Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government The Internet United States Your Rights Online

MPAA Asks If ACTA Can Be Used To Block Wikileaks 322

Posted by timothy
from the form-a-protest-group-called-acta-up dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA Asks If ACTA Can Be Used To Block Wikileaks

Comments Filter:
  • Did they (Score:2, Interesting)

    by odies (1869886) *

    Did they ask if it could be blocked because they wanted to, or because they think it could mean backslash for using ACTA as a censor tool instead of enforcing copyrights?

    • by eldavojohn (898314) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [nhojovadle]> on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:43PM (#33657072) Journal

      Did they ask if it could be blocked because they wanted to, or because they think it could mean backslash for using ACTA as a censor tool instead of enforcing copyrights?

      I'd imagine the MPAA and government have similar interests in forcing ISPs to block certain websites. The MPAA is probably making a calculated move to suggest they would be the watchdog going after Wikileaks if such a censorship method could also be used to protect their copyrights.

      Frankly, it looks like they're trying to show to the government that they have aligned interests. As the TechDirt article notes, the MPAA could merge The Pirate Bay with Wikileaks in the eyes of the government and then from there it's guilt by association. Personally I think this is the MPAA fishing for how extensive they can make ACTA by appealing to the United States government's emotions. Think back to the DMCA and Patriot Acts and how following their passage into law we all sat around scratching our heads wondering WTF was going on with some of the prosecution that was falling under those acts. Wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA ran a campaign saying that passing ACTA into law worldwide will stop terrorists, child porn, small arms traders, drugs, wildfires, Satan, etc.

      I'm guessing the MPAA would love to prosecute cases of copyright infringement under the same law (and maybe even penalties) as cases of threats to national security.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Animaether (411575)

        I was thinking something along the same lines. Proposing that maybe this would be possible.. and if it isn't possible, why not - and how CAN they make it possible? After all, ACTA is being negotiated with quite a few other nations and it would be nice for the U.S. government if they can invoke that agreement to shut down sites within/access to sites from other nations as well; as a side-benefit, all the funny business about piracy would get accepted as well. Like a 'rider' attached to a bill.. except tha

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          We're not dealing with stupid people here. Just imagine the thought process: "I want to block Piratebay and other copyright-infringing sites. But the politicians won't cooperate."

          - "Well why don't we take advantage of the War on Terror. Instead of asking to block Piratebay, let's ask to block wikileaks and other sites. The politicians, even Øbama, would jump all over that." - "But for what purpose?" - "Once we have the power to shutdown wikileaks, we'll also have the power to shutdown Piratebay,

      • by funkatron (912521) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:53PM (#33657194)

        I'm guessing the MPAA would love to prosecute cases of copyright infringement under the same law (and maybe even penalties) as cases of threats to national security.

        Why shouldn't copyright infringement and national security come under the same law? They're both tools for stopping the spread of information built around assumptions that have long ceased to be even half true.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @08:27PM (#33657464)

          I have always had this idea as a car mechanic to create how to videos for popular model vehicles, instead of just vague books, with high-def video cameras and step by step instructions for each task... such as changing out an A/C Compressor, Replacing a bad power steering pump, fixing broken this that and the other thing.... and selling them for a REASONABLE price all across the nation. This would require a decent amount time and money in equipment, time to film, edit produce etc...

          Then I realized that some dickhead would probably just take the videos, put them up on Piratebay and I would be left poor and broke after spending a crapload of time and money on this project so I said fuck it.

          Hollywood might overcharge and not provide a distribution model that the people agree with, but there are a lot of other legit businesses with honest hard working people that are not getting their honest pay for the work they did. The spread of "information" could be something YOU spent years working on, then you'd be pretty bitter too.

          • by funkatron (912521) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @08:32PM (#33657492)

            Then I realized that some dickhead would probably just take the videos, put them up on Piratebay and I would be left poor and broke after spending a crapload of time and money on this project so I said fuck it.

