean they reward "simulating violence". Also the claim that games that "reward simulation of violence" enhance the learning of violent behaviors is crazy. Most people who play violent games won't go out and kill people because they have been rewarded in a game to do so in the game, not in real life... These points mentioned completely ignore that real life violence is different than simulated violence in a game, on purpose many times, to make it look like people who play violent games will want to kill for real... 



"Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. It is common for victims in video games to disappear off screen when they are killed or for players to have multiple lives."

There is actually no real evidence to support the idea that violent games desensitize people to real life violence. Define Real life violence, then look at what desensization really means. It means that people who consume violent entertainment get more used to the violence in it. Real life violence is Completely separate from  this, Period!  There is evidence to suggest that consuming said violence entertainment, or anything really, will make a person more used to it. That's all the evidence is really saying. Saying it proves that people get used to a completely separate, different thing (real life violence), is a willful, stupid, and deceitful misinterpretation of studies that prove something different. If there is any study that says violent games desensitize people to real life violence, then I seriously doubt that it isn't flawed like all the other video game "aggression" studies being linked as proof of violent games causing real life violence by anti-gaming morons everywhere for 10 years. 

Now on to the claims that there are lots of games that have multiple lives, and disappearing characters. Where the hell did they get this from? Only Extremely KIDDIE games like Super Noah's Ark 3D have Disappearing characters that completely disappear. Only one recent game series features this, that's serious sam. Most games have corpses that NEVER disappear. Making Dissapearing characters is way to make a game seem LESS violent to kids, and is only done in KID type games to prevent the game from showing off VIOLENT DEATHS... HELLO!  And the idea that people in games have multiple lives. I can name all the popular games in FPS history that conform to this. Wolf3d, Descent Series, and Serious sam. THATS IT. Most FPS games ditched the whole lives thing because it made it too easy. The change was made in 1993 for gods sake, with Doom, which revolutionized  the idea that players who die don't get to come back without restarting the level or loading a save game. Lives in FPS games are almost non-existent.




"A 2000 FBI report (187 KB)  includes playing violent video games in a list of behaviors associated with school shootings."

Ok... So there is this study that lists risk factors for school shootings, and it listed being obsessed with violent entertainment. So a bunch of anti-gamer DickNozzles starting purposely interpreting it as proof that playing violent games is the risk factor, not being obsessed with any form of violent entertainment. Since I couldn't actually quote the study, I screenshotted it below. Lo and Behold, this proves it again. The people who made this site committed this crime.

Nowhere here does it A) Single out violent games B) Make it so simply playing them is a risk factor like the article linking to it says.  The article above is Purposely misinterpreting the facts to create a moral panic. Plain and simple.   The FBI study finds that "themes of hatried, violence, weapons and mass destruction Recur in virtually all his activities, hobbies, and past times". So simply playing violent games will make this happen? WTF! Sounds like these people who posted the article Don't know people who play violent games mostly Do NOT obsess over real life violence. The study also says "The student spends inordinate amounts of time playing games with violent themes and seems to be more interested in violent images than the game itself". Where does this equate simply playing violent games with school shootings. NOWHERE.   Then it says "On the internet the student regularly searches for web sites involving violence, weapons, and other disturbing subjects. There is evidence the student downloaded and kept material from these sites". Where does this equate playing Violent games, with school shootings? NOWHERE. It equates being Obsessed with Real violence, Hatred, And wanting to commit real violence, as a risk factor. This whole paragraph DOES NOT simply link playing violent games with school shootings. It links OBSESSION WITH VIOLENCE IN GENERAL. These people are making up BS about this.... The FBI wouldn't actually link simply playing violent games at all. They aren't pro family enough to do  that... Only right wing nutjobs who want violent games banned do that..




"Violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others."

Looking at  the source of this proved that it came from one of the "hack psychologists" going around on talk shows in April 1999 claiming the military uses violent games to break down the inhibition to kill, all while selling his book, a big batch of lies... If a blog run by an actual person who was in the armed forces debunks the claim, then this claim sounds suspicious as well.. I know for a fact that even though I played wolf3d for the first time at age 13, duke3d at age 16, etc, I did not "associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others". The whole idea that this happens, is using the same analogy as people misinterpreting desensitizing studies to prove that violent games desensitize people to real life violence, not the fake video game violence. This makes it look like games that make people want to cause pain in a virtual environment make people want to do it in real life. It's BS... Just trust me on that... If it were true, you would have a LOT more cases of gamers hurting real people. I don't see that, or any evidence that that is actually happening... So this is more than likely bunk too, IMHO.

