Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Your Rights Online News

ACTA Could Make Nonprofit P2Ps Face Criminal Penalties 149

Posted by Soulskill
from the just-as-bad-as-stealing-fractions-of-pennies dept.
dan of the north writes "Based on sources and leaked documents, Knowledge Ecology International now asserts that ACTA drafts are in fact 'formally available to cleared corporate lobbyists and informally distributed to corporate lawyers and lobbyists in Europe, Japan, and the US.' — The ACTA proposals currently include language that would make copyright infringement on a 'commercial scale,' even when done with 'no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain,' into a criminal matter. Both KEI and Canadian law professor Michael Geist, who has been working his own sources, say that the current proposals require all signatories to 'establish a laundry list of penalties — including imprisonment — sufficient to deter future acts of infringement.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ACTA Could Make Nonprofit P2Ps Face Criminal Penalties

Comments Filter:
  • by AvitarX (172628) <me.brandywinehundred@org> on Saturday February 07, 2009 @09:24AM (#26763315) Journal

    There is no way this could be misapplied.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It isn't that bad. We have similar law here in Finland. That part has only ever been applied once: When Finland's largest bit torrent tracker was busted a few years ago. The people who ran it got charged with criminal charges.

      In all lesser cases the courts have been sure that individuals downloading music for some personal use and sharing some files hasn't been enough to cause commercial level profit loss for massive record companies. I have heard (from Teosto's - our RIAA - lawyers though that it could be

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by weber (36246)

        If it's not that bad how come you post anonymously?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Jurily (900488)

        It isn't that bad. We have similar law here in Finland. That part has only ever been applied once: When Finland's largest bit torrent tracker was busted a few years ago. The people who ran it got charged with criminal charges.

        That doesn't mean it's a good law. At most it indicates a sane legal system.

        Which is proven not to be the case in the US.

        • OK, but if you have an insane legal system trying to enforce laws that are reasonable in principle, then it's the mechanics of your legal system that need fixing, not the laws.

          I don't get the problem people have with this. You don't accidentally run a service that people use to commit commercial scale copyright infringement. Such infringement is bound to be damaging to some degree to the legal rightsholder; claiming that this is not so is no more credible than the opposite extreme of claiming that every cop

      • You operate under the assumption that the international courts are as likely to react in a sane manner... My gut says that the content industries will just start filing in the international equivalent of the east Texas court where they file them in the U.S.
      • I really don't understand how a torrent site can be taken down because of copy right infrigement, all they do is host .torrent files and track them, they don't actually have copyright infringing material on the site itself
    • by jeti (105266)

      We already had several lawyers arguing that sharing one music album or one DVD counts as distribution on a commercial scale.

      • by shmlco (594907)

        Well.... personally I'd tend to agree that "sharing" one album or DVD with 10,000 or so people equals distribution on a "commercial" scale...

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What does the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies [www.acta.ca] have to do with this? I wish folks submitting stories wouldn't be so fucking lazy and print out the words in full that the acronym refers to at least once before using the acronym. Why do people always assume that everyone should know what all these short forms refer to? Give those of us who aren't into memorizing acronyms a break so we don't have to google every submission to figure out what they are talking about.
      • by easyTree (1042254)

        Or how about acronym namespaces ?

      • Mod up. In fact the word 'Canada' is only mentioned in relation to the law professor, so I had to read (skim) the paragraph several times before I knew which country this story was about. Another bad, bad summary.
    • HAHAHAHAHA, I think decriminalizing pot is about to find itself on the back-burner!
    • by rastilin (752802)
      I think I just took 36d6 of sarcasm damage.
  • "Criminal Matter" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday February 07, 2009 @09:32AM (#26763359) Homepage Journal

    The ultimate goal of all the "industries". This shifts the burden ( and cost ) to the government ( tax payers ) and even further stigmatizes a 'non societal' act.

    It also introduces jail times, long term detention during proceedings and a life time of persecution after prison..

    All they will have to do is randomly accuse people with and sit back and watch the show and collect money.