            I agree completely. This is a reasonably accurate evaluation of the market conditions for video content and a sound business decision based on that evaluation. What I don't understand is why the MPAA members don't seem to do this.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by wvmarle (1070040)

              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).

          • by Sir_Lewk (967686) <.sirlewk. .at. .gmail.com.> on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @09:01PM (#33657724)

            Make the videos anyway. If you market it to the right crowd, and it's actually worth it, it will sell.

            I don't imagine car mechanics and car enthusiasts are like you average college student, downloading everything in sight. Chances are your target audience would be more than willing to pay a fair price. People who work on cars for a living should be used to the idea of buying materials/manuals, and similarly for people who have the time/money to routinely work on their own cars.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by morari (1080535)

            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]

          • by black6host (469985) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @10:02PM (#33658128)

            I have always had this idea as a car mechanic to create how to videos for popular model vehicles, instead of just vague books, with high-def video cameras and step by step instructions for each task... such as changing out an A/C Compressor, Replacing a bad power steering pump, fixing broken this that and the other thing.... and selling them for a REASONABLE price all across the nation. This would require a decent amount time and money in equipment, time to film, edit produce etc...

            Then I realized that some dickhead would probably just take the videos, put them up on Piratebay and I would be left poor and broke after spending a crapload of time and money on this project so I said fuck it.

            You know, I appreciate that you might not want to do that for free. Back in the day, when I ran a BBS, I incurred a lot of hard costs to do so and I did not charge for access, while many of my contemporaies did. I had a P.O. box for registration, which ensured that I at least had a valid address, and many people sent me unsolicited money. I sent it back. My point is, you are under no obligation to undertake a risk that, to you, would be a loss. To many people, giving is enjoyable. At least it was for me.....

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by mysidia (191772)

            Then I realized that some dickhead would probably just take the videos, put them up on Piratebay and I would be left poor and broke after spending a crapload of time and money on this project so I said fuck it.

            What's a reasonable price to you?

            $2 per video on iTunes?

            Seriously, there is always the possibility some 'dick' will steal. You can have a mechanic shop, tomorrow or 10 years from now some dick can smash the window and steal things.

            The attractiveness of anyone pirating is minimal. As far

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by yeshuawatso (1774190)

            I think you're overlooking the fact that you're more likely to get ripped off from bigger companies than piracy. For instance, you could go out of your way to make your instructional films, do an excellent job with them, only to find that a large publisher, such as Haynes, would rip your idea and force you out of the marketplace entirely. Your brand is totally unknown while Haynes is well known and respected. You don't really have a fair shot at making it.

            Say what you want, but piracy is a market leveling

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by mysidia (191772)

            I forgot to mention the bigger risk is not BT or TPB.

            The bigger risk is someone else sees you selling videos, and sees how they sell (if you are successful), and gets the idea about doing the same thing, to compete with you, since you don't have a robust competitive advantage -- many mechanics would be capable of making those sorts of videos.

            People would not necessarily buy from you just because you are first -- you would have to differentiate your product, you would have to be better, which is extre

          • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @10:37PM (#33658386) Journal

            I'm sorry, no offense, but you're completely wrong. Sure a few will probably go PTB, but you know what? Put those videos in a nice box with color pullouts I can sit beside my truck, maybe an audio CD so you can walk me through it, and me and a shitload of other people WILL buy. It is all about giving folks an easy, cheap, and valuable exchange for their dollar. Just look at GoG, I have a whole drive filled with GoG games, any of which would have been trivial for me to go PTB with, so why didn't I? Because they made it easy, DRM free, and most importantly to me they unlike PTB gave me 100% x64 support, which is valuable to me.