"A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women (165 KB) . Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape (47 KB)  such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape."

Number 1, the (probably) flawed study was done in 1998! More than 10 years ago! Number 2, since then most FPS or violent games, don't even have women to kill in them. And if they do, that's not saying they do this on purpose to single violence against women on purpose. Then the thing makes up the claim about sexual violence. Like all the other claims of "rape simulators" in violent games, this is also BS, because the last time a game actually had a scene where there was a controllable rape scene where a woman was a victim and the player was a perpetrator was, Custer's Revenge, in 1989, an ADULT only game not sold in normal stores!!!! Since then only 3 games have even had rape in them, Phantasmogoria, which features the player being raped in a cutscene, and Fear 2, which ends with the evil chick villian Alma, Raping you in arguably  the most fucked up ending any game has ever had, but get this, it is most likely a dream sequence....  Not once has there been a game that had virtual rape in it where a women was a victim, and if a guy was a victim, well, I have never heard of it. And the claim  that violent games lead to "increases in rape" came straight out of a moron Fox news put on their "bullshitting" on Bulletstorm 3 years ago, which they tried to say bulletstorm causes real life rape, with this analogy "Since Rape is a violent crime and violent games cause violence, then violent games have caused rape"... It's Fucking bullshit. The person saying this had NO proof that violent games caused real life rape, just said they did without actual evidence.



"Violent video games can train youth to be killers. The US Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to createMarine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the US Army released first-person shooter America's Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield. "

Nowhere here, did they mention that the first was a training for group tactics, and was a Modification of the game not the game itself, with HEAVY REALISTIC changes to gameplay, and graphics, almost nothing from Doom in it at all. They want to make it look like the military uses real games like Doom 2 to train soldiers to kill on, but the blog ran by the military dude linked above "design synthesis" disproved that, didn't it?  Now the thing about americas army is true, it WAS a recruitment tool. But it's the only game that ever was a recruitment tool, period. That's out of THOUSANDS of violent games, most of which aren't tastelessly violent..



"California passed a law in 2005 that would have required violent video games to include an "18" label and criminalized the sale of these games to minors. On June 27, 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association (485 KB) that the law violated free speech rights."

What they don't say is that this law would have used a really subjective Obscenity clause like language to determine what games would be fined, by saying that games that are morbidly violent and "lack literary, scientific and educational value" are targeted for fines. This would allow them to fine any game they got offended by, period, causing many tame games to be fined, causing stores to pull any game that could be fined under the law off  the shelves, causing most violent games not to be sold in stores, causing the companies that make lesser known games go out of business at the least. That's what the BS article REFUSES to tell people...  It claims to be a trusted source on the points made by the experts...  All it is is spreading plainly debunkable lies to fuel censorship... It's stinks, like most of the polished turds that get released by the anti-gamers...

Google lists thousands of takedown notices of Fraudulent "Infringing" Content

So I was reading how google would put any site lower in their search results based on copyright takedown notices given to them by copyright holders. On an article about this (not the linked one), there was a link to this google site showing how many takedown notices google receives per month and what sites are complained about. Most are free file hosting sites, and warez sites, but some big surprises crept in..

First, nearly half of the 2000 links I looked through when browsing page 1 to the page where the 2000 link was posted, were porn sites. A lot of blogging sites crept in as well, and so did facebook, twitter, and other social networking. However, their have been copyright takedowns of gaming file hosting sites as well, probably fraudulent ones.

Here are 10 screenshots showing what sites were given fraudulent takedowns, all circled in red.. These results were set per month so the URLS listed were all complained about in 1 month.

I saw quite a bit of blogger listed, mainly because there are blogger blog with pirated content on them, but wordpress? Sounds like a fraudulent claim, because I refuse to believe that wordpress hosts 763 URLS that have infringing content on them.