    • Re:"Criminal Matter" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by aurispector (530273) on Saturday February 07, 2009 @09:54AM (#26763435)

      This the other shoe dropping now that the RIAA claims they have stopped filing suits.

      The problem here is that citizens of signatory countries will have no recourse within the laws of their own countries since it's a treaty. This will get very ugly if the bastards get their way - and they probably will. This makes me physically ill.

      • by nurb432 (527695)

        While people call me nuts ( tho they said that when i talked about this entire mess decades ago and who is laughing now.. ) i still expect to see random seizures of music players on the street. "prove ownership of these songs".

        Wish my ipod was encrypted.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        This is just another symptom supporting the diagnosis that the media business has become toxic waste. The best antidote is a broad movement to convince artists to release their work under the Creative Commons licenses. The big recording and media companies are exploitive rascals; drive them out of business by voting with your money and simply not doing business with them.

        For example, on our site we have tons of original music, videos and text. Similar to many open-source software companies, we get paid when

        • by shmlco (594907)

          "For example, on our site we have tons of original music, videos and text."

          A YouTube video of some jerk falling off a roof doesn't count (nor is it particularly original). I've yet to see many full length major motion pictures released under CC. (Or ANY, for that matter.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by diewlasing (1126425)
        Actually in the US, if I'm not mistaken, even treaties are considered part of federal law. Many times the people negotiating the treaty will provide a caveat saying they won't sign if it violates the Constitution. Also I believe, just like federal laws, they can be ruled unconstitutional. In any case, Obama is appointing a new US Trade Rep. Whether or not things will change is something only time will tell.
        • While I hold out a lot of hope for the change that Obama can bring, some of his appointments (like our pro-globilization trade secretary)worry me.

          • Oh, please. In spite of the right wing screeching about Obama being a far-left stealth candidate, he's a cleaner, more efficient Bill Clinton, without the personal ethical lapses to interfere with his objectives. He's headed down DLC lane.

            • In spite of the right wing screeching about Obama being a far-left stealth candidate, he's a cleaner, more efficient Bill Clinton, without the personal ethical lapses to interfere with his objectives.....

              Um...none that we know of...yet. You never know. Obama seems like a pretty upstanding guy, but so did Clinton at first. Anyway, to me, Bubba getting blow jobs from interns is his own business -- as far as I am concerned, if it put a smile on his face and enabled him to face the country's business in a mo

            • by Wildclaw (15718)

              The US would have been far better off with a real leftist [wikipedia.org] in the presidential office. Instead you got the usual corrupt and/or incompetent centrist that has to pay back favors to the financial interests that bought him.

              Well, I could be wrong, but the first few weeks hasn't been very promising in the regard of "change". Expect Obushma to become a far more common term in the months to come.

              • What financial interests bought Obama?

                He was supported by small donations.

                If anything, the payback will come because of the interests groups that put boots on the ground for him.

      • by Kalriath (849904) *

        It's even worse, since the fucking US government has dictated to all signatory countries that they are not allowed to disclose the contents of the treaty to their citizens, and then required signing it as a pre-requisite to any form of free-trade agreement.

        In fact the response from the NZ government to an Official Information Act request for this document is to reject the request on the grounds that disclosing it would violate national security, and/or harm international relations.

        So yeah, fuck the United S

    • All they will have to do is randomly accuse people with and sit back and watch the show and collect money.

      Hang on a minute. If this is to be a criminal act, shouldn't the fines be treated the same way as those in any other criminal case, so that any punitive damages (in jurisdictions that have the concept) are retained by the government to use for the benefit of all? Big Media might be awarded some financial compensation, but my impression was that in most legal systems, that would only be on the level of provable financial loss in a criminal case, and as we know, the provable financial loss in cases like these

    • by lpq (583377)

      The citizenry needs to fight back. IP laws are completely artificial for the supposed benefit of society.
      Jailing the citizenry to benefit them is an obvious example of a corrupt government.

