US Plots "Pirate Bay Killer" Trade Agreement 529
An anonymous reader sends word that Wikileaks has revealed that the United States is plotting a 'Pirate Bay killing' multi-lateral trade agreement, called 'ACTA,' with the EU, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Switzerland and New Zealand. "The proposal includes clauses designed to criminalize the non-profit facilitation of copyrighted information exchange on the Internet, which would also affect transparency sites such as Wikileaks. The Wikileaks document details provisions that would impose strict enforcement of intellectual property rights related to Internet activity and trade in information-based goods. If adopted, the treaty would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime imposing new cooperation requirements upon Internet service providers, including perfunctory disclosure of customer information, as well as measures restricting the use of online privacy tools."
Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when the RIAA shut down Napster and declared victory over the music downloaders? Remember when they started their pathetic little lawsuit harassment campaign? Tell me, is there a single person here who has trouble downloading a pirated song today? Is there anyone here who couldn't start up Limewire right this minute and find a copy of virtually any song they could want? For all their heavy-handedness, they didn't even make a DENT.
Times have changed. No law is going to change that. They're just embarrassing themselves trying.
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
True--but you can hurt a lot of people trying to do so.
It seems to me that that's what the MPAA, RIAA, and other associated organizations are trying to do. They can't stop downloading en mass ... but if they can hurt enough individuals, maybe other individuals will be to scared to continue to download.
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
I would guess that a lot of the folks who don't seed wouldn't seed even if doing so was legal. Those who don't seed because they are afraid of the **AA are not "jerk-offs"--they're victims of bullying, even if they're only being "bullied" by proxy.
I have no sympathy for the folks who take and take but never give back--but I have a lot of sympathy for the victims of bullying.
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is free while others are oppressed.
Taking but not giving back is a common result of bullying in any environment. And we learn bullying in school; it is ignored by the school administrators as part of the "way things are". Or, it is even encouraged - especially in the mentality expressed in sports programs.
Our entire system is designed to teach people to be unfair to one another.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mostly true. One on hand, we get caught up in words saying that "all people are created equal" which, IMHO, in a sense they are. However, that means that all people are created with the same basic rights, etc. What it doesn't mean is that all people have equal abilities. People do have natural (dis)abilities. So in a sense, the deck is stacked for/against people the moment they are born.
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
The music industry around here are talking about that they want to start an experiment with voluntary broadband-tax, starting this autumn, which will allow you to, for a small fee, download all the music you want from Pirate Bay or wherever. Uploading will still be illegal.
You seem to be assuming the rest of the world uses US laws. Stop it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please define "you".
I most certainly don't feel that way.
Some higher-up member of the government whose latest political campaign or vacation has been paid for by 'donations' by overzealous copyright-holders (RIAA, MPAA, Disney, etc.) 'cares' and indeed makes these assumptions. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that someone abusing his power feels the same way or even in any vague way represents his constituents.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this trade agreement....will pretty much do just that, it will unify laws to what the US, and the other top IP countries want.
We may see pressure that Sweden and other countries may not be able to resist. I was kinda shocked at how the Swiss banking industry had succumed somewhat in their privacy issues, but, it appears they have bent somewhat due to pressure from the US, and EU....so, it shows that nothing is safe. If you don't want this change..make sure and be very vocal in your own country!
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Interesting)
The proposed bill tramples the constitutions and bills of rights held by a number of the proposed signatories.
Think for a moment: not only would the treaty be illegal in, for example, Canada, but can you imagine the government touching this treaty with a 10' pole? After NAFTA? With a minority government? With the public and media attention currently on the unfair and heavy-handed tactics being used to pressure Canada into adopting US copyright laws right now?
Now try applying this to all the other proposed signatories who have fewer ties with the US. I truely doubt this treaty will ever survive the proposal stage.
Of course, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be protested against; most likely the US will try to slip these conditions into some unrelated treaty amendment in the not-too-distant future.
Re:US had history of imposing its laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike in 1961 with the cold war looming overhead and the US dominating the world militarily and economically, nowadays the approached nations can just say "no".
This treaty doesn't really benefit anyone to any great extent except for a few corporate interests in the US. It is fighting against public opinion world-wide (unlike the drug convention) and is a further erosion of sovereign laws at a time when other countries are starting to get annoyed at the US government and the corporations they are representing.
