GamerDad

Steam Link. I’ve never had an issue.

It has a serious lack of USB ports compared to the others and a lack of front USB type c is a dealbreaker.

This was all I could find. They only have 1x type-c, 2x 3.0 type A and 2x 2.0 Type A
 
https://www.newegg.com/thermaltake-level-20-gt-argb-black-edition-e-atx-full-tower-chassis/p/N82E16811133416
 
https://www.newegg.com/black-thermaltake-core-p-series-e-atx-full-tower-case/p/N82E16811133439
 
https://www.newegg.com/black-thermaltake-view-51-tempered-glass-argb-edition-atx-full-tower/p/N82E16811133427
 
https://www.newegg.com/white-fractal-design-define-7-compact-atx-mid-tower/p/N82E16811352130
 
https://www.newegg.com/gray-fractal-design-define-7-atx-mid-tower/p/N82E16811352115
 
Couldn't find any that had 4x USB 2.0. Sorry

I have this really annoying issue that has manifested itself suddenly yesterday afternoon that occurs only after watching Youtube videos (linustechtips of course!).
 
The issue is this: when moving my mouse, my PC lags. The cursor will jump around rather than move fluidly across the screen. If a video is playing, the audio will make annoying screeching sounds and the video will chop.
 
I've tried to spot if a process is causing the issue in Task manager but due to the lag, I can't see if CPU or memory resources are spiking in real-time. I can tell though that CPU usage does spike, I just don't know what's causing it.
 
I almost always use Chrome, but can confirm the issue occurs in Firefox as well. Once the mouse lag issue starts, it'll happen in any program and even the desktop with nothing running.
 
The lag issue never occurs unless I watch a video.
 
I ran a plethora of virus scanners - nothing detected.
 
I tried changing the mouse usb ports - issue persists regardless of port.
 
If I use my iphone as a wireless mouse via Air Mouse, the issue doesn't occur.
 
I have my PC connected to two screens; one is my TV and the other is a touch monitor. No lag ever occurs using the touch monitor either. Using only one screen, regardless of screen, won't resolve the issue.
 
All my drivers are up to date. I never installed anything between today and last month.
 
Something obviously changed. How, I don't know.
 
I'm running Windows 8.1 and games play just fine so this isn't a video card issue either.
UPDATE: Resource Monitor shows that when the mouse moves during video playback, Maximum Frequency jumps to over 100% (going as high as 110%) and correlates with the lag/video chop/audio screeching. It also shows a process called System Interrupts that hoards CPU resources when the issue occurs (going from 0 to 25 at times)
 
Can anyone help me troubleshoot this issue? I fear this may be a sign my cpu is dying. It's an Intel i5 3750k.

So there's a copyright troll by the name of Web Sheriff going around flagging the Yogscast parody music videos for copyright infringement.

Because of this, Yogscast has announced on its Reddit subforum that they have made all of their remaining music videos private to avoid having those videos flagged as well.
 
It is important to note that Youtube, being a US-based company, is subject to the fair use clause of the copyright act which grants the ability to use copyrighted works in a few cases including commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

This means that the Yogscast parody videos do have the fair use right to use the music of a song and change the lyrics under the protection of the parody and commentary exceptions.

This is also the case for Let's Plays which are clearly commentative and critical reactions to game play as well as unique performances of the works in question.
 
The problem, as we all know too well, is that Youtube's system assumes guilt rather than innocence of the accused and the appeal process can take months to resolve robbing the accused (without recompense) of any income during this process.

Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Yogscast/comments/1wegn6/wheres_the_modding_api_video_claimed/
 

Actually, 99$ is the cheapestlaunch price for such an add=on. Yes, others have dropped dramatically in price, but look at their cost when they launched.