            So make your videos, put in the above that I outlined, and make them easily affordable. I'd go for the under $20 impulse buy market. I'm willing to bet my last buck you'll make loads of cash, oh and a bit of advice: Be sure to make a couple targeting new drivers, with tips on basic maintenance and then advertise around the High Schools and colleges. You'd be surprised at how many single parent kids don't have anyone to ask even the basic questions to. Hell I'm no mechanic and I get swamped when out at the college by my oldest boy's friends asking basic questions like oil pressure and differences in tires. make some videos targeting that market and make a ton dude.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Antisyzygy (1495469)

            Hollywood might overcharge and not provide a distribution model that the people agree with, but there are a lot of other legit businesses with honest hard working people that are not getting their honest pay for the work they did. The spread of "information" could be something YOU spent years working on, then you'd be pretty bitter too.

            You said it yourself, the MPAA and RIAA are simply not interested in getting a fair amount for their work, they are interested in greater than fair returns (such is the stigma of capitalism). Furthermore, since the volume of works from those represented by the MPAA and RIAA dwarf the small number of "legit" people you describe, and the MPAA and RIAA are not interested in "legit" people's rights, you pretty much have a non-argument.

          • by rtb61 (674572) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @12:53AM (#33659068) Homepage

            Anonymous troll much. Mechanics video, somebody will do it for free http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=change+oil+filter&aq=f [youtube.com], http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=change+transmission+fluid&aq=0 [youtube.com], http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+to+change+differential&aq=7m [youtube.com], etc etc etc.

            Don't you people know when you are being trolled by a marketdroid dickhead.

            PS it ain't stealing and it never will be, it is copying, the mechanics knowledge wasn't stolen, it wasn't vacuumed from their head, they are not wandering around the landscape sprouting nonsense like some zombie marketdroid.

            Of course the MPAA and the pigoploists given the opportunity will not just demand copyright protection of the video of changing the oil filter but also the idea of creating a video about changing an oil filter and even a licence fee from anyone who ever changes an oil filter because they might have seen the video or spoken to someone who has seen the video.

            The problem is the continual extension of copyright, its duration, scope, power, criminal penalties, invasion of privacy and control of the public. It is even worse, copyright has led to the direct corruption of the whole political process, as a result of it largely being run by psychopaths with narcissists as their puppet front people.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by vadim_t (324782)

            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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Sir_Lewk (967686)

          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 do

          • by Martin Blank (154261) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @09:34PM (#33657944) Journal

            The origins of the rating system were a desperate (yet successful) attempt to prevent the federal government from instituting its own rating system. The Hays Code dealt with the spread of local laws, and would eventually be replaced by Jack Valenti's letter-based rating system that provided film-makers with much more freedom in how to craft and tell the story.

            Kind of amusing, I think, that an organization was once so desperate to keep government out of its business and now runs crying to the government to help it preserve the same.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by gstoddart (321705)

          Why shouldn't copyright infringement and national security come under the same law?

          Because, historically it is two completely different realms of law. Copyright is civil law -- conflating it with national security is a he'll of a bad idea.

          Commercial interests can't drive national security issues, or we will go to war with whoever is pirating the most videos.

          They don't belong in the same law.

      • Wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA ran a campaign saying that passing ACTA into law worldwide will stop terrorists, child porn, small arms traders, drugs, wildfires, Satan, etc.

        It's probably the wildfire stopping that will be the most effective part of that. The others you'd be prepared for. Wildfires though comes out of the blue and catches you off guard and before you can catch your breath, you've already signed the bill in your own blood.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      enforcing copyright is censorship, there's no "instead". Copyright: Party C wants to stop party A passing information to party B. Censorship : Party G wants to stop party A passing information to party B.

      They're the same thing, justified differently. It's all just 1s and 0s folks, you can't enforce copyright and have a free society. It's impossible.

      • Re:Did they (Score:4, Insightful)

        by icebraining (1313345) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @08:09PM (#33657322) Homepage

        Ok. Now Party A is your doctor/hospital worker, Party B is a data mining company, and the information is your personal health files.
        By your definition, it's censorship too, right? It's all just 1s and 0s?

        People have rights over certain data, and protecting them isn't censorship. If authors should have rights over their creations - even at the expense of others' rights - is another matter.