  • It works! (Score:4, Informative)

    by mangu (126918) on Saturday February 07, 2009 @09:38AM (#26763377)

    Ah, nothing like learning from experience! Make everything a crime. Let's use some tried [wikipedia.org] and tested [wikipedia.org] methods.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You need to realize that this is different. They're not making possession or use of music, films or movies a crime. In contrast to prohibition and the war on drugs, there is and will be a legal alternative, so raising the price of the illegal method of acquisition is exactly what they want and will have the desired effect. How many people are going to work or pay their way into clandestine file sharing clubs when they can get their fix legally at $1 a pop?

      ACTA will have extremely undesirable side effects to

      • So what will happen is that they'll sell one song at $1 to someone, and he'll share it, the manual way (but losslessly), with all of his friends (or as many as the legal system has indicated is "non-commmercial").

        I wonder if we'll get to the point where putting up a semi-public list of all the content you own will be considered illegal.

      • by DreamerFi (78710)

        They're not making possession or use of music, films or movies a crime

        Actually, they are.

        Thanks to the vague definition of 'significant infringement', it'll allow random seizures of music players on the street. "Prove ownership of these songs, or spend years in jail".

      • by Znork (31774)

        so raising the price of the illegal method of acquisition is exactly what they want and will have the desired effect.

        The price on IP products is set according to the principles on monopoly pricing, IE, revenue is maximized when the loss of customers who cannot buy outweighs the increased revenue of the ones who do buy. Which means that the tighter the control the more prices will rise, and profitability in any black market will rise as well.

        You see that exact function in countries with high taxes on alcohol

        • by shmlco (594907)

          "...they'll simply move from open networks to friend-to-friend encrypted multiprotocol stealthed darknets."

          Bytes moving through commercial cable or DSL network lines are still bytes, multiprotocol, encrypted, stealthed, or otherwise. Bandwidth caps, bandwidth monitoring, and pay-per-use can and will impact the users and sustainability of those 'nets.

          I say we move to pay-per-use, as at any point in time bandwidth is a finite resource anyway. You want to run a torrent server 24/7/365? No problem. But I hope y

      • You mean the legal alternative that they break every six months to make a new alternative?
  • this would kill (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ionix5891 (1228718) on Saturday February 07, 2009 @09:40AM (#26763391)

    the internet as we know it :(

  • They may not like the result...

    The stuff carrying the Free Licenses would get an extra edge...

    Some thoughts on a "Copyright Offensive" - http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html [blogspot.com]

    drew

    • by zotz (3951)

      Offtopic?

      Surely you jest!

      The topic is about trying to deter copyright violations with criminal laws and harsh penalties and the comment is that if they do manage to deter copying by these means they may not like the results as it may make works that compete with theirs but offer the legal ability to copy more attractive in comparison.

      I may be being a bit dense, but where is the offtopic here?

      drew

      • by tsm_sf (545316)
        Don't try to make sense of anything to do with the moderation system here. It was mis/abused even before the horde of nerd-raging young republicans descended on this site, and it's hopelessly broken now.
        • by zotz (3951)

          I won't try to make sense of it, but I will ask questions when I can get around to it...

          drew

  • by jimbudncl (1263912) on Saturday February 07, 2009 @10:01AM (#26763483)
    I wonder if they've considered the consequences of jail time... throw a bunch of pissed off computer geeks in the slammer together (I know not everyone who shares copyrighted data is a geek, but just employ your suspension of disbelief for a nano second). Hell, throw in some geeks who haven't downloaded a single "illegal" thing in their life, just for good measure (no innocent people have ever been convicted of a crime, that's unfair to all those guilty people!). Now, simmer on medium heat for 3-5 years, good behavior.

    I predict a huge swell in the number of computer criminals actually doing harm to society in the next, say... 10 years. Those geeks are going to get out of prison and wreak havoc. And all because someone couldn't adapter their business model. Hope those media companies and their lawyers have no fear of identity theft ;)
    • by easyTree (1042254)

      It's all good then, isn't it - because the same people run the prisions and profit from every crime punished by jailtime.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by russotto (537200)

      Those geeks are going to get out of prison and wreak havoc.