Why is it illegal? Because a PERFORMANCE of a work (game, film, show, play, song, etc) is NOT copyrighted to the original producer of the work but to the performer of that work. Each performance is UNIQUE and cannot replace or be mistaken for the original. This is the law.
The ASSETS (art, logos, music, models, etc) used in the original work are copyrighted to the producer of the original work. However, they can be used through ATTRIBUTION to produce derivative works that are UNIQUE, and stand independently of the original product on artistic merit. This is the law.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. It does not had to be good and you do not have to like it. The objective fact is the Let's Play, with game footage removed, does hold artistic merit in the form of criticism, reaction and emotional experience of the content producer not to mention any entertainment or "show" put on by that content producer int he form of the Let's Player's character and personality.
The Let's Play therefore is a UNIQUE PERFORMANCE of ATTRIBUTED works producing a UNIQUELY derivative work that Nintendo has no legal or financial claim to.
 
Game PLAY is a performance. it is a demonstration of YOUR UNIQUE SKILL of the game. The game does not code your skill. The game does not code your hand-eye coordination. The game doesn't code your critical thinking, your strategy, your execution, your reaction time, your timing, your ability, capability or capacity to play the game.
None of the above is part of the game - it is wholly brought to the game by the Let's Player himself. All of that, including the voice over of the person consist of a UNQIUE derivative work.
Nintendo only has claim to a still-standing Mario on a platform doing nothing as the counter goes to 0.
Nintendo would lose in an instant in court. It only takes someone to put them in their place.
FYI, the game does not WORK if you don't play it. For that reason alone, any instance of playing a game is INSTANTLY a derivative work that is copyrightable by the PLAYER - not Nintendo.
Hasbro cannot copyright a chess match - only the board itself and the peices that are played with. Do players of chess have to pay royalties to Hasbro? Do players of poker pay royalties? No, because those games don't work without players. End case.

Remember when Nintendo caused a big fiasco by flagging Let's Plays featuring its games and STEALING the advertising revenue from the content creators on Youtube?

Well, Nintendo is developing an "affiliate" program to share the stolen revenue between itself, Youtube and the content creator.

Look to Andy Warhols painting of a Campbell Soup can and you'll have all the evidence you need to say Nintendo has no claim on a Let's Play whatsoever.

If the issue is to be debated, it is for the courts to issue injunctions to remove the ads, not for Nintendo to arbitrarily and illegally remove those ads (simply because Youtube's TOS allows it, does not make it legal) and illegally place its own ads on content it did not produce. It is for the courts to decide if Nintendo has claim to those revenues and grant the revenue through a lawsuit, not for Nintendo to steal the revenue and have the victim sue to get them back.

The fact Nintendo is looking to split the stolen funds and return a portion of them to the creator clearly demonstrates that the content creator does in fact have a legal right to earn revenue from the Let's Play therefore undermining Nintendo's actions to illegally replace the ads with its own. It only serves to ask one question: Why isn't Nintendo following the law by suing for alleged lost revenues instead of outright stealing and ransom?

Source: http://kotaku.com/nintendo-has-a-plan-to-share-money-with-youtubers-1582170982

Mooshi, what you describe is easily also applicable to a review, particularly those in the style of TotalBiscuit's WTF is.
I'm not arguing that I'm right. I'm arguing that the law is the law. Nintendo cannot legally force royalty fees without a court injunction.
I am arguing that the legal path is to have court injunctions issued.
Again, simply because Youtube allows it, doesn't make it legal.
Furthermore, Nintendo IS breaking the YouTube TOS through its actions of implementing a royalty tax that third parties have not agreed to.
What Nintendo wants to do requires a change to the advertizing TOS.
Millions of companies make you sign contracts that make you promise not to sue if something goes wrong. The Supreme Court itself ruled this is not a legal clause and doesn't hold up in court. This is proof that simply because something is in a contract or TOS doesn't mean it is legal.

IMO gaming won't properly be a sport until players are treated as actual performers.
You can make money playing football but you can't when playing a video game, doesn't make sense.
How is anyone suppose to take a video game seriously when this is how it works?