Yahoo? WTF!  It's a search engine and doesn't actually host anything that could be considered pirated or infringing. With 1808 "Url's" to boot. I refuse to believe that this is a valid takedown notice, mainly because besides yahoo mail (which nothing pirated can be hosted on), and my.yahoo, what else do you have?

No We have the 335 Facebook takedown notices. Now on facebook, there might be some infringing content, but 335? Sounds awfully fradulent to me. I refuse to believe that 335 URLS have been found per month with obvious infringing content.  Same thing with the below twitter.com takedowns. Twitter doesn't even allow people to host anything but file links with very short descriptions and short 30 character "tweets", where are the 333 twitter infringing URLS? Made up, that's where!

Yet another fraudulent search engine takedown notice with 274 URLS of "infringing content" that is supposedly on a site that can't even host that stuff. Google.com has search results and the mere idea that they are linking to infringing material might cause these "takedown notices" but there actually isn't any material on google that is infringing, and notice how this said "google.com", as in the search engine, not youtube, not gmail, not anything else but the search engine itself... Sounds really fishy to me.

Now we got 239 quite possibly fraudulent takedown notices of content on Scribd.com, a document hosting site.  I've never heard of scribd.com even being used to host copyrighted material, and while these results could be genuine, I'm not so sure... Moving on...

Now HERE is the one that pisses me off. Gamefront, formally known as filefront, is a gaming file hosting site, a really big one. It has thousands of video game demos, patches, mods, etc. Not once have I ever encountered anything pirated being hosted there... And I have never even heard of it being associated with piracy, but yet we get 232 takedown notices per month on a gaming file hosting site which probably deletes anything that could be infringing. Are these legit? Hell NO! These sounds fraudulent beyond belief. It's like 2 copyright holders and 2 more organizations insisted on filing takedown notices on all legal files, because If you believe that filefront/gamefront has mostly legal files, how the hell can they have 239 pirated URL's discovered per month? It sounds really fishy, fishy like an attempt to take down mods or something like that...

Now we get 192 takedown notices for dailymotion.com, a video sharing site. Whether these takedowns are legit or not remains to be seen, but judging by youtube and it's thousands of fraudulent takedown notices done by people trying to make a buck off of innocent uploaders, you really cannot trust these to be genuine, can you?

Another yahoo.com search result... Moving on...

Finally, another 66 livejournal URL's being "found" per month, by 26 quite possibly bogus copyright holders, and 19 "organizations". I have never heard of livejournal as a source for infringing stuff, and I refuse to believe that 66 have been found per month.....

What we have here, is an example of Copyright Fraud being done on a large scale by people trying to shut down sites that host LEGAL, Non-infringing content. Not once have I discovered any infringing (full games,etc) files on Filefront, or infringing content on Google itself, or on yahoo or wordpress  or on Scribd, etc. Infringing documents maybe but 239 per month? Yeah Right!!! It seem like most of these circled ones are quite questionable at least and obviously fraudulent at worst. And to bring up another completely different subject : Look at all the porn sites listed.... Is copyright law being abused to shut down porn?

It looks like it is, maybe part of the GOP's "War on Porn" that they announced recently. If the morons in the right wing can over abuse copyright  law to take down Porn, then they can abuse it to take down any site that gets their panties in a bunch (Porn, Violent Games, Modding Sites, Youtube, Social Networking), because I don't believe that Porn is infringing, hell I don't see how 16,000+ notices on tons of  porn sites are all infringing on someones copyright. I see how they are all fraudulent to censor them too..

If these results are the ones that will all be listed lower in the search results, then the internet has already been censored, and it will only get worse...

Youtube videos on Debunking Violent games BS being started by me.

Since I opened this blog to debunk BS claims made about violent games by certain groups who apparently all wanted extreme anti-violent games legislation passed (such as bans, 100% taxes on companies, taking down all sites related to violent games, etc), I've seen quite a bit of Youtube video's by other gamers talking about the so-called (or non-existant) link between violent games and school shootings, etc. Many of the video's were really well done, some weren't but none that I have seen have gone to lengths to debunk claims that are made against violent games that are utter BS, or fabricated. I am attempting to change this trend on Youtube to educate Gamers and Gaming Groups to the danger of fabricated claims being used against violent games that are possibly being done in an attempt to introduce draconian violent games legislation like Mr Poster boy Presidential Candidate is apparently supporting.  Here is a link to my first video of an extended series of video's all disproving various claims that are utter bunk, that are all being used to attack violent games.

Is the Government spying on people who watch youtube?

So, I was watching youtube, after hearing several horror stories about youtube bandwith being throttled by certain ISP's in America, from forums and such. So I decided to search on youtube to find out if someone had posted a video about it. Well I did. This video, was done by the author of the video I found which proved that certain ISPS are throttling youtube, through a hidden file that only can be accessed in windows explorer if you turn the "show all system files" feature in folder options on, not the "show hidden files" feature, mind you. This folder called "Content.IE5" is super hidden, and found on any machine that the main user uses IE as a default browser. It contains among other things, cache files from any site you visited, html files from sites you visit, but what really scared me, is that it also contains screenshots and in some cases, copied .flv files of certain youtube videos, taken of certain, but not all youtube videos you watch.

The person who did the above video, mentioned how he found this folder on his PC during a defragging and found the hidden folder with copied .flv files  of conspiracy theorist type video's only, but not other videos he had watched.  So he surmised IE has a secret system that was being used to spy on people by the government to find anti government types. I don't know if that's true, but if IE is in fact taking screenshots of certain youtube video's and not others, then it is a bad thing for everyone who still uses that really badly designed browser. So I decided to see for myself what would happen If I purposely browsed in IE on youtube for a 2 day test.

Since I didn't want to get hit with a nasty virus, I knew I would have to sandbox IE, like I do to any browser. I use Sandboxie on all my browsers due to nasty virus attacks I have gotten 2 times in the last 4 years on my PC, both unclean able by Antivirus products and both completely devastating my PC.  It's the only way to really prevent a virus attack these days. Antivirus software really sucks and doesn't prevent stuff at all due to many people on youtube reviewing them (look up mrizos on youtube), and finding out how much virus attacks they do not block. So I sandboxed my browser. But the other reason I sandboxed it was that sandboxie forces IE to put this folder in a plainly visible part of the sandbox I can freely copy to any part of my PC later. So after I was finished with youtube, I could simply just copy the folder "Content.IE5" to another folder and view that in Windows Explorer like the video I saw on youtube did.

So I started yesterday browsing youtube and other sites in a sandboxed IE session to see what youtube would be screenshoted to my Content.IE5 folder. What I found would shock me. I browsed a whole bunch of video's, from video game walkthroughs, to politcal type videos, which fit into 2 topics, anti-censorship, and anti-violent games BS. The anti-censorship videos mainly dealt with the TPP treaty I wrote about in my previous article. The anti-violent game BS  stuff were just video's posted by gamers, in a VBLOG format talking about how the whole link between violent games and violent crimes is utter BS. There is a lot of that on youtube, apparently. So I finished watching the videos and went back to my browser of choice, Chrome last night and posted some more blogs here. But before I went to bed I examined the content.ie5 folder I had copied out of my sandbox. What it showed is that screenshots of the video game playthroughs and the Anti-TPP videos were taken, at certain intervals. Simply excusing this as cache images of the video thumbnails doesn't add up, because multiple video's of one particular anti-TPP video made by a Japanese business man were found, and I knew right away that they were not thumbnails, more like regular screenshots taken by whatever program was taking them.

Strangely, absolutely none of the anti-video game violence videos were screenshotted at all, but the pictures from a descent 2 walkthrough were. It didn't make sense to me. But then I remembered what the video I watched earlier that got me into this said, it was mostly anti-government stuff that got screenshotted. So then it hit me. Something on my PC was somehow taking screenshots of certain video's that could be seen as a threat to the government or any legislation the public could oppose greatly, such as TPP, at least that's what I was thinking when I viewed these images that were in the subfolders of Content.IE5.

Now to prove that these screenshots have a ton taken of Anti-TPP video's being played, do a search on youtube for any video about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and you will get many video's that these screenshots came from. It seems like tons of video's that attacked the TPP got multiple screenshots taken of them but other video's I watched before attacking violent games censorship and ones saying violent games do not make people violent did not.