      Not bloody likely. If the RIAA has their way, those geeks are going to meet real (by their own definition) criminals in prison. Some of them (likely including myself) aren't going to be able to eat sufficient shit and will be killed by the other prisoners. Most of the others, when they get out, will be _broken_ by the experience, and will likely die young after slouching through a series of minimum wage jobs.

      • by sjames (1099)

        Broken people in minimum wage jobs are prime candidates fro committing crimes to support themselves. They may likely feel that they have little to lose at that point and everything to gain.

        Since they will have had it thoroughly demonstrated that they can never again be really part of society, society becomes the enemy.

  • I seem to vaguely recall some media executive's child being identified as "a pirate" followed by "official apologies" and a case being dropped. I am sure someone else here can fill in those details.

    But if this were to go through and actual CRIMINAL complaints filed, does this mean those same children of media executives could be charged criminally or can we expect the same unbalanced application of the law?

    • Sure, they'll be charged criminally, but when Daddy shows up at the courthouse and explains to the DA who they are, the DA will quietly drop the charges, issue an official apology, and cut them a check so they don't sue for false imprisonment.

      Same end result.

  • So? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EdIII (1114411) * on Saturday February 07, 2009 @10:14AM (#26763547)

    They are going after non-profit P2P's. You mean like Shareaza, Kaza, Limewire? Who cares? All that stuff is absolute malware riddled crap. Those networks are not worth anything anyways. While outlawing them is problematic for preserving freedom, it would ultimately protect people. I don't support protecting the stupid out of principle, but we won't miss those networks too terribly. At least I won't have to spend so much effort blocking their installations anymore.

    I don't think that this applies to the bittorrent protocol and any of those clients either as that is decentralized. The easy solution is for the client to remove all search abilities. Problem solved. Trackers are another issue, but it's not like any country has had great success shutting down tracker sites and blocking access to them.

    In any case, this is moronic. The DMCA prevented companies from manufacturing and selling mod chips in the U.S. The result? Canada gets all the business and it never slowed its pace for a second. You would think that mod chips and pre-modded systems get stopped at the border. Nope.

    There will be at least ONE country connected to the Internet that is not a signatory of ACTA. Guess where the repositories and websites will be located? Anyone? Anyone?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by plasmacutter (901737)

      Try bit torrent, FTP developers, web hosts..

      wherever p2p goes, it will follow, eventually resulting in the evisceration of the entire internet, as it is, fundamentally, p2p in nature.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Klaus_1250 (987230)

      They are going after non-profit P2P's. You mean like Shareaza, Kaza, Limewire? Who cares? All that stuff is absolute malware riddled crap.

      I think Kazaa is long dead and neither Shareaza or Limewire contain malware. Most p2p apps don't, it's just a handful that gave all of them a bad name. The p2p networks themselves is something else, but any reasonably sane person can use them without catching malware. The people who download exe's when searching for an mp3 are the problem.

      While outlawing them is problematic for preserving freedom, it would ultimately protect people

      That is the principle a police state is based on. And it doesn't protect anybody. How am I protected for instance? And who said I needed protection?

      • by EdIII (1114411) *

        While outlawing them is problematic for preserving freedom, it would ultimately protect people

        That is the principle a police state is based on. And it doesn't protect anybody. How am I protected for instance? And who said I needed protection?

        I did not say I supported this. There are plenty of examples in which laws protect the stupid while restraining the actions of the rest of us. Yeah, you can call that a police state to an extent. More accurate to call it a nanny state.

        However, it DOES protect people.

  • which deters all murders
  • by plasmacutter (901737) on Saturday February 07, 2009 @10:19AM (#26763577)

    What is not covered in this article, but buried deep in the links, is that this treaty calls for nations to act immediately upon accusations without any burden of proof, and to absolve copyright companies from any responsibility if they engage in false accusations.

