Comment on YouTuber Faces Possible Jail Time for Reviewing Gaming Handhelds

Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• wizblizz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  The most pedantic comment I’ve read all week. Title is fine

  source

  • ThatGirlKylie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Exactly. Copyright infringement? He was reviewing handheld that came with ROMs which is the copyright infringement apparently?

    I agree the title is fine because the whole reason why he was arrested because he was reviewing the handheld that had the games on them. That is making an argument out of nothing

    source

    • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      the whole reason why he was arrested because he was reviewing the handheld that had the games on them.

      I’d love to see you point to an Italian law that states that reviewing handhelds on YouTube is illegal.

      source

      • Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Epstein arrested because he flew on planes

        People will seriously argue such title was fine.

        source
      • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I understand your concern, potential employer, but I was never arrested for Chicago Sunroofing the Popemobile. There aren’t even any laws that say it’s illegal.

        source
  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    It’s not pedantic. The title explains absolutely nothing. Reviewing hardware on YouTube is not a crime in any country to my knowledge, so how could he be arrested for it?

    source

    • NotForYourStereo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Is he reviewing the device, or is he reviewing the pirated games?

      Dumbfuck.

      source

      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I don’t understand the question. Which one of those is illegal?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I agree, the comment is literally false, just to get more engagement.

      And this isn’t a comment abut the arrest (megacorps are always scumbags), just how “journalism” works nowdays.

      source
• grue@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  He couldn’t have been arrested for copyright infringement; that offense was perpetrated by the entity that sold the thing to him, not himself.

  source

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    That is literally the charge/what they are investigating.

    Afaik the difference will come down to if he was ever paid for a review (which would be the difference between a regular consumer buying a thing legally & showing what he bought vs him being part of the promo campaigns by the manufacturer … you know, like Google is).

    And if there is no newer specific law (the old one ofc doesn’t explain shit since it’s from pre-computer era), it might come down to him receiving free consoles to review, and maybe having a bunch of SD cards full of ROMs in his apartment.

    source
  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    He can be arrested for anything. If you want to argue that, you’ll have to take it up with the author.

    source

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      No, copyright infringement is a criminal offence in this case - there won’t be any Nintendo/Sony lawyers in any part of the investigation or trial.

      source