  • by Kitkoan (1719118) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:44PM (#33657086)
    This is a dangerous path to follow because the MPAA would have strong backers for something like this, like the US government. [salon.com] Torrent search engines would be small potatoes, how about people/websites that show what your doing is wrong? Again, like WikiLeaks, but others like the EFF? Don't like that they show your dirty little secrets? Just use the ACTA on them and claim something like "they were using illegal software". [nytimes.com]
    • by siddesu (698447)

      If you for a moment believe that isn't really the US government asking, using MAFIAA as a mouthpiece, you live in a happier world ...

      • by Kitkoan (1719118) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:56PM (#33657226)

        If you for a moment believe that isn't really the US government asking, using MAFIAA as a mouthpiece, you live in a happier world ...

        The US government isn't using the MPAA as a mouth piece, the MPAA wants to use/abuse this power and will turn around to ask other governments around the world, US included, to help them get what they want.

        • by siddesu (698447)

          You're wrong about that.

          The US government has been actively using Hollywood as mouthpiece since at least the glorious days of WWII propaganda. The war for "hearts and minds" is not from yesterday.

          The enthusiasm with which the government has been embracing MAFIAA lawyer ideas for increased surveillance, control and enforcement suggest a deeper interest than lobby money.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by twidarkling (1537077)

        Actually, no, I don't think the US government is using the MPAA as a mouthpiece. What I DO think is that the MPAA came up with the idea, and the US government is going "Fuck, why didn't WE think of that? Give them another couple hundred million."

      • by hedwards (940851)
        I'm a bit curious as to what exactly would be in the MPAAs interest here. I'm having a hard time seeing any incentive for them to ask, which really implies that there's something fishy. Hollywood isn't exactly known for being Republican territory.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by LWATCDR (28044)

        Hate to tell you but the US gov really doesn't want to shut down wikileaks like this.
        Wikileaks doesn't really matter. Most people have never seen or heard of them.
        This is the MPAA trying to expand ACTA.
        It will fail but the MPAA figures if you don't ask you will not get.

    • by Psaakyrn (838406)
      You got it the other way around. It's the US Government which has strong backers, like the MPAA.
  • Ever notice... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:44PM (#33657088)
    Ever notice how governments actively seek to forbid citizens from actually -using- their rights? Sure, lets give them freedom of speech. What!? People are critical of the government?! How dare they not use our freedoms to only spread their love of big brother! Lets pass the Alien and Sedition Acts/McCarthyism/ACTA/etc. to stop them from using their freedom! After all, who in a free country would speak out against their government, its like people think the constitution is to protect people who dissent against the majority opinion or something!
    • Re:Ever notice... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:48PM (#33657138)

      Shhh. Most people think freedom of speech is there to protect what they agree with.

    • Re:Ever notice... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by siddesu (698447) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:58PM (#33657238)

      What is worse, they've come up with a very neat way to do it - it is called "international agreements".

      The ideas that would be opposed at home get floated at the IFPI, WPO, WTO, etc. Then a number of small, spineless or otherwise dependent countries are made to support those. Then the idea is re-branded as "the international consensus". Then it is heavily marketed and accepted by the European Commission and the US whatever representative, who work hard to sell it to the respective national legislatures.

      Then it becomes a binding treaty, and is fast tracked at the various national legislatures, usually sweetened with some pork. Job done, consumer raped again.

      International cooperation at its best.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Darkness404 (1287218)
        And this is why every American should pressure congress to get the US out of various international organizations because the assurances we have in the constitution don't mean shit in the international world of politics.

        The constitution says

        All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

        While international agreements puts legislative powers in unelected bureaucrats.

        While I understand the point of things like the UN (to prevent something like WWII from happening again) it, along with all the other international organizations have defrauded the

        • by zooblethorpe (686757) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @09:08PM (#33657758)

          While I mostly agree with you, I think you lay the blame at the wrong feet.