    Imagine DMCA takedown notices for the physical world. Talk about a cudgel for anti-competitive harassment with impunity.

    • We had a lot of noise about this in NZ recently - it got passed anyway. The silver-lining is that the accusations can go both ways, and just wait until someone figures out it can become a general purpose business weapon...
      • Somehow, I don't think that's going to do anything except discourage industry from touching open-source with even a thousand-foot pole...

        And I wonder who's going to end up in jail? It wouldn't be the embedded software engineer who did what his boss told him, eh?

        Ugh.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by nurb432 (527695)

      Don't forget door to door searches for internet subscribers, since you know if you are on the internet you have to be a pirate.

      No further justification will be required.

    • by Anne Thwacks (531696) on Saturday February 07, 2009 @11:01AM (#26763799)
      and to absolve copyright companies from any responsibility if they engage in false accusations.

      I cant see that being possible to enact in Europe.

      Also, in Europe, the loser pays the court fees. That will not change for one particular treaty. It would require a change in the European Law of Human Rights. (On a par with chanigng the US constitution for the publicity it would get).

      In the UK, for the state to bring a prosecution, it has to be virtually certain of a conviction before starting (to avoid tax payer's money being sqandered on litigation when there are better things to squander it on). A mere suggestion that the evidence might fall to pieces if challenged by experts will normally crush a criminal charge.

      Only if the mass media convince their readers/viewers to believe that CD pirates are worse than Somalian pirates will this to work. Since most of them seem more willing to buy pirate DVDs for $3 in the Asda (Walmart) car-park than buy a newspaper, I would not hold my breath.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by andereandre (1362563)
        yes and no. I can see this to fail in both the European Court of Justice and in the European Court of Human Rights (for non Europeans: the first is the EU "supreme court", the other is continent wide, voluntary and treaty based.) However it will take maybe 5 but more likely 10 years before a resolution comes out of those. In my country (the Netherlands) treaties take precedence above national law, and our constitution is just a piece of paper (no constitutional court, laws can't be checked by courts against
  • by mbone (558574) on Saturday February 07, 2009 @10:24AM (#26763613)

    They are trying to keep this secret because it would be politically poisonous if revealed.

    As I think our friends in Europe have begun to realize, laws based on treaties prepared in secret by bureaucrats without democratic accountability are inherently corrupting of democracy itself. They are also an invitation for the corrupting influence of special interests, who will try and accomplish in secret what they cannot in public.

    If these restrictions are worthwhile, let them be proposed and debated in public, as normal laws are. Otherwise, I think this whole process should be shut down. It has been going on far too long for any good that we have been getting from it.

    • by meist3r (1061628) on Saturday February 07, 2009 @10:53AM (#26763761)

      Otherwise, I think this whole process should be shut down. It has been going on far too long for any good that we have been getting from it.

      I whole heartedly agree, I also think it should be stopped immediately but what you're not realizing is that the people proposing these legislations don't give a rats ass about what you and me think. They will do that anyway, the politicians are suckered into compliance by payolas and the promise of future support for their ideas so there is no actual way of stopping this. The only way to have a say in the ACTA negotiations would be for a large part of the userbase and public to cry out about the foul play here. Trust me, I tried requesting ACTA documents through my EU parliament people and they all refused on grounds of secrecy laws that don't actually apply to the proceedings and other baseless bullshit.

      If you haven't realized it, we are governed. There is no such thing as a people-led democracy, at least in no state that I know of. They're all aristocratic dictatorships that make the appearance of democratic proceeding so there is no civil war. Unless more people realize this and stop paying attention to the farcical sharade that is sold to us as citizen participation there will be no way to stop these people from getting where they want to be.

      Prove me wrong, I dare you, prove me wrong. I'd LOVE to see proof that there is actually stuff done in the name of the people and not just in the name of money. Right now, people are sold these ACTA treaties as a means of fighting economy degrading piracy ... what it is in reality is a competition stifling set of rules that will tighten the grip of the industry on the freedom of choice of people and means to make non-compliers obey.

      Today the Piratebay, tomorrow independent music labels.

      • by mbone (558574)

        Like any long term change in the structure of society, these things take time and public education. When the DMCA first passed, it received all of the public attention of plans for the next hyperspace bypass being posted on Alpha Centauri. There is no way that that could be repeated. I am not saying we couldn't have another DMCA, but not at least without public notice. Next I expect to see politicians running on anti copyright industry platforms. The gradient here at least points in a sensible direction.

        On

  • by jonwil (467024) on Saturday February 07, 2009 @10:48AM (#26763745)

    If you live in the US, write to your congressmen and senators. If you dont, write to your local elected official (in Australia, you can write to your local MP). Write a physical letter (politicians are a lot less likely to listen to an email than to a physical letter although the anthrax scare in the US may have changed things there). Say that you do not support piracy/copyright violations and that you are not arguing that it should be OK to violate someone else's copyright but that you believe that too much power is being given to large copyright holders to take down content/shutdown distribution methods even when that content or those distribution methods do not violate copyright law. Say that you think that copyright holders should be going after individual people who are violating their copyright as long as there is clear proof that a violation did take place. (remember that in most of the lawsuits to date, the proof hasn't been up to snuff which is why the RIAA keeps dropping them rather than risk a precedent against them) Say that you believe that if these new copyright protection measures are introduced that they should be available for ALL copyright violations regardless of the size of the violation, the size of the holder of the copyright or the financial status of the violator (if they are available for everyone and not just the big boys, then they could be used for GPL violations) Say that you do not support their position on the increasing powers being given to large copyright holders and that this issue will affect how you vote at the next election in your country (thats assuming that the relavent local representitive is in fact supporting such increased powers, if they dont support increased powers, tell them that you support their position on this issue and that their position on this issue will affect how you vote at the next election in your country)

    Another option is to get a real petition going (on real paper with real people signing it) and send this to your local representitive. Come up with real world examples of how increased powers for large copyright holders will affect normal people.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)
      The problem is, they don't care. How many candidates have you seen that actually have a sane copyright platform (excluding the Pirate Party)? The answer is zero. Copyright just isn't a major platform for them, and if the *AA can claim how much money is being "lost" due to "piracy" they will vote for stronger copyright. Very few elected officials understand the internet, computers and the devastating effect things such as the DMCA have on the US economy. Even our "tech savvy" president Obama doesn't seem to
    • by ntk (974) *

      The EFF has an action alert that help you get started [eff.org], although calling your representative directly is good too.

  • Harder punishments always caused people to refrain from breaking the law. That's why there are no murders in states that have the death penalty.

    Nobody will heed a law that they don't consider "morally" wrong and that has a very low chance of getting caught. A law that has no public support will not work out. For reference, see prohibition laws.

  • Expect these any day now:

    - Copyright Infringers' Registry
    - Scarlet letters: tatooing the foreheads of infringers with a big red "P2P"

  • Here's what everyone on Slashdot seems to miss. IP goods - those easily-reproducible but hard-to-think-up-or-produce-in-the-first-place goods - are the future of modern society. Capitalism requires that IP creators be rewarded *monetarily* for their effors, so that they can buy the non-IP goods they need to survive, things like food and shelter and clothing and transportation.

    We can either a) hope that somehow society will evolve to the point where the non-IP goods will become free or easily accessible to

    • Then maybe it's time to look for a new business model. Not necessarily one where imaginary property is free, but one where the system works. Clearly the current one doesn't.

      I say we quit patching the problem and actually solve issues. But of course that would require a government that cared about its people.

    • Here's what everyone on Slashdot seems to miss. IP goods - those easily-reproducible but hard-to-think-up-or-produce-in-the-first-place goods - are the future of modern society.

      no, real goods are the future of our society.
      This idea of yours is nothing but a dot-com pipe dream.
      The point of the information economy is to boost the real economy

      You can't extract revenue from goods which require another nation, often an enemy, to voluntarily honor your arbitrary valuation.

