Slashdot Mirror
Valve Censoring Torrent References In Steam Chat
dotarray writes It seems Valve is restricting just what you can talk about when using the Steam chat service. Specifically, any reference to a particular torrent site is being stripped from conversation, while mentions of other pages trigger a warning that the site is "potentially malicious." In the wake of website KickassTorrents being taken offline earlier this week, people quickly noticed that references to the torrent site were being stripped from chat - with no warning, notificiation, or acknowledgement that anything is missing. We've seen censorship before, with chat providers blocking certain words, replacing key letters with asterisks or simply substituting inoffensive words for those considered 'problematic.' That's not what Valve is doing here though - the entire message is disappearing, not just the troublesome domain.
KickassTorrents is still online, though its address has changed back to the original (from .so).
Is this about public forum, or a private chat between two people? If it's the latter, I don't see how this is acceptable.
How many times do we have to teach idiots the lesson?
1. Create a service.
2. It gets popular.
3. Apply heavy handed censorship.
4. The Streisand Effect causes the censored items to propagate further (see: TFA)
5. Lose the damn service by hemorrhaging users due to bad press.
This day and age the profit step is Zeroth, gotta have money already to build popular platforms now.
The story goes more like this:
1. Create a service based on user supplied content, everything from YouTube to TPB.
2. It gets popular because of illegally shared content, since most people ignore copyright law.
3. You get big enough to get noticed and they threaten you with very expensive lawsuits
4. You apply heavy handed censorship to keep them from putting the thumbscrews on you
5. Discover that your users are fleeing while the copyright goons are never happy.
6. Service collapses from dwindling income, high legal costs and closes doors.
The only exception is if you get bought out by someone with deep enough pockets, like when Google bought YouTube. I don't see Steam having the same problem though as they deliver games from publishers, who pick the channels they'd like to publish through. I expect that soon torrents will be known as t0rrents on Steam Chat and the world will carry on as before.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
uh... you CAN shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects that right.
You CAN "dirty talk" to a minor, the First Amendment protects that right.
You CAN lie in court, the First Amendment protects that right.
What the First Amendment DOES NOT DO is protect you from the consequences of that exercise of the FREEDOM to say what you want to if it is a violation of other Laws. The Constitution is Supreme.
I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Such litmus weighting on the Free Speech argument as the Brandenburg test does NOT seek to infringe or abrogate the right to free speech, they instead seek to balance the speech itself against hte immediate and direct consequences of that speech. For example, I could stand in the middle of Times Square and chant "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad", and there is NOTHING that can legally be done to stop me from doing that. If however, an individual hears me and goes off to kill a cafeteria full of people then claims I put him up to it, then that's something I'll have to answer to. Nothing stops me from making the speech, because nothing CAN without violating my Constitutional right to say it, but with rights come responsibilities. IF the Government wants to deprive me of my rights, they are welcome to try but with that abrogation comes a transfer of responsibility, not least of which to balance the beam and make it illegal for anybody(!) else to incite war or hatred in any form on any forum. In other words, if I get called a white trash piece of shit by a Brother, I should be affforded the same State protection that he gets if I call him a chicken munching nigger porch monkey.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Most pirated games go through the Steam client.
You try to play one of those games on the Steam network, you're gonna have a bad time. Valve will detect your sorry ass and you may lose your whole steam account.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes. That's how credit cards get cancelled and mortgages get foreclosed on. Don't you think the bank would just rather you paid them? Because that interest is how they make money.
No, because that is theft. As parent said: "with their property." The money in a bank isn't owned by the bank. It's owned by it's customers. If the bank decides not to do business with you, they must return your property.
Yes, because discrimination on the basis of race or religion is specifically banned. But it's that category that is banned, not discrimination as a whole. Nearly every business has a "right to refuse service" clause or sign. You ever know anybody to get thrown out of a place for being an asshole? Right to refuse service. You just can't refuse service because of age, disability, gender, race, national origin, or religion (among a few other things), but you absolutely can refuse service for nearly everything else. "We don't serve people who are rude." "We don't serve people who bounce checks." "We don't serve people who complain for petty reasons." "We don't serve people without shirt and shoes." "We don't allow food in here." "We don't allow children into R-rated movies."
You know the Soup Nazi? That is not illegal.
Businesses usually have little interest in refusing services in general because it's -- quite literally -- turning money away, but that doesn't mean they don't get to decide who they do business with.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
but the simple truth is that they are deliberately aiding and abetting criminal activity.
Copyright infringement is not a crime. It's a tort.
There is a gigantic difference between the two.
--
BMO