          While I understand the point of things like the UN (to prevent something like WWII from happening again) it, along with all the other international organizations have defrauded the American people of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

          The UN itself has done no such thing. The ones defrauding the US public of their constitutionally guaranteed rights are the elected representatives in the US government, and by extension their financial masters (a.k.a. "donors"), using the UN and other international groups as cover to get what they want. Though given the state of voting in the US (black-box hackable e-voting machines [blackboxvoting.org], gerrymandering [google.com], overly large constituencies [thirty-thousand.org], etc. etc.), the term "elected" might not hold much meaning here.

          Cheers,

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by robot256 (1635039)

          Last time I checked, international agreements on their own did not carry the force of law within a sovereign country. Unless a treaty is ratified or subsequent law is passed by the legislature, I don't see how a government could prosecute anyone unless they already have the power discussed in the agreement. Look at the E.U.--when they decide on a policy, their member nations each pass laws that comply with the EU policy, but aren't necessarily dictated by the EU itself. If they don't, there may be conseq

          • Why do you assume that ACTA won't be given the consent of Congress? Did you miss the fact that the DMCA passed with unanimous support of the Senate and virtually no opposition in the House when it was passed?

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          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.

        • by hitmark (640295)

          consider that the ACTA talks where initiated by, among others, USA, because the WIPO started becoming to open to non-commercial representatives (EFF and others).

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by cosm (1072588)
        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 no
        • by siddesu (698447)

          While I agree opposition is important, it is too bad the economics of this plan works against you and me.

          The outcome of ACTA across the economies of the participating states will be, of course, a huge cumulative loss of what the economists call "consumer surplus" (which is, simply put, the difference between price in a free, competitive market that in a market, restricted by monopoly or regulation).

          The problem is the structure of that cost. While huge to the whole economy, to the average consumer it doesn't

    • Re:Ever notice... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @08:37PM (#33657534)

      Ever notice how governments actively seek to forbid citizens from actually -using- their rights?

      In spite of the name, "rights" is a game of subtraction, not addition. A person not under the domain of any government or any other higher power has no restrictions on their actions at all. Government and law add new restrictions (do not kill, do not steal).

      The Bill of Rights and all related articles are there as a desperate attempt to stop this from getting out of hand, explicitly for those times when it seems like going down that slippery slope seems appropriate. It was never adding anything, because it was never capable of adding anything. People knew it was necessary to include it because they knew times like these would happen.

      It's up to us as a country to make sure we don't disappoint the wonderfully insightful gentlemen who included those provisions as part of the nation's Constitution by allowing them to fade on our watch.

      • Re:Ever notice... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Lunix Nutcase (1092239) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @09:54PM (#33658054)

        It's up to us as a country to make sure we don't disappoint the wonderfully insightful gentlemen who included those provisions as part of the nation's Constitution by allowing them to fade on our watch.

        Actually many of the founders were against the Bill of Rights on the grounds that they saw that it could be used by some future generation to try to deny rights to the people because they weren't explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights. This perversion that they foresaw has been shown to be true in such examples as how right-wingers try to claim there is no right to privacy since it isn't explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

        • by eht (8912)

          I was not aware the right to privacy was an inherent right, if the government was not here to grant it to you, anyone can come along and spy on you all they want.

          • "I was not aware the right to life was an inherent right, if the government was not here to grant it to you, anyone can come along and stab you all they want."

            See what I did there?

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Antisyzygy (1495469)
            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 t
  • Story worthy? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Link to a blog which links to another blog which links to a twitter post: [twitter.com]

    Pide MPAA en junta de #ACTA que en mexico sea posible cortar acceso/pais a sitios "tan dañinos" como wikileaks. Neto: WTF!

    Amazing what's become of journalism in the era of blogging.

    Anyway, it sounds like a good tactic on the part of the MPAA as they're trying to sell ACTA to various governments.
    "Hey, if you pass ACTA, you may be able to use it to block Wikileaks too!"