I think this comes under the "fool me once..." category.
Golgafrinchans (Score:5, Insightful)
In THHGTTG trilogy, there is the "third ark" ship with its hairdressers, fashion designers, telephone sanitizers, and other useless members of Golgafrinchan society who crash land on prehistoric Earth. They decide to use tree leaves as money, making all of them incredibly wealthy. However, it causes a huge inflation problem, which the Golgafrinchans solve by burning down the forests.
A digital file is like a tree leaf. They cost nothing. To pay for one is madness, to try to use them as a medium of exchange (trade for other goods) is even greater madness. The only sane use of digital sales is sale of the physical medium the file is stored on - like a CD or DVD.
For a country to base their entire economy on digital files is supreme madness, as stupid as the Golgafrinchans' use of tree leaves as money.
The heavy handed attempts to stop the sharing of something that is entirely cost-free to everyone is as stupid as the Golgafrinchans' torching of the forests.
MP3s didn't and couldn't kill CD sales, but the switch from CDs to "selling" DRM-infested downloads instead of physical media certainly might.
My legislators are morons and my country is on its way down.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, that's essentially the case.
In the U.S., at least, current copyright laws hinge on the distribution of copyrighted materials. Downloading songs is fine, distributing songs triggers massive fines and jail time.
This is basically a holdover from the days when bootlegging albums (or books or whatever) required extensive criminal operations with access to publishing facilities and the like. Essentially, copyright infringement on a massive scale required organized crime syndicates, and the crimina
That may seem logical, but... (Score:4, Informative)
0. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Article I, Section 8, US Constitution.
1. Dowling v. United States 473 U.S. 207 was ruled in 1985
Copyright infringement is NOT theft!
2. United States v. LaMacchia 871 F. Supp. 535 was ruled in 1994.
Copyright infringement must have financial motivation.
3. No Electronic Theft Act, 105th Congress, 1997
"Financial Gain
4. Copyright Term Extension Act, 1998
"Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication"
5. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003)
"As long as the [copyright term] limit is not 'forever', any limit set by Congress can be deemed constitutional."
The major fines are very recent as well. This bull is recent and funded by an organization that knows they are out dated and working on a business model of the past. P2P is the future, and not a future where companies like Disney, Sony, and Universal can control people and their culture. They know they are dead in the water, but they are going to spend every last penny on a war to slow their death. Disney made their money "stealing" (by their definition) popular works of the times and remixing them Disney style, quickly making them a powerful empire. The problem is that Walt is dead and now virtually anyone with an internet connection can DO WHAT DISNEY DOES!
They are fighting like a cat in a wet pillow case. They will use all their money to damage as many lives they possibly can, and wage war against every country that won't acknowledge their rule. This is not old, this is new and it has all started in our lifetime. Please follow the link in my signature if you question the MPAA regime. This is one of the most important things I think we can be doing to save our culture from these dying Monarchs. Also, for something short and cute, search "Fair Use" on YouTube for a great explanation of copyright law / fair use through a remix of quite a few Disney clips.
Ok, i'll fix my sig in a sec, but here is the link: http://www.opensourcecinema.org/lessigfinal [opensourcecinema.org]
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think that something is wrong because it's illegal, then you cannot make a rational contribution to this discussion.
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
Not "internet bullying"--bullying by lawsuit.
Say you have (just as an example) 500 people doing something legally questionable that you don't want them doing. Let's also say that you can't sue all of them in a single case--each case should be taken care of individually. You could sue them all, one by one, but that would cost you a lot of money for filing fees, lawyers, court costs, and the like, and odds are you wouldn't get paid the full amount of the judgment.
Or you could sue two or three of them in high-profile, well-publicized cases. You may get some money from the individuals you sue, or you may not--but in the big picture, the balance of the 500 people are now aware that you could come after them with a lawsuit.
Defending yourself in a lawsuit is risky, expensive, and stressful. Even if you are completely and totally innocent, you still have to go to court, you still should hire a lawyer, and you still have to pay for your legal filings. Even then, if you've done nothing wrong, there is a possibility that the judge or jury will be persuaded by a slick-talking lawyer that you were in the wrong and must pay damages. That's going to make a lot of people nervous--even if they've not actually done something wrong.
That's bullying. When combined with the obscenely excessive claims for damage (as both the MPAA and the RIAA have made), the questionable and possibly illegal investigatory techniques performed by MediaSentry, and the utter arrogance of the plaintifs in these cases, the behavior of those (and similar) organizations is reprehensible.
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Funny)
You know.. You can get blank CDs these days for under $0.05-$0.10 cents per disk, and USPS Media Mail lets you mail CDs for dirt cheap. Anyone up for a massive campaign of "returning" pirated MP3s to the RIAA, on hundreds of CDs, via USPS? Maybe with a return address of "Lars Ulrich,..."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This being said, I'm not a supporter of copyright infringement. I don't think that, simply because the product can be reproduced at virtually no cost, it means it should be freely distributed. Someone still spent time, money and effort into creating it.
When it comes to movies and music, the traditional business model of a manufactured product does not apply, and you don't sell the product at slightly above the mar
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you can't. See if I download stuff it costs me NOTHING. If government(s) try to police the internet, it will cost them resources. If they try to take me and everyone like me to court, it will cost them resources. If they tie up enough resources persecuting "downloaders" and letting people get away with violent crime, or let their roads collapse, etc, eventually it will be a big political nightmare.
The only
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:4, Funny)
Well if I may clarify, you do have a point. I don't live in any of the countries mentioned. In fact, my 3rd world country has a very lazy attitude to intellectual property. It's hard to enforce when the budget doesn't even cover the basics. Oh, and I don't have to pay income tax, by the way. So yeah, what I meant to say is it will cost YOU resources. Thanks for the correction!
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
Then write to your Congresscritters and tell them you can't stand your hard earned tax dollars being spent on their little crusade.
Get your friends. Organize rallies. Rent a skywriter. Do something.
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
So you have two choices, besides hypocrisy: stop paying taxes, or stop making enough to pay taxes (at least on the books.)
The difference between the war on copyright violation and the war on drugs is that the war on drugs is more profitable. Since so many levels of government are involved, and since we are doing so many things in the name of the war on drugs internationally (It is not a coincidence that we paid Osama a shitpile of money to halt Afghani opium production right before 9/11) there are zillions of chances to siphon off money. The copyright thing is so far only producing money in the form of campaign contributions and bribes. The war on drugs is putting super-craploads of people in prison - what, a quarter of the million or so people in prison are there for non-violent drug crime? I'd have to look it up, maybe I'm misremembering. This produces a shitpile of money for private prison contractors. Any time private interests profit from incarcerating your citizens, you know that things are seriously fucked up.
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:4, Informative)
You know, perhaps you should try this new and exciting website called google [google.com], I hear it's pretty amazing.
Ask a stupid question, get a snarky answer.
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
The war on (some) drugs has actually caused the very same problems it was designed to prevent! "Think of the children!!! Pot is illegal so the kids can't get it!!" But ask any high school kid if you can buy pot in his school - any kid can, any day. But you can't buy beer, a legal "non-war" drug, in school.
"It leads to harder drugs!" No, the laws against it do. The people selling the pot also sell the "harder drugs." If the dealer is out of pot, or greedy, he may well try to sell you the very dangerous and highly addictive crack cocaine. The liquor store guy won't.
"It causes violent crime!" No, the artificial value of this easily grown weed causes the gang wars between the various factions selling it. You had gang wars and bloody violence over alcohol during alcohol prohibition, but that violence ended with the prohibition.
Likewise, the "war on illegal file sharing" may ironically kill the very industries that are screaming for those laws. The RIAA should ignore file sharing and do what they've done for a century - sell records. Not ethereal strings of ones and zeros, but physical manifestations of them - CDs.
File sharing no more hurts the record industry than the VCR ("is to Hollywood what the Boston Strangler was to women") hurt the movie industry.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:4, Insightful)
Because becoming the target of a downloading lawsuit is currently less likely than being struck by lightning. This state of matters would remain even if the cartels increased their efforts tenfold. Even if they could persuade all police operations to be directed into copyright enforcement, the ordinary citizen could very justifiably not give a hoot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
(The reason behind this "no turning over finnish citizens" law is, surprise surprise, those few hundred jews and communists and such that were turned over to Nazi Germany. Bit of an embarrassment to say the least.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course in any western country there are people who, while the Soviet Union and the GDR and such still existed, touted democracy and freedom in their own countries while secretly envying the power to "get shit done" and the power to repress their opponents that the leaders of both the USSR and the GDR wielded. And now that those two aren't
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that's what I call terrorism.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Interesting)
... but if they can hurt enough individuals, maybe other individuals will be to scared to continue to download.
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
"Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. "
1. The RIAA and MPAA create fear
2. Ideological goal: support of their intellectual property regime which no longer fits with today's market
3. Targetting/disregarding safety of non-combatants: How many mothers, grandmothers, and even people without any Internet access at all have been sued?
Legal terrorism, indeed.
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
They're working on the SCO principle - sue your customers. Anyone who gets sued by the RIAA and a lot of their friends and other people who know them will simply stop buying RIAA product when that happens. They're going to sue themselves into complete irrelevance. It doesn't look quite the same as the SCO thing, because unlike SCO, they have a significant number of customers :)
Obviously the scare tactics aren't working. Why not? Because we're all living in fear all the time anyway. There's so many bullshit laws that you can't really live your life without breaking a few and we all do things that could get us in trouble now and then. Sorry, but I don't really know anyone's grandparents who don't have some copied movies, for example (they developed a taste for "free movies" in the VHS days - they might not be able to set a clock but they can press record) and I remember listening to a Metallica interview where they were talking about driving around listening to copied audiocassettes. So if you already live in fear of persecution, what's a little more? They sue, you can't pay, you declare bankruptcy, so what?
Most people out there don't really have anything to take away. Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose...
We need to take secure file sharing mainstream (Score:3, Insightful)
The best way to defeat these thugs is to adopt encryption tools to make our file transfers invisible. Tools like Tor are a good start. But we need to get enough people using secure protocols that the government won't be able to single out and prosecute individuals for using them.
So if you care about your rights in the future, start using secure protocols. Contribute code to open source projects. Make these systems work. Use it or lose it!
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
This is serious, even if you're sure that in the end they will fail. You could be one of the victims steamed over on their way to embarrassment.
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
=Smidge=
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens to their business models when artists won't sign with them in protest of what they are doing to consumers? What happens to their businesses when barely anyone is buying their products?
In this one point, a good boycott of **AA et al and their products, say something lasting 2-6 months, the industry would get the message. When you make ZERO or vastly negative income for a quarter, investors go somewhere else with their dollars, your stock drops to penny range, and people laugh when you complain to the media. In fact, after 6 months, buying products from the **AA et al might become passe' and forever cause even further declines in their revenues.
When they begin prosecuting every tiny detail they can, imprisoning people for downloading etc. then you will see plenty of people ready to boycott and demonstrate. You might even see people who own guns get angry.
The truth of this is closer to the argument that bad laws should not be followed nor enforced. These are bad laws. Drug laws are bad laws. When your law criminalizes a huge percentage of your population, it's a bad law, and quite obviously not on par with community standards of conduct.
A federal law should only be enacted to protect the people. Who do laws like this protect? Directly, they protect the **AA et al. Indirectly, who do they protect? IMHO, nobody! I believe that this is the definition of 'bad law'. YMMV
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We still haven't seen them act to the full extend of their ability. If they imprison a thousand people (preferably worldwide) for copyright infringement, TPB usage will plummet. If they imprison a thousand more nobody in their mind would touch bittorrent with a ten foot pole. After that, they will only need to jail a couple of people per month and heavily advertise these cases (and the sentences imposed) to keep interest in file sharing low.
You're completely correct, it's impossible to kill file sharing by
Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it'll keep file sharing under the radar. There are many more private file sharing sites these days than there ever have been, and the private networks are actively increasing their privacy and security. There will be future busts of some of these networks, but they will be "small-fry" or due to flaws in the networks' security (though defending against a RIAA controlled spy is obviously difficult).
Oh yeah, targetting the users has worked so well with drugs it'll definately work here!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, that's just great! (Score:4, Interesting)
Information wants to be free!
A shift in the way we think about copyright has to happen, or this is going to get out of control in a hurry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Information doesn't know or care if it's free or not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh, that's just great! (Score:5, Insightful)
just the fact that it allows them to get customer info without a court order is sickening..
also the idea that the US would write something that would effect the rights and privicy of people from another nation is also sicking..
there is more than one way for them to get what they want.. and this is the easisest for them and the wrost for us and our rights.
everyday moving onto a sailboat and just live sailing sounds more and more like a reality for me..
Re:Oh, that's just great! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, that's just great! (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, that's just great! (Score:5, Insightful)
This does not actually follow, or at best is a mis-stated point...
The GPL is an attempt at copyright-jitsu. It is perhaps an attempt to use copyright laws, which you may or may not agree with, but which you have to live with until they change, to undo some or all of the percieved ill effects of said laws.
So, it may actually boil down to this for some:
"I don't respect copyright laws, but if you want me to respect your copyrights, you need to respect the GPL..."
(I am not trying to accurately portray my personal take in the above.)
all the best,
drew
http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page [packet-in.org]
Re:Oh, that's just great! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't believe this is the case at all, copyright law has been extended and abused by corporations in ways that in no way should be tolerated by any sane society. But because most people are uneducated and are not very tech savvy/overloaded with other issues that absorb their time. Corporations get away with murder in giving themselves special privledges to endlessly protect 'copyrighted works', when's the last time something became public domain?
Next is the issue of NON SCARCITY, in the age of the internet 'consumer socialism' is quite possible because of the non-scarcity.
We use laws and scarcity based economic systems only because of scarcity, when non-scarcity occurs the society reacts with old outmoded ways of thinking (scarciy based thinking).
If food somehow became non-scarce tomorrow and as easily acquired as digital goods, we'd see anyone who tried to protect their special hold over it a dictator. The funny part is we don't see these corporations as political entities they really are.
There is no economy that is not political, all transactions are political transactions, whether one is aware of it or not.
Re:Oh, that's just great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry but good software is scarce. How many really good Operating systems are out there? Not that many. How many programs as good as Photoshop, Autocad, or even Office?
Dang few.
The talent and work to make programs of that quality is scarce. Yes once they are made it is easy to reproduce them. But the same is true about books and has been true about books for around 200 years!
This load of dung is simply a want for free stuff that others work hard to make.
IF you don't like copyrighted works like movies, books, and software then.
a Don't use them EVER.
b Create your own and release them under Creative Commons, GPL, or the BDSL.
But don't go around and justify taking away the right of authors.
If I write a program I have just as much right to sell it for $1000 dollars a copy and not allow you to make copies of it as I do two write a program and release it under the GPL.
So cut out this subterfuge. You think because it is easy to copy that you have a right to free stuff no matter what.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are thousands of variants of Homer's Iliad alone (as each translator/transcriber added his own alterations). In fact we do not even know that Homer was the one who wrote it originally.
Given that he was very possibly just an embellisher of a previous text, that would make him a crook, no? Also you exposed yourself as a complete liar, which destroys your credibility on other issues, by
Re:Oh, that's just great! (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no bright line (Score:3, Interesting)
This is trying to restrict distributing copyrighted material. This had nothing to do with free speech.
When one criticizes a copyrighted work, how can anybody who is not one of the nine Supreme Court justices tell where free speech ends and copyright infringement begins? Apart from the obvious cases, there is a gray area where whoever can spend more on legal representation wins.
If you want people to respect the GPL then you must respect copyright law in general.
If there were no copyright, there would be less need for copyleft because it would become lawful to disassemble proprietary software, comment it heavily, and throw it on Usenet.
Re:Oh, that's just great! (Score:5, Insightful)
The word "respecting" is such a weasel word, so let's be clear. Conforming with laws doesn't mean agreeing with them. I conform to many laws that I, nevertheless, oppose and want to abolish. Furthermore, copyright law isn't an all-or-nothing proposition; I agree with limited copyright and strong fair use. I certainly do not agree with current copyright terms or fair use restrictions.
So, it is completely consistent to insist that people conform to the GPL as long as current copyright law is in effect, and yet strongly oppose ACTA. In fact, licenses like the GPL are designed to basically make copyright law irrelevant by creating an ever larger body of content to which these draconian restrictions that lawmakers dream up do not apply, precisely because the license itself preserves the freedoms that lawmakers are trying to take away.
And it looks like it's working. With more and more fine tuning of these licenses, big media companies may increasingly find themselves in a situation where they simply can't use the content they want to use because if they do, they have to give up their onerous restrictions on their own content.
This is trying to restrict distributing copyrighted material. This had nothing to do with free speech.
It has a lot to do with free speech, since one of the many things that are bad about current copyright law is that it's being used to restrict free speech.
If you want to say that you think GW Bush likes to have tea parties with stuffed animals nobody is going to stop you.
I can perhaps say that, but GWB might use ACTA and copyright law to keep me from presenting the actual footage proving my case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is trying to restrict distributing copyrighted material. This had nothing to do with free speech.
Actually, there is an important relationship here between copyright and free speech. There is one argument out there stating that current copyright laws are incompatible with democracy and free speech. Democracy, which relies heavily on free speech to function properly, requires that citizens be able to have private communication between each other, free to say whatever they want. However, to fully enforce copyright law as it is now, all communications must be monitored and searched for possible infringe
Re:Oh, that's just great! (Score:5, Insightful)
This very site you are on, Slashdot, has been forced by the Church of Scientology to remove comments because the CoS has draconian copyright laws at its disposal. The Church also forced Google to remove sites critical of it from its index, again with copyright law.
Not to mention the fact that sometimes copying is necessary to make a point. That's one of the reasons fair use exists, yet it is constantly being eroded. Point out defects in a book by providing an excerpt and currently fair use will protect you. Do the same for a DVD, and you've tripped over the DMCA because you bypassed copy control encryption to obtain the excerpt.
The boundary between copyright and freedom of speech is a lot more blurred than you seem to think.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want people to respect the law against speeding in a school zone, then you must respect the authority of the traffic patrol to stop your vehicle at any time, disassemble it checking for contraband, and leave it in pieces on the side of the road.
If you respect any use of the law, in other words, you must accept a total authoritarian state. We must have laws to preserve our freedom; therefore we must not have freedom.
And you wonder why world hates U.S. (Score:3, Informative)
thats why world hates you. nothing else.
Re:And you wonder why world hates U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sadly, the democrats voted are are of the same coin, just a different side. They are equally worthless.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not good. That's not good at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck this!
Re:That's not good. That's not good at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
Time for Tea? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Time for Tea? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When do we head to Boston and Ctrl-Alt-Delete this out-of-control government?
You get a chance every two, four or six years, depending upon who you're looking at.
Now, if you keep voting for (D) or (R) and expect things to be different, you're clinically insane! Both of those parties are for bigger government, just differ on which parts to make bigger.
Between the two of them, both sides are getting the big government they want, while bemoaning the big government they don't want. Convenient.
Want to make a difference? Send a statement you don't like who is running. I don't like BHO any
Do it for the children of Terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do it for the children of Terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
The media is not going to raise awareness of a bill that benefits the media. No one will know about this except people who go out of their way to care, if you try and bring it up, most people won't want to hear it, etc. Maybe, if you're really lucky, you'll get called a "conspiracy nut," like when people try and raise awareness of plans for the "North American Union" and things like that.
Sad thing is, most people don't give a shit and don't want to hear anything that makes them feel more discomfort than they can reasonably handle based on the limits which they have received from the programming received from TV and school.
Finally (Score:4, Funny)
Well done! (Score:5, Interesting)
Too little, too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, one international agreement does not make enforcement any easier. Millions of people just in northern europe have come to accept torrent downloading etc. as an everyday thing; international agreement or not, no country is going to toss even one percent of their population in jail for something that was not previously a crime. Not to mention actually catching and prosecuting etc. those people... matter of scale, really.
Also, trade agreements such as these don't have the power to override national legislation. Even if the EU signs and ratifies this, it will only be at the level of the EU -- i.e. they can pass a directive which EU member nations are perfectly free to implement as laxly as they please. Remember, the EU is not a federation. Not to mention how this would meet rather stiff resistance in the euro parliament, members of which have lately been strongly turning pro-privacy and pro-free culture.
Prohibition (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too little, too late (Score:4, Insightful)
Yar.
As for the pirate defamation, well. The international pro-piracy movement has done pretty well changing the image. Everyone up here either warezes or has friends who do: they know that these people aren't in fact "supporting terrorism" any more than the guy who grows pot in his walk-in closet does. Several countries have MPs who've come out, saying that there is nothing wrong with warezing.
Please don't permit the mass media to draw thick wool over your eyes. They'll tell you otherwise, but your own eyes and ears and yeah, even your genuine conscience are valid sources of knowledge with regard to the world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every politician is frightened of the possibility that the non-voting 40% suddenly becomes angry enough to vote, and vote for some other party.