      Additionally, the populace of your own nation is not going to take kindly to you destroying their own consumer rights.

      They can change all the laws they like, the people have spoken, governments are dealing with mass ci

      • Well, thanks for offering that lovely response which starts off by you effectively saying "No, you're wrong!", and then argues that we should just roll over and accept a zero-value-in-IP society because everyone can get shit for free from P2P networks. Wake up and realize that there's more at stake here than your fucking pop music and episodes of Grey's Anatomy.

        I don't know how you define real goods, but a lot of them are just IP goods which are subsequently transcribed or created in physical form. That n

        • In your Real Economy, should IP creators have to sell shoes to pay the bills while also designing microprocessors?

          a straw man, read the rest to see why.

          I don't know how you define real goods, but a lot of them are just IP goods which are subsequently transcribed or created in physical form.

          those would be called real (as in physical) goods. You see, unlike individual citizens or other nations, you can actually apply meaningful pressure on a company if they want your permission to market to your citizens. Notice how I said your citizens, because they could feasibly remain in their home market of china and pirate all they want, which is why goods produced physically here are the future, not some arbitrary and imaginary concept our enemies could care less a

  • The ACTA proposals currently include language that would make copyright infringement on a 'commercial scale,' even when done with 'no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain,' into a criminal matter.

    Even if you give the money away and derive no direct financial gain, robbig a bank is still a crime.
    Rape engenders no financial gain and it is still a crime.

    Not benefiting financial from a crime does not mitigate the crime. The ends do not justify the means.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)

      Not benefiting financial from a crime does not mitigate the crime. The ends do not justify the means.

      Um, yes they do. If no one was harmed, it should not be illegal and "piracy" doesn't hurt anyone either financially or physically. Think of "piracy" as radio today, it serves to promote the band so they can make good sales on their concerts which are the primary means that artists get money. A copy of a file does not delete, alter or otherwise distort the original nor does it make it work any less. For example, if I set the Mona Lisa as my desktop background, does the actual painting devalue itself? No,

      • by DaveV1.0 (203135)

        The ends does not justify the means.

        Downloading music illegally only hurts the record companies.

        There, fixed that for you.

        its akin to preventing the release of cars because a saddlemaker might lose some money.False analogy.

        Then there is the fact of the insane laws that can charge almost $10,000 for downloading and sharing a single song.

        Yes, because the financial penalties for commiting crimes are always the same as the effect of the crime. If one values the song at $1 and one violates the copyright laws and

        • Yes, because the financial penalties for commiting crimes are always the same as the effect of the crime.

          No, but honestly they should be.

          If one values the song at $1 and one violates the copyright laws and "shares" it with 10,000 other people, the effect of the crime is a $10,000 in revenue had those same 10,000 people bought the song.

          Yes, but show me in any of the RIAA's lawsuits that it can be solidly proven that someone shared a song with 10,000 other people. You can't.

          When one robs a bank, one is put in put in jail and often given a fine of many thousands of dollars. The average bank robbery take is less than $5000.00.

          Yes, but, the cost in equipment damages (such as broken glass, etc), people who had their human rights violated (not to feel threatened), etc. Usually justify the penalties. On the other hand, no human rights are violated, minimal profit is "lost", it is non violent, no one possibly gets injured, there is no loss to the original pro

          • by DaveV1.0 (203135)

            I see, so the ends justifies the means only when it benefits you. If it would hurt you, but benefit everyone else, then it is wrong.

            Thanks for proving my point, piggy.

  • The ACTA proposals currently include language that would make copyright infringement on a 'commercial scale,' even when done with 'no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain,' into a criminal matter.

    Those who would equate filesharing with theft should note that the ACTA proposals are intended to do exactly that. Theft is criminal.

    But until (if) it is adopted, that comparison is false. And it always has been. Not-for-profit filesharing is not illegal, or they wouldn't need to pass a new law (or sign

Air is water with holes in it.

Working...