  • hey MPAA (Score:5, Funny)

    by FudRucker (866063) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:48PM (#33657132)
    you better shutup and mind ur own damn bidness or 4chan and Anonymous will come after you again
  • by Tackhead (54550) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:48PM (#33657140)

    I can think of at least two reasons:

    1) Wikileaks has leaked details of draft ACTA proposals, and these have somewhat politically embarassing to the politicians who are doing MAFIAA's work.

    2) MAFIAA hates it when people singing songs with lyrics like "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" and they really hate that funky sequel that begins with "6692d179032205".

    • by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @08:14PM (#33657354) Homepage

      I can think of at least two reasons:

      1) Wikileaks has leaked details of draft ACTA proposals, and these have somewhat politically embarassing to the politicians who are doing MAFIAA's work.

      2) MAFIAA hates it when people singing songs with lyrics like "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" and they really hate that funky sequel that begins with "6692d179032205".

      3) The US government has figured out that people are so accustomed to the MPAA buying laws, they put them up to it so it could slip under the radar.

      The MPAA gets the stuff they wanted in ACTA. The government gets carte blanche.

      While I don't really believe that the US government is behind this, they do actually gain more from this than the MPAA does. I think more plausibly, the MPAA is trying to use this as a wedge so they can shut down anything which infringes on information they would like to retain control of or how to circumvent copyright -- such information gets effectively equated with sedition or somesuch.

      Either way, the outcome of ACTA allowing for the shutting down of web sites "because we want to" basically means that the world is now fucked, and all signatories to ACTA are enforcement arms for multi-national companies ... with the US wielding a stick over everybody else.

      This awful treaty is going to propel us into a future ran even more by corporations, and they keep adding more shit to it every time there's a leak.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        How many left wingers would have made a deal about "BUSH/CHENEY" if this was 4 years ago? How many right wingers are going to claim this is a Obama thing?

        Libertarians realize that it doesn't really matter (D or R), government is too powerful now, and need to be reigned in. It doesn't matter "who" is in power, they abuse it. And it doesn't matter what the reason is (save the children,environment,rights,minority,tatas), there is always a nefarious outcome.

        Liberty is not just for select few, it is for all. Eit

        • by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @10:10PM (#33658192) Homepage

          Libertarians realize that it doesn't really matter (D or R), government is too powerful now, and need to be reigned in. It doesn't matter "who" is in power, they abuse it.

          Libertarians believe that by completely dismantling government we will live in this wonderful utopia without regulation and we can all be happy capitalists and thrive in harmony, and be free to shoot anyone who threatened that harmony.

          While I agree that government needs to be reigned in, I don't see removing a lot of the good things that governments accomplish as the right thing.

          Weakening the 1st Amendment, and strengthening the ability of government (and corporations) to censor does move us towards tyranny, that much is true. I definitely agree with you. However, I disagree that:

          it doesn't matter what the reason is (save the children,environment,rights,minority,tatas), there is always a nefarious outcome.

          Yes, government does abuse their power, but saying we should stop trying to accomplish the goals of education and an overall. "Libertarians" would dismantle a lot of these things on the basis that it's onerous to individual freedoms and that they should be able to opt out of helping to pay for society. Boo hoo. Without these things, we'd all be friggin' eating one another in 6 months.

          What needs to happen is stronger controls on how government does its job -- and I sure as hell don't claim to have an answer to this. However, human nature and history has shown time and time again that people try to consolidate power, and aren't above retroactively deciding they want to change how things work and want to undo change. Heck, that's exactly what the Taliban did.

          Libertarianism has some interesting ideas, but it wouldn't solve any of these problems any better than modern economics does at really understanding how the economy works -- it's based on perfect models in ideal circumstances, and assumes that everyone else will all magically play by the same rules. It's grossly incomplete, and assumes way too much; and neither wrap things up quite so neatly as people believe.

          And, in closing ... we're all screwed, now get off my damned lawn. *grumble* *grumble* Damned kids. :-P
          --END RANT

        • Both left and right at least amongst /.ers are pretty united on this issue. We need to make this more public. Its the only way to have a real impact.
  • by kabloom (755503) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:49PM (#33657150) Homepage

    The MPAA (probably) isn't asking about WikiLeaks for its own interest -- it's asking because it wants the US government on board, and the US government is far more concerned about WikiLeaks than movie pirates.