Why is it illegal? Because a PERFORMANCE of a work (game, film, show, play, song, etc) is NOT copyrighted to the original producer of the work but to the performer of that work. Each performance is UNIQUE and cannot replace or be mistaken for the original. This is the law.
The ASSETS (art, logos, music, models, etc) used in the original work are copyrighted to the producer of the original work. However, they can be used through ATTRIBUTION to produce derivative works that are UNIQUE, and stand independently of the original product on artistic merit. This is the law.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. It does not had to be good and you do not have to like it. The objective fact is the Let's Play, with game footage removed, does hold artistic merit in the form of criticism, reaction and emotional experience of the content producer not to mention any entertainment or "show" put on by that content producer int he form of the Let's Player's character and personality.
The Let's Play therefore is a UNIQUE PERFORMANCE of ATTRIBUTED works producing a UNIQUELY derivative work that Nintendo has no legal or financial claim to.
 
Game PLAY is a performance. it is a demonstration of YOUR UNIQUE SKILL of the game. The game does not code your skill. The game does not code your hand-eye coordination. The game doesn't code your critical thinking, your strategy, your execution, your reaction time, your timing, your ability, capability or capacity to play the game.
None of the above is part of the game - it is wholly brought to the game by the Let's Player himself. All of that, including the voice over of the person consist of a UNQIUE derivative work.
Nintendo only has claim to a still-standing Mario on a platform doing nothing as the counter goes to 0.
Nintendo would lose in an instant in court. It only takes someone to put them in their place.
FYI, the game does not WORK if you don't play it. For that reason alone, any instance of playing a game is INSTANTLY a derivative work that is copyrightable by the PLAYER - not Nintendo.
Hasbro cannot copyright a chess match - only the board itself and the peices that are played with. Do players of chess have to pay royalties to Hasbro? Do players of poker pay royalties? No, because those games don't work without players. End case.

Thank you vitalius for thoroughly understanding my point.
Scionyde, you're right that the tune as you put it is also copyrighted. However there are countless example of variations of the song in film and tv that prove that enough variation is legal.
Appropriation is common and legal in art. I am suggesting that Lets Plays are art. Call it terribly poor art if you must, but it is art. Derivatives in art are legal. It is why you are allowed to draw your neighbourhood without being sued. Yes, your neighbourhood is a copyrighted work of art under law.
As for poor neon who clearly doesn't see the difference between a game and a movie, you contradict you own argument when you say that a review with exactly the same footage as a lets play (no more, no less) is legal because it is a critique while a lets play is illegal because it isn't is an oxymoron.
The law doesn't care WHAT the script is of a review is. It considers only if the script reflects the experience of the product as to inform an audience of the products merits and value.
Sounds exactly like a lets play to me. If I can gauge whether the game is fun or sucks based on the players reaction to the game, it is a review.
So again I ask given that the footage is exactly the same (there are 20 minute reviews out there), what makes a lets play different from the review as to make it non monetizeable? Again, the script of the voice over is an invalid argument.
Finally, LAwLz: mashups, remixes, parodies, reviews, commentaries, news stories, fan fiction and fan films all invalidate your argument. They are all derivative works and Weird Al has yet to lose in court for his parodies.

I don't think it's that. I think it's a difference in opinion of what is relevant to a company's bottom line. 
Some people only constitute the story given as the "relevant" part of the game to be showed. You can show that 100% in a Let's Play easy. 
GamerDad considers every aspect of a game relevant, and imo, he does have a point about it being different from a movie. If you were to put a movie or song on Youtube, it would cover everything that was made for it easily within it's allotted time (i.e. 2 hours for a movie, or wtv the length is). If you put a game, you are putting a unique to you experience with that game from your perspective. Something no one else can replicate or give unless they are intentionally trying to do so. 
If you think the difference is arbitrary between just showing the game itself and showing you playing the game, then you are going to disagree with him and agree that it's no different from showing a movie or song. However, as I noted, the copyright laws are different depending on the media between music and movies, and that implies the same would be true for movies VS video games. 
 