But the truth gets even scarier when you see what it screenshotted today. I decided to continue my IE test after clearing the sandbox so that the images above would not be copied to the new folder, then logged into youtube in IE sandboxed, and decided to completely watch a different type of video, rant videos made by gamers, ranting about violent games being linked to real crimes, like Columbine, the V-tech shooter, the Norway shooter, and the Aurora Shooter, all by the media. I watched a good 10 different video's, some really badly done, some really well done. Yet only one video uploaders video's were screenshotted, the one who was the most cynical and humorous by far, someone who happened to be Australian. This guys video seen here is what was captured, and other videos I watched by him were also captured. But the only thing is that only his videos were screenshotted, not the other 10 or so  I watched before. The thing is that the screenshot capturing done by whatever was doing it was logging his video's and no one elses. Now in australia there has been the biggest BS about violent games out of any country. Games over there if not good enough for the censors, they got banned, at least until the new law legalizing R18+ ratings went through. There has been a lot of morons in their government Bullshitting about how violent games cause crime, blah, blah, blah, including a certain former Parliment member who like a certain internet troll seen on gamepolitics, made it no secret that he thought gamers are shitheads, druggies, etc. So the bias against violent games, their companies, and the people who play them is really strong over there in the government, at least certain right wing groups, christian lobby, blah, blah, blah.  Another video screenshotted in the following videos shows another video game violence BS debunking done by a guy with long hair and a hat, which is also quite vulgar at times but makes the damn point it was meant to, which is all that counts. Somehow the screenshotter, which is unnkown to me what program it actually is, is screenshotting these video's as well. So it's screenshotting video game playthroughs of certain games but not others, but is screenshotting tons of Anti-TPP video's, and certain videos attacking attacks made against violent games by youtube content providers, but not all of them. Go figure. Here are the screenshots that were taken today to show I am not making this up:

As you can see, certain screenshots are quite mundane and can be debunked as cached images, but the sheer amount of anti-gaming BS and anti-censorship video's are quite high in these...  Now I cannot rule out the posibility my PC is Infected, allthough multiple Antivirus scans show nothing on the PC. However, this is quite scary to people who don't want their privacy violated. Who knows what is being done with these screenshots. Another video made by the person who discovered this on youtube, suggested that youtube bandwidth throttling and snooping on email accounts from free email services like yahoo mail and gmail was being done through other files in this folder. Since I would never trust the swiss cheeze that is IE to log in to my email account, I didn't even test that, even in a sandbox. It's quite scary how certain programs may be used to watch people who certain members of the government may think are a threat. You simply are not secure anymore online. I highly suggest that people sandbox their browsers, switch from IE, due to it's virus problems at the very least, install chrome instead and make sure that they visit sites like yahoo mail, or any other site that requires a log in and password with HTTPS enabled. You can download a free plugin called HTTPS enforcer to do that, and firefox users can use another plugin called HTTPS everywhere to automate this. It will help people stay anonymous online because HTTPS enables encrypted connections to every site that can use it if it uses it at all, and if TPP does pass this is at least a temporary solution to prevent "Deep packet Inspection" from being abused to sniff your data by ISPS who would give it to the government, incase data like that gets abused to arrest people for fraudulent reasons.

The Trans-Pacific partnership is BAD for the internet

I've been writing about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) for a few days on my other anti-censorship blog, Debunking utter Nonsense. Basically TPP is a huge and secret treaty among "pacific" countries that would (among other scarier things) force them all to incorporate extreme, unfair and downright stupid copyright laws, not limited to forcing internet intermediaries (google, etc) to filter and block any content accused of "alleged" copyright infringement (aka no proof needed), as well as ISP's having to shut down access to the people accused and forcing the ISP's to tell the copyright holders about any of these people accused of "alleged" copyright infringement.

The other things it would allow corporations to do, that is quite scary, is sue an entire company if  their laws don't favor that corporation, raise the price of medicine, lower food standards, and many more scarier things. But this article has to do with it's possible effect on the internet as a whole, as a huge IP section which was leaked, shows how far the mega corporations in the music industry want to mess up our net freedom for profit.

To make things worse, as I mentioned in the previous article, temporary copies found on people's computers would be enough to make someone liable for copyright infringement, if found by "deep packet inspection", a technique ISPS would be forced to use to find these temporary copies, which are downloaded in the thousands everytime someone watches 1 youtube video, listens to 1 streamed song off of sites like  soundcloud, reverbnation, purevolume, etc, all specializing in hosting indie music artists music.  The content doesn't even HAVE to be infringing any copyright for the holder to take action, remember how many fraudulent content ID claims youtube allows, because youtube does not require proof the copyright holder actually holds the copyright! If TPP and the necessary Copyright laws pass this will only increase, by the thousands! Now let me tell you how easy it would be for temporary copies of an infringing work to get onto someones hard drive without them actually downloading them.....

Hypothetical situation A:

Some bar is blasting pop music.  The bar's radio station of choice has the right to play the music. Some guy happens to be walking outside filming himself going to the bar, for some other reason. The music ends up on his video. He uploads it to youtube.  The video is immediately marketed on google like all youtube video's are, by making it go into the search results.  Someone finds the video. He watches it on his PC. Without his knowledge, around 1000+ temporary copies are created PER viewer, that don't go away till the viewers clear their cache. And even if they do clear the cache, the damage has been done. Deep packet inspection would have found them the instant they are downloaded, because deep packet inspection involves looking at everything someone downloads with extreme scrutiny while the packets are moving from the youtube site to the person viewing it.  The ISPS would be legally forced to copy these packets and send them to  the government authority in charge of figuring out which ones could be infringing, which would look at them closely to find out if a "temporary" copy is inside any of them and if it's infringing, according to them.  IF The infringing song is found in the packets, the person is then liable for copyright infringement, even though he didn't actually steal anything!

Hypothetical Situation B:

Repeat the above scenario with the following changes.  The video' audio is cut out and replaced with a song the person happens to like. Now the person uploading IS guilty of copyright infringement. But that's not the point. The song is popular and makes the video even more popular. 90% of the viewers don't know of the song, but every single one of these viewers has 1000+ of these "temporary" copies on their hard drive. And because of the deep packet inspection, each and every one of these viewers, even ones who accidentally viewed the video when youtube automatically played it in part of a playlist due to an error or on purpose, are all guilty of 1000+ counts of copyright infringement under TPP!

The real problem, as highlighted by a blog post I did on Debunking Utter Nonsense, is that several key immunities offered by current US copyright law are thrown out the window, by the TPP. The TPP says that all copyright infringement, even accidental, and non-profit infringement, is considered criminal infringement. The US copyright law requires that a minimum profit of $1000 be made before the law says it is criminal infringement.  Under copyright law, the copyright moguls have to specify each individual infringing link on a site to take it down. Not so in TPP. TPP basically allows them to say "this site is filled with infringing links" (WITHOUT proof) and it's ok to take it down then. Just one baseless accusation. That's it. NO proof required! The TPP also makes it completely legal for the government to destroy anything used in the creation of the infringement, without proof, and without compensation, and any other thing that was created by the infringement work, so if that youtube video I gave the example for was used to create another video, that second video, and whatever was used to make it, can be legally destroyed also! The copyright law specifically states that only devices used commonly in criminal infringement like molds can be destroyed.  The TPP would also get rid of the exemption of copyright for non-profit educational uses completely, not require any action by the copyright holder before the government can do anything, and also allow copyright holders to penalize any and all transmissions of their copyrighted material on a PC, even legal ones, such as internet radio, legal mp3 file downloading sites like Amazon MP3/Itunes, and worse.

Now to examine the damages the people would be facing looking at the latest RIAA case:

The defendant of the latest RIAA case was forced to pay $22,500 dollars PER song downloaded when he only downloaded 30 songs illegally that were only worth $0.99 per song originally. Imagine this number multiplied by 1000 or more, It gets SCARY, Scary like in $22,500,500 per defendant for merely VIEWING a video! In a court case where the entire viewership are co-defendants of eachother (assuming the video gets 100,000 views), that adds up to $2,250,000,000,000 in damages!