    This is a lesson to all you slashdotters about how to lobby - convince people that you have the solution to their problem. (If it solves your problem, great!)

  • by Eternal Vigilance (573501) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:55PM (#33657212)

    This isn't so much a move against Wikileaks as a sharing site like TPB, but instead a move against anyone who might expose the collusion between **AA and their government lackeys.

    That Wikileaks might reveal things like ACTA ahead of time, allowing users to mobilize support against them, makes Wikileaks very "dangerous" to the **AA's goal of complete control.

    • by thestudio_bob (894258) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @08:22PM (#33657416)

      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]

      • by Artifakt (700173)

        So why do the **AAs seem to want this? They don't have SWAT teams, highly trained well armed investigators, or special laws protecting their 'agents' in the line of duty, after all. Why help the government in a law enforcement role, if that makes you look like just another police agency, but you don't have the power to deal with criminals who take it off the internet and get physical? There are people out there talking second amendment remedies, secession, and extreme violence daily - look like just another

    • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @08:25PM (#33657444)
      Every government wants to write their laws in secrecy, hence why international "treaties" have gotten so popular. Every government's dream is to control every aspect of their citizens' lives without the citizens realizing it. Sure, the government extols the "right to free speech" in every high school classroom but dreams of a world without it. The government loves movements like the tea party that while saying they want to reduce the government's power but give the government power over subjective things like morality and things that are "un-American", any government would take a "loss" of some tax dollars to be able to control something like that (and with fiat currencies, they can just print more worthless notes).

      Every government wants to make politics so "boring" that the masses ignore it. Every government wants to make a country with rights that are never exercised.

      The ideal state for a government is where the people are cattle, a cow doesn't feel imprisoned, after all he can walk around this whole big pasture, and if he really wanted to he could jump the fence, but why jump when there is all this free food...
  • by rotide (1015173) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @08:07PM (#33657314)
    The thing that irks me the most, isn't the fact that the government wants a more powerful trade agreement. It isn't the fact that this trade agreement would be adopted by most every other first world country. It also isn't the fact that the U.S. government wants to keep it classified due to "national security" reasons. No, it's because our government keeps it classified from its citizens _and_ invites the MPAA in on the deal, or did the MPAA invite them? I don't even know anymore.
  • by 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.

    • by cbope (130292) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @02:21AM (#33659372)

      Actually, no. ACTA was effectively rejected by the European Parliament, whose *elected* members represent the people of the EU. However, it has not so far been dropped by the European Commission, whose *un-elected* (appointed) officials generally do whatever they want regardless of what Parliament says.

      There is still hope that the EU will finally reject ACTA, but the fight is not over yet.

  • The only reason they are asking about WikiLeaks is because it's the current website that's "okay to hate/censor". Once they get approval for WikiLeaks, they'll move to other sites that actually target THEIR industry.

  • The TFA provided links to the twitter account it seems. Are there any other sources? I mean I do not trust anyone that does not speak American.

    However if this is true, I say we build more pipelines so it is harder for them to enforce.
  • by openright (968536) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @08:27PM (#33657460) Homepage

    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.

    • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @09:46PM (#33658014) Homepage

      And the revolution already came and is called the Internet. I've started to not care about ACTA and how it'll mandate capital punishment for file sharers. The bird has flown, the horse has left the barn, the cat is out of the bag, time can not be turned back. They can just make copyright infinity - 1 day already and I still won't care. I still won't think it's wrong. So they can shut down Wikileaks, will it really matter? I mean seriously, in how many kazillion copies is the HDCP master key now? We could do the same with anything wikileaks wanted to publish, there's no way they can win over a huge number of people spreading it over a huge number of channels. They can try legislating away reality and reality will laugh at them.

