US Plots "Pirate Bay Killer" Trade Agreement

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

[elrous0 (869638)]

Too late. Pass all the laws you like, crack down with all the jackbooted thuggery you can muster. Suspend habeas corpus, declare the 4th amendment null and void, force the royal family to submit to regular body cavity searches, install a camera on every corner, give police orders to use deadly force against downloaders...none of it will make any difference. You can't turn back the clock.

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

[jeiler (1106393)]

You can't turn back the clock.

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

[xpuppykickerx (1290760)]

Normally the people who upload/post leaks aren't afraid of a little lawsuit action. It's the jerk-offs that don't seed after they've downloaded files that fear the RIAA. Let them be gone I say.

Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle

[jeiler (1106393)]

It's the jerk-offs that don't seed after they've downloaded files that fear the RIAA. Let them be gone I say.

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

[ozamosi (615254)]

Actually, it was legal to download here (in Sweden) up until... I think it was July 1, 2005, as long as you didn't upload.

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:Can't put that genie back into the bottle

[WilyCoder (736280)]

"Maybe other individuals will be to scared to continue to download."

Now that's what I call terrorism.

Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle

[ParanoiaBOTS (903635)]

... but if they can hurt enough individuals, maybe other individuals will be to scared to continue to download.

Its scary to me how close this tactic is to the ideal of terrorism

Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle

[Shakrai (717556)]

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.

You realize that when you say it will cost "them" resources you really ought to be saying that it will cost us resources. Where do you think the Government gets it's funding from? I don't particularly relish the thought of my tax dollars being used for these purposes, how about you?

How many thousands of dollars/years in jail because s/he downloaded one movie?

How many thousands of dollars/years in jail because s/he got caught with marijuana?

But most people know they'll never get caught.

Indeed. And that fact hasn't deterred the Government from the 'War on Drugs' either. Maybe this will be different -- I'd guess that there are more downloaders out there than pot smