• Ulrich@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    49
    ·
    13 hours ago

    YouTuber Faces Possible Jail Time for Reviewing Gaming Handhelds

    I’m so tired of these titles “Person arrested for perfectly legal thing”. He wasn’t arrested for reviewing gaming handhelds, he was arrested for copyright infringement.

      • ThatGirlKylie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 hours 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

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          12 hours 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.

          • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours 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, I don’t know why people keep calling me that

          • Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            12 hours ago

            Epstein arrested for flying on planes

            People will seriously argue such title would be fine.

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        12 hours 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?

          • Ulrich@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            10 hours ago

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

        • Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

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

          (If it was literal than any ads about such handhelds would be in the same category, not to mention YouTube as it allows this en masse.)

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

          It’s just a fact that the title could have easily explained why was he arrested - and it’s a fact that was omitted on purpose so that you have to click on it to see what the actual reason was (what potentially isn’t in accordance with the law).
          (You don’t get the key info of the whole story until you pay for that info by clicking on the article so they get engagement monies.)

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours 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.

      • Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours 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.
        (Meaning that if they say free review merch is a form of payment, they go to trial. As I understand he didn’t/it’s not common practice to return stuff like this after review, tho some reviewers do it and some manufacturers demand it.)

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        He can be arrested for anything. If you want to argue that it wasn’t copyright infringement, you’ll have to take it up with the author. That’s what they said.

        • Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours 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. They might have just reported a crime.

          Nobody is getting sued by Nintendo (like would be the usual business in USA).

          *it has it’s own jail sentence & a 15k€ fine, tho again not clear if per case or whatever bcs the law infrastructure just isn’t up to date (never was?)

          (Afaik)