      Their copyright == theft campaign is a huge failure. Despite the Pirate Party not making a good election, the percentage of Swedes who think so is down to 30%, down from 38% last year. They've lost 8% of the public opinion in one year. There's not been a single round of mass copyright lawsuits, nobody wants to take another shot at taking down The Pirate Bay, they get services like free Voddler that is very close to a giveaway. They're not even in fight mode anymore, they're in damage control mode so it doesn't spark the copyright revolution and they can keep making money in the rest of the world. It's really too bad that the Swedes don't have a public referendum system like in Switzerland, or it would already have happened.

  • End the MPAA (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Digital Vomit (891734)

    It's high time the citizens of the U.S. work to dissolve the Motion Picture Association of America. This is an organization that actively works against the best interest of all Americans. It must be destroyed. The freedom and liberty of all Americans -- even much of the world -- is under attack by this organization.

    END THE MPAA

    • END THE MPAA

      The MAFIAA cannot be put down so easily. There's one thing you have to understand about shutting down a central organization: successors tend to pop up. Napster is dead; long live Kazaa. EDonkey is dead; long live TPB. Likewise, dissolve the Motion Picture Association of America and the major movie studios will just found the American Film Industry Organization.

  • This is a stupid move by the MPAA for many reasons but, primarily among them, I would imagine this will put it firmly on the radar of the Wikileaks team who might decide that some MPAA laundry needs airing and, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that 1) there is plenty of MPAA laundry and 2) it would be highly embarrassing if it was to be aired.

    Only fools pick fights that they are ill-equipped to handle and the MPAA are fools. Rich fools, but fools none-the-less.
  • by mykos (1627575) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @08:47PM (#33657618)
    According to MPAA/RIAA logic, downloading stuff for free rather than paying for it destroys that industry. So ACTA stops or restricts free downloading, child pornography will become a rampant industry, and nobody wants that.

    If we stop ACTA, we stop child pornography. It's as simple as that.
  • by illumnatLA (820383) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @08:52PM (#33657662) Homepage
    Next up, MPAA will seek the blocking of dangerous sites that speak up for copyright reform... then it'll be websites that talk about movies in a fashion that hasn't been pre-approved by the MPAA...

    It's a slippery slope when free speech is censored.
  • I think that ACTA is now a dead letter.

  • makes it only accessible to dangerous and motivated people. (My own truthiness).
  • The free being, corporations of course. this is where unbridled capitalism ends up. nowhere else.
  • by b4upoo (166390) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @09:37PM (#33657956)

    We can fight on the political side to keep the net free and we can fight on the social side as well. But the chances are that we will need to make regulation either impossible or so expensive that downloading and communications simply can not be blocked. We need programs that can seek the materials that interest us and encrypt them and then send them through anonymous servers. If this is done right it should be next to impossible for a third party to determine what went over the net and who sent and received whatever the item was. If it is expensive enough and difficult enough to penetrate then information will flow freely.

  • Don't Worry Guys! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Idiomatick (976696) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @10:05PM (#33658148)
    Wanting to stop free speech/freedom of information and suing children/computer illiterates/grandparents without internet/the dead for copying movies. All from one group. It is like they have the copyright on being evil dickheads. I mean, I thought they were greedy pricks before. But with this bit of news it pushes them into 'fucking evil' territory.

    But here is the possible up side. The MPAA have been around since 1922. And by my calculations that means that their copyright on evil will run out by around 2200. At which point mad rioters can burn down all the CEO's homes slaughter them like pigs and give them as a blood offering to Satan.

    So at least there is something to look forward to.
  • by elucido (870205) * on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @10:47PM (#33658442)

    If they block the Wikileaks site then some volunteer will post the information on 4chan and then they'd have to block that, and a whole bunch of other sites because volunteers can basically post the information to random websites. This is a complete and utter waste of time.

  • Twitter message (Score:3, Informative)

    by CarpetShark (865376) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @06:22AM (#33660084)

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

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

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found on the bench.

Working...