If you think the lawsuit bringer would not stoop too that level, you are wrong... RIAA already made the defendant of the case pay $675,000 for 30 songs! If the persons involved show the video starts showing off the video to people on his PC, that number increases even more, lets say he shows the video to 10 friends, that number becomes $225,000,000 for that defendant!!!!

The bar, the uploader, AND youtube would probably  all be liable under TPP for ALLOWING infringement as well. The bar allowed someone to copy a song off the radio, don't think for a second the lawsuit bringer won't prosecute them.  The original poster even if he didn't put the song in the video on purpose, would STILL be held liable for allowing copies to be distributed in HIS video, even if the song was "accidentally" played in the video. Now to get to youtube.

Youtube has the reputation as the worst place on the internet, besides warez, where copyrighted material is available, and many people mistakenly believe that youtube profits off of piracy... Why? Their content ID system, which was set up to alert copyright holders to unauthorized infringers uploading their copyrighted works, allows the holders to upload samples of their copyrighted works (without proof), and gives them the option to either take down video's matching it, or to put ads in the video's. When people see ads in video's and they see infringement in the video's they think youtube are trying to profit off of this, but they aren't. The Copyright holders are, because it's THEIR choice not youtube...

Even if you think youtube's copyrighted works only amount to tv show clips and music pirated as video's you are in for a shock to what things could generate "alleged" copyright claims on youtube and what does. The following types of videos are considered infringing by someone, not necessarily the movie and music industry:

Video game commentary, Video game reviews, Video game walkthroughs, Lets plays, video's of mods for video games especially ones that include content from other games, their are tons of that,  videos of video games that have background music that just happens to be copyrighted by someone, video's showing live performances of bands or videos of bands, even if those videos are uploaded by the bands own label, behind the scenes videos of bands in the studio that play the tracks after being recorded, even though they are uploaded by the BANDS own label, advertisements for any site that hosts indie music, indie music directly uploaded to youtube by the artists themselves, indie music uploaded by an artist separately from their own indie hosting site (think reverbnation) not knowing that reverbnation/etc,  happened to copyright it,  clips from TV shows, even ones uploaded with the copyright holders permission, TV shows uploaded with permission, any video where the permission has been secured to upload it,  and any video someone claims fraudulent copyright on, without actually owning the copyright!

The sheer amount of video's where alleged infringement could occur is about 99.9% of youtube video's then. Even if some of these were not even infringing in the first place, the temporary copies found on the Hard drive of all the viewers would Guarantee that the copyright moguls and their clients would get even more money than they even deserve for this. Due to all the temporary copies being produced of copyrighted material that happens to be uploaded by people who own the rights, the amount of frivolous lawsuits resulting from this will skyrocket to the millions per years by people apparently downloading 1000 copies per video, without actually trying to do that. Simply viewing a video will get people thrown in jail and sued.  This will result in More money being given to the Copyright holders in court for something the defendant didn't even do!  This will be used to shut down youtube because of this. Imagine a megaupload trial X100 with youtube for all of this plus Temporary copies, IP address info given to the copyright holders for anyone who Dared to watch any of these videos in question. Anyone who even visited youtube and got into it would be at risk for having to pay 1000X what that defendant did due to the temporary copies!!!!

What's next after youtube??? If even ONE game related video from that list gets an alleged infringement tag, the copyright holders would get noticed. Now comes greedy gaming companies, suing major modding sites  AND lets players, people linking to those lets plays, for allowing the copyrighted infringing material to be "distributed", because of the temporary copies found on people's HDD after viewing the lets plays. You would then get them suing youtube.  I watch dozens of lets plays, because I love seeing other people playing games. It helps me get into new ones, and helps me to see good strategies in games I have already played. People like me would be targeted also. This whole thing would not end there however.  Any modding site that hosts any kind of mod for any video game that includes content from another game would then be targeted. Here's the thing. there isn't a modding site that doesn't  do this. Every single game has at least ONE mod that does this... Even modified models/graphics/sprites/textures or ones that are based or inspired would get every single Modding site in trouble. And since 99% of the modding sites are hosted by BIG gaming sites dedicated to the game they mod, those parent sites would be next.... You have 99% of the internet sites dedicated to any video game being taken down due to this!!! The following sites could be gone, Doomworld, Duke4ever, Planetquake, PlanetDeusEx, Planethalflife, TESNEXUS, ANY and All game related file hosting sites (gamefront, atomic gamer, etc),  and all other big gaming sites that happen to host mods, nevermind MODDB and other modding sites dedicated to hosting the latest mods, ALL would be targeted under this... But that is just  the microscopic tip of the iceberg.....