This is getting arbitrary. Literally. Calculus, where close enough is equal to. 
So say I watch such a movie, I've seen 99% of the movie (rounded) so I may as well have seen 100% of the movie. I'm not going to buy the movie to see 1% of it. A game is different. It would take forever to show even a small portion of all of it. However, it depends how you weight each aspect (i.e. gameplay, story, environment, etc). If all you care about is story, then that's obviously not true, but if you care about the experience you would have actually playing it, you basically have to buy it (or pirate it).
Visual Novels are a unique exception. 
As I said though, comparing the two media is dumb when other copyright laws regarding other things (not fair use) treat them differently by default (such as renting CDs vs renting DVDs). IMO, any argument trying to use a comparison like that is nulled because of this fact.

Why is it illegal? Because a PERFORMANCE of a work (game, film, show, play, song, etc) is NOT copyrighted to the original producer of the work but to the performer of that work. Each performance is UNIQUE and cannot replace or be mistaken for the original. This is the law.
The ASSETS (art, logos, music, models, etc) used in the original work are copyrighted to the producer of the original work. However, they can be used through ATTRIBUTION to produce derivative works that are UNIQUE, and stand independently of the original product on artistic merit. This is the law.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. It does not had to be good and you do not have to like it. The objective fact is the Let's Play, with game footage removed, does hold artistic merit in the form of criticism, reaction and emotional experience of the content producer not to mention any entertainment or "show" put on by that content producer int he form of the Let's Player's character and personality.
The Let's Play therefore is a UNIQUE PERFORMANCE of ATTRIBUTED works producing a UNIQUELY derivative work that Nintendo has no legal or financial claim to.
 
Game PLAY is a performance. it is a demonstration of YOUR UNIQUE SKILL of the game. The game does not code your skill. The game does not code your hand-eye coordination. The game doesn't code your critical thinking, your strategy, your execution, your reaction time, your timing, your ability, capability or capacity to play the game.
None of the above is part of the game - it is wholly brought to the game by the Let's Player himself. All of that, including the voice over of the person consist of a UNQIUE derivative work.
Nintendo only has claim to a still-standing Mario on a platform doing nothing as the counter goes to 0.
Nintendo would lose in an instant in court. It only takes someone to put them in their place.
FYI, the game does not WORK if you don't play it. For that reason alone, any instance of playing a game is INSTANTLY a derivative work that is copyrightable by the PLAYER - not Nintendo.
Hasbro cannot copyright a chess match - only the board itself and the peices that are played with. Do players of chess have to pay royalties to Hasbro? Do players of poker pay royalties? No, because those games don't work without players. End case.

No, you can't.
I have yet to see a Let's Play demonstrating a full story playthrough on all difficulties with 100% collectible completion witha  thorough inspection of every nook and cranny of a level, including but not limited to every single demonstration of a glitch, bug, narrative option, story branch, every single possible solution to a given puzzle and every single character customization combination and each such combination being played through along with every single possible demonstration of all combinations of every variable in a game.
Consider that every single play through of Pac-man since the day of it's release in arcades has yet to amount to even close to a fraction of a percentage of every variable in that game. You can never show 100% of a game that has litterally an infinite combination of variables not the least of which is the variable of your own skill and your consistency in delivering that skill.

It is illegal to remove the ads off of one video to replace them with your own. That isn't even close to being debatable.

it is for the courts to issue injunctions to remove those ads, not Nintendo itself.

A Let's Play is the same. Your SKILL is unique and different from the game's CPU and that of every single other human on earth. Again, do football players pay the NFL so they can play football? No, they don't, yet football players are impossible without the game rules, which are owned by the NFL in exactly the same way a Let's Players are impossible without the game rules owned by Nintendo. The same is true for the football itself and the uniform and equipment (assets). The differentiator is the SKILL of the player which cannot be copyrighted or owner by the NFl or Nintendo and in fact, is paid for by the NFL in the form of MILLIONS of dollars.
if anything, Nintendo should be paying Let's Players, not the other way around.

