MPAA Asks If ACTA Can Be Used To Block Wikileaks

An anonymous reader writes "With the entertainment industry already getting laws to block certain sites, it appears they're interested in expanding that even further. The latest is that at a meeting with ACTA negotiators in Mexico, an MPAA representative apparently asked if ACTA rules could be used to force ISPs to block 'dangerous sites' like Wikileaks. It makes you wonder why the MPAA wants to censor Wikileaks (and why it wants to use ACTA to do so). But, the guess is that if it can use Wikileaks as a proxy for including rules to block websites, how long will it be until other 'dangerous' sites, such as Torrent search engines, are included." Note: TechDirt typically has insightful commentary, but make of the original (Spanish) twiiter message what you will.

ACTA was rejected by EU

[Anonymous Coward]

ACTA was rejected by EU - it is effectively dead.
The MPAA just missed the memo.

Who decides what is "dangerous"? That's the issue that I have. BluRay master keys are not dangerous, they are just inconvenient for a tiny group of people.

Re:MPAA wants to write its laws in secrecy

[thestudio_bob]

What are you talking about, the **AA is GOVERNMENT now. Let me refresh you memory:

• Gershengorn, a partner with RIAA-firm Jenner & Block, represented the labels against Grokster (.pdf) and will be in charge of the DOJ Federal Programs Branch. That’s the unit that just told a federal judge the Obama administration supports monetary damages as high as $150,000 per purloined music track on a peer-to-peer file sharing program.
• Donald Verrilli, associate deputy attorney general — the No. 3 in the DOJ, who unsuccessfully urged a federal judge to uphold the $222,000 file sharing verdict against Jammie Thomas.
• Tom Perrilli, as Verrilli’s former boss, the Justice Department’s No. 2 argued in 2002 that internet service providers should release customer information to the RIAA even without a court subpoena.
• Brian Hauck, counsel to associate attorney general, worked on the Grokster case on behalf of the record labels.
• Ginger Anders, assistant to the solicitor general, litigated on the Cablevision case.

Source Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept [wired.com]

censorship and publishing control 450 years ago

[openright]

In 1557 the British Crown chartered the Stationers' Company and gave the company a publishing monopoly in order to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books.

This publishing monopoly lasted for more than 150 years.

After revolution, publishing monopolies were first abolished then limited to 14 years with the Statute of Anne.
The founding USA adopted the 14 year rule.

However, due to pressure from large companies in the US, the monopoly has been continually extended, and is now 95-120 years.

The media associations relationship to the Internet is very similar to the Stationers relationship to the printing press.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies

[Sir_Lewk]

People forget that prosecuting innocent computer-less grandmothers for piracy isn't the MPAA's only claim to fame. Their ratings board has a long history of using it's weight to bully film makers around, and is for all intents and purposes a censorship tool that has been used in very heavy handed political ways. They may not be government, but they're made of people with the same sort of mindset.

I'm sure they actually oppose wikileaks for many of the same reason that the US government does, and are not doing this purely to get their foot in the door.

(also, have you ever noticed that the general public doesn't really seem to be aware that the MPAA isn't a government agency? They seem to put a lot of effort into appearing so without actually saying so, and their close interaction with government officials in the past and present certainly doesn't help).

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies

[morari]

I don't know... There is a series of Volkswagen how-to videos that seem to get by pretty well.

http://www.bugmevideo.com/ [bugmevideo.com]

Re:Ever notice...

[cosm]

Contact [numbersusa.com] your [house.gov] representative [usa.gov]. Ask them to clearly and concisely state their stance on ACTA. If it doesn't comply with your views. Vote. That. Fucker. Out. Tell your friends.

Keep doing it. If enough people continually push the douschers out of office, perhaps they will get the message. Send them welcoming letters. Make them feel the recession (thats supposedly over). In reality, businesses swept off all the excess cream and just went with lower quality, cheaper wages, and cut benefits, and offshoring and now they're profiting again! Yay! No more recession!