As for the hippie defamation, well. The international pro-marijuana movement has done pretty well changing the image. Everyone up here either smokes or has friends who do: they know that these people aren't in fact "supporting communism" any more than the guy who grows petunias
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Broad (Score:3, Insightful)
Government stupidity . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Government stupidity . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you also noticed a trend in growing numbers with each new technology adoption.
Because of this I can't see the **AA, associated industries and local/non-us counterparts adopting it widespread until the next tech move comes along which will no doubt help them bounce back from slowing sales trends.
While at the same time they're lobbying the governments to restrict P2P, tighten up copyright laws and and generally make it difficult for anybody involved. Isn't this counterproductive?
Surely they should be encouraging new services, new ways of distributing and using content to get the ball rolling - then jump in afterwards after they've seen different techniques tried & tested and use their financial might, industry and marketing experience?
Oh sorry, what have I been smoking, I'm obviously not thinking like an estoric PHB.
Open Source Planning (Score:3, Interesting)
I propose that the service will have to:
liars (Score:5, Interesting)
These people are dishonest even in naming their legislation. This is the "Anti-Copying Trade Agreement", or perhaps more aptly, the "Anti Fair-Use Trade Agreement".
Pirate Bay Killler? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really?
Maybe instead of protecting us private media interest we could start protecting private citizen interest; a la leave us the hell alone. There have been few bigger wastes of time this decade.
Too much power (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it, if piracy is as rampant as the content industry claims, then it necessarily follows that the vast majority of citizens do not want such draconian laws protecting copyrights. Why should corporations, who cannot even vote, have more rights to create laws than the citizens governments are supposed to protect?!
The WTO (Score:3, Insightful)
It usurps a countries sovereignty and will force the entire world down to the 'lowest common denominator' in all things, not just the veil of 'commercial trade' that the treaty hides behind.
If we keep pushing this, it will come back to bite us in the end as another country will demand the same thing, and negate our laws.
One Word. (Score:3, Insightful)
Antigua.
Considering how even the WTO considers the US is way out of line, and the US refuses to make the reparations, or hold it's end up of the 'fair rules of trade', Antigua currently has a lot of leeway to act as a hub for this kind of thing. And if the US wants to make a trade treaty that'll stick, first they have to open up a lot of markets to Antigua that'll cost billions.
So, this bill gets put live, and every site suddenly stops paying their local ISPs and relocates to Antigua inside 24 hours.
Net result, no difference to the file sharing, loss of money to US/EU ISPs, and Antigua gets better investment in it's infrastructure.
The usual "big stick" the US uses to bully people into submission on this (the WTO) won't bat an eyelid about Antigua doing this.
Antigua (Score:4, Interesting)
Shutting down pirate bay is NOT the intent! (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, as many here have pointed out, there are a huge number of reasons this won't work. However, the MEANS by which it is supposed to work, that is the tools it places in the hands of the government, will have been put into law. This is how every anti-terrorism bill has failed to prevent terrorism, but has succeeded in reducing civil liberties.
Furthermore, by signing an international agreement they can then pressure other signing countries to limit freedoms of _their_ citizens, and also use that as a stick against non-signing countries. ("Your policy doesn't match international standards--fix it, or we'll all have to impose sanctions.")
Pirate Bay, wikileaks, any of these 'undesirable' sites are merely (a) the excuse, and (b) collateral damage.
The numbers are not in their favor... (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering how many people worldwide are involved not just in the actual downloading/uploading of such material, but also the number of folks involved in indexing P2P, writing software for same, and creating and marketing those "online privacy tools," if they are going to criminalize such activity, I hope this treaty makes provisions to allocate funds for a whoooole lotta new prisons.
That's why this is a quixotic fight. When you have so many people involved in an "illegal" activity, any attempt to enforce laws against it becomes a lost cause. But then, such logic has yet to mitigate the "War on Drugs"(TM) -- yeah, how's that working out for everyone? They'll make a few high-profile busts of Pirate Bay-ish sites here and there (and those will probably just relocate their servers to a country that is not a party to the treaty), and maybe hit a few random private citizens to try and throw a scare into everyone, but most file sharing will go merrily on, unimpeded. What's that quote about insanity consisting of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you strike me down now, (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, wait, bad analogy since he really just became a ghost that didn't seem to be able to do much besides spouting motivational speeches.
But it sounds good in this context.
The anti-circumvention part (Score:5, Interesting)