You fail to grasp the concept of derivitve work vs original work.
Uploading music that isn't yours is illegal. Singing the song yourself and uploading it is - but not metizeable because you don't own the lyrics or the instrumental arrangement. However, changing both just a tiny bit (i.e. a parody like the thousands of Minecraft music videos) is monetize-able - they are unique derivative works.
Let'sPlays are the same. They are unique the instant the game is played because the game doesn't work without you playing it. You are therefore a contributor to that very original work. It's like buying a CD and finding out you're the lead singer of that song - it won't work unless you sing and as lead singer, you have the right to make money off your performance. The music studio got its share of your income when you bought the CD.

Remember when Nintendo caused a big fiasco by flagging Let's Plays featuring its games and STEALING the advertising revenue from the content creators on Youtube?

Well, Nintendo is developing an "affiliate" program to share the stolen revenue between itself, Youtube and the content creator.

Look to Andy Warhols painting of a Campbell Soup can and you'll have all the evidence you need to say Nintendo has no claim on a Let's Play whatsoever.

If the issue is to be debated, it is for the courts to issue injunctions to remove the ads, not for Nintendo to arbitrarily and illegally remove those ads (simply because Youtube's TOS allows it, does not make it legal) and illegally place its own ads on content it did not produce. It is for the courts to decide if Nintendo has claim to those revenues and grant the revenue through a lawsuit, not for Nintendo to steal the revenue and have the victim sue to get them back.

The fact Nintendo is looking to split the stolen funds and return a portion of them to the creator clearly demonstrates that the content creator does in fact have a legal right to earn revenue from the Let's Play therefore undermining Nintendo's actions to illegally replace the ads with its own. It only serves to ask one question: Why isn't Nintendo following the law by suing for alleged lost revenues instead of outright stealing and ransom?

Source: http://kotaku.com/nintendo-has-a-plan-to-share-money-with-youtubers-1582170982

You don't pay adobe every time you publish a video using their software for edits and pre-made effects.
You don't pay FL Studio every time you publish a video using their sound editing software (just an example, don't use FL for youtube..)
 
You do pay if you use specific owned fonts and images.
You do pay if you use specific, unedited songs.
 
What's the difference? 
 
The first set are examples of dynamic creations that wouldn't exist without the user.
The second are simply being used by the user.
 
Let's Plays are a dynamic creation and should be classified as such

Because it isn't in the TOS, this is an affiliate program planned by Nintendo, not Youtube. Youtube's TOS are also not the law. The law says otherwise than Yotube's TOS.
The problem is it takes a lawsuit to invalidate those TOS that are either too weak or contravene the law. That means it takes money.
As GingerbreadPK pointed out, that means spending a lot of money fighting a broken system but those hurdles are in place to wear you down. The LAW says it is illegal and Nintendo WILL lose - but you have to keep from being worn down.
Signing a settlement doesn't make it legal and doesn't make Nintendo right. It makes you worn out.

You fail to grasp the concept of derivitve work vs original work.
Uploading music that isn't yours is illegal. Singing the song yourself and uploading it is - but not metizeable because you don't own the lyrics or the instrumental arrangement. However, changing both just a tiny bit (i.e. a parody like the thousands of Minecraft music videos) is monetize-able - they are unique derivative works.
Let'sPlays are the same. They are unique the instant the game is played because the game doesn't work without you playing it. You are therefore a contributor to that very original work. It's like buying a CD and finding out you're the lead singer of that song - it won't work unless you sing and as lead singer, you have the right to make money off your performance. The music studio got its share of your income when you bought the CD.

Why is it illegal? Because a PERFORMANCE of a work (game, film, show, play, song, etc) is NOT copyrighted to the original producer of the work but to the performer of that work. Each performance is UNIQUE and cannot replace or be mistaken for the original. This is the law.
The ASSETS (art, logos, music, models, etc) used in the original work are copyrighted to the producer of the original work. However, they can be used through ATTRIBUTION to produce derivative works that are UNIQUE, and stand independently of the original product on artistic merit. This is the law.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. It does not had to be good and you do not have to like it. The objective fact is the Let's Play, with game footage removed, does hold artistic merit in the form of criticism, reaction and emotional experience of the content producer not to mention any entertainment or "show" put on by that content producer int he form of the Let's Player's character and personality.
The Let's Play therefore is a UNIQUE PERFORMANCE of ATTRIBUTED works producing a UNIQUELY derivative work that Nintendo has no legal or financial claim to.
 
Game PLAY is a performance. it is a demonstration of YOUR UNIQUE SKILL of the game. The game does not code your skill. The game does not code your hand-eye coordination. The game doesn't code your critical thinking, your strategy, your execution, your reaction time, your timing, your ability, capability or capacity to play the game.
None of the above is part of the game - it is wholly brought to the game by the Let's Player himself. All of that, including the voice over of the person consist of a UNQIUE derivative work.
Nintendo only has claim to a still-standing Mario on a platform doing nothing as the counter goes to 0.
Nintendo would lose in an instant in court. It only takes someone to put them in their place.
FYI, the game does not WORK if you don't play it. For that reason alone, any instance of playing a game is INSTANTLY a derivative work that is copyrightable by the PLAYER - not Nintendo.
Hasbro cannot copyright a chess match - only the board itself and the peices that are played with. Do players of chess have to pay royalties to Hasbro? Do players of poker pay royalties? No, because those games don't work without players. End case.

Remember when Nintendo caused a big fiasco by flagging Let's Plays featuring its games and STEALING the advertising revenue from the content creators on Youtube?

Well, Nintendo is developing an "affiliate" program to share the stolen revenue between itself, Youtube and the content creator.

Look to Andy Warhols painting of a Campbell Soup can and you'll have all the evidence you need to say Nintendo has no claim on a Let's Play whatsoever.

If the issue is to be debated, it is for the courts to issue injunctions to remove the ads, not for Nintendo to arbitrarily and illegally remove those ads (simply because Youtube's TOS allows it, does not make it legal) and illegally place its own ads on content it did not produce. It is for the courts to decide if Nintendo has claim to those revenues and grant the revenue through a lawsuit, not for Nintendo to steal the revenue and have the victim sue to get them back.

The fact Nintendo is looking to split the stolen funds and return a portion of them to the creator clearly demonstrates that the content creator does in fact have a legal right to earn revenue from the Let's Play therefore undermining Nintendo's actions to illegally replace the ads with its own. It only serves to ask one question: Why isn't Nintendo following the law by suing for alleged lost revenues instead of outright stealing and ransom?

Source: http://kotaku.com/nintendo-has-a-plan-to-share-money-with-youtubers-1582170982

So there's a copyright troll by the name of Web Sheriff going around flagging the Yogscast parody music videos for copyright infringement.

Because of this, Yogscast has announced on its Reddit subforum that they have made all of their remaining music videos private to avoid having those videos flagged as well.
 
It is important to note that Youtube, being a US-based company, is subject to the fair use clause of the copyright act which grants the ability to use copyrighted works in a few cases including commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

This means that the Yogscast parody videos do have the fair use right to use the music of a song and change the lyrics under the protection of the parody and commentary exceptions.

This is also the case for Let's Plays which are clearly commentative and critical reactions to game play as well as unique performances of the works in question.
 
The problem, as we all know too well, is that Youtube's system assumes guilt rather than innocence of the accused and the appeal process can take months to resolve robbing the accused (without recompense) of any income during this process.

Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Yogscast/comments/1wegn6/wheres_the_modding_api_video_claimed/