Streamed video in youtube is only 1% of the total streamed content online... the rest include internet radio sites, like Pandora, Snakenet internet radio and others, and ANY site that has streamed music on it. After defeating youtube and modding sites, Amazon probably will  be the the music industry's next target, for it's Amazon Mp3 download service and Amazon cloud drive, which recently got heat from the music industry for allowing people to host their own bought music on the cloud....  Amazon MP3 Allows people to buy music legally online and the price is much lower (9.99 for album vs 20+ per Phsyical CD), due to the lack of packaging and medium.  However the music industry probably won't like this because they think they don't make enough money from REAL cd's from amazon so... Next comes the Big Amzon.com take down where they demand Amazon get taken down because they are distributing "pirated" mp3 files.  Even though Amazon is not. Just because the service is "legal" does not mean the industry won't file a big lawsuit. Under TPP the chance is MUCH greater this will happen, due to the fact the ISPS have to block any site that has any allegation of infringing content on it. One Mogul saying "Amazon Mp3 is all pirated stuff" is enough to get Amazon.com shut down too. It's the only good source of music to many people, not just me, because of the fact of  the perfect selection of music and the cheap price. But that scenario only the tip of the iceberg....

There are literally Dozens of indie music hosting sites, all with streaming capabilities. A big one is soundcloud, another big one is reverbnation. I had my own metal music hosted on both for a while. Then you add in myspace music and facebook too because plugins for the later and the first allow streaming music. anyone daring to listen to any music from any of these sites is liable for copyright infringement under the TPP, due to the temporary copies being made, thousands from one song being played!!!

Next come the number 1 enemy of Piracy morons everywhere, sites like 4shared, zippyshare, mediafire, megaupload, rapidshare, which all have legit files being hosted.  Under the TPP, the ISPS's have to filter and block ANY site that has been accused of infringement, that includes ANY of the following sites, and if one of these sites haven't been accused, they will eventually, I guarantee it. This list,  which I shall constantly print on any article bashing the TPP and use as tags to get the sites owners (hopefully) involved in the attack against the TPP.

Amazon
Youtube
Facebook
Moddb
Itunes
3dgamers archive
ANY and All of the following gaming sites:
Seriously
Duke4ever
Doomworld
TESNexus
Doom3world
Fallout3nexus
Planethalflife
Func-Messgboard (look it up)
Quaddicted
Unrealsp.org
Beyondunreal.com
Payne Reactor
Planet Deus Ex
The Admirals Command Chamber
Tenfourmaps.telefragged.com
Underworldfans quake review site
Darkplaces
Zdoom.org
Gzdoom website
D2x-xl
Kmquake2
Prboomplus
Doom Legacy
DarkXL
DukePlus
Eduke32 website
Reverbnation
Purevolume
Soundcloud
4Shared
Myspace Music
Myspace
4Shared
Dropbox
FileFront/Gamefront
Atomic Gamer
Rapidshare
4Filehosting.com
Completegamer.net
Mediafire.com
Sendspace.com
Vimeo.com
Zippyshare.com
Blogspot
Wordpress

Now to help out some people who might be thinking of boycotting any corporation that is involved in the stakeholder groups supporting this pile of trash.  Here is a list of all supporting corporations, gotten from this site.  I probably won't buy from them till they change their crappy law to make it so that exact proof of infringing links is required, and that temporary copies are not counted, and that the government falsely accusing anyone of infringement gets the members involved fired, nor should you:

If Anyone reading this likes any of those sites I listed above, I highly suggest you click the take action button on this linked page by the EFF, so that your Congressman know about  the BS that's being done behind their  back by the executive branch, circumventing the Supreme court, and Congress to allow the copyright moguls  to sue 1000X as much people, for simply viewing a video! Also, make sure to visit Open The TPP, to send your message to the stakeholders who all support the TPP at the current meeting by going to  this site and writing it and sending it there.