Or we can do nothing. Be apathetic, and let our rights continually be trampled on by these asshats. Can we bring some semblence of intellectual curiosity and creative initiative back to America, or piss it away?

If you at least vote, you have some say in the complaining process. And if you have never voted, perhaps now is the time to start. I know I will.

Re:Ever notice...

[Lunix Nutcase]

Except that the President is endowed with the power under Article 2 section 2 to make treaties which according to Article 6 are the "supreme Law of the Land." You can't just quote the parts you like and ignore the rest.

Re:censorship and publishing control 450 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

However, due to pressure from large companies in the US, the monopoly has been continually extended, and is now 95-120 years.

The Mickey Mouse Protection Act [wikipedia.org], for those who are interested.

Re:Did they

[Runaway1956]

Alter, repackage, and distribute all you want - people do it every day. How are your rights limited? Oh - wait - yes, it would really infringe your rights terribly to include a link to the original, and a link to the GPL. We could quibble over which of the open source licenses are the most "free" - but the GPL really doesn't place any onerous restrictions on you. You got something free, and you can't make it your own. You could of course CLONE IT, repackage it, and do whatever you wish with it. The open source community clones things all the time. Maybe you're complaining that going to all the trouble to clone a GPL'd application wouldn't be "cost effective", in that people would use the GPL'd version before they would pay you for the privilege of using almost the same thing?

Re:Did they

[digitalunity]

Ultimately the GPL is designed to protect the rights of end users. The freedom to modify programs they use, and the freedom to use them as they wish.

You're correct that there are more "free" licenses out there, but they're only more "free" if you're the developer. With a BSD or other similar license, there is no guarantee that the program will continue to give the end users any freedoms that the repackager had.

Re:Ever notice...

[Antisyzygy]

Everyone has all rights at all times in nature before a government exists. Natural rights are things you could do in nature if there were no government. E.g. If you spy on me, I will shoot an arrow into your skull. There, I have just exercised my right to privacy. At some point, people started organizing into a society. Then they decided its easier to exist as a society if they agree not to kill eachother, not to steal from eachother, ect. To this end, they created "government" to enforce consequences for those that break their agreement. If someone wants to leave the society to regain their rights they gave up in the agreement, they can do so (the US Civil War aside, but we wont get into that). The US constitution restricts the government from performing "unreasonable searches and seizures", "violating due process", ect. specifically because the right to privacy simply exists in nature, and was acknowledged by founding fathers. The problem with the world, and a subset of the world known as the US, today is that people think governments give you rights as if we all are subservient to government. This is simply not true. The governing documents of the world exist to prevent the government from doing things to YOU that violate YOUR natural rights not specifically given up by YOU as a price to live in a society.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies

[wvmarle]

They are, one way or another, still making a lot of money based on their existing business model. People still go to movie theatres. They still buy the DVD or BR for watching at home. TV networks still pay them to program those movies - especially pay-TV channels, which people pay for to be able to watch those movies on.

GP on the other hand was talking about independent production, and independent distribution. That way GP would not have easy access to the shelves of the retailers (both on- and off-line). He would not have the budget to launch a large advertising campaign to compel people to buy his video. He would not be able to cast famous actors. That's the advantage the MPAA related companies have over independent producers like you, me and GP.

Now of course the traditional movie studios see the writing on the wall, which is why they are fighting hand and tooth to keep it as it is. They will have to change, eventually. But when that is, that's everyones guess. It's not now at least, they are still making money, and lots of it, considering the millions actors get paid for starring in their movies.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies

[vadim_t]

I have a question:

What is more important, the complete enforcement of copyright, or making money?

If people people copy your stuff far and wide, but still pay for it often enough for it to make a profit, isn't that better than not releasing and not earning any money at all? Because no matter how much piracy there is, there are still people who pay. You shouldn't think about how many will pirate, but about how many will pay.

Twitter message

[CarpetShark]

but make of the original (Spanish) twiiter message what you will.

After careful analysis, I've concluded that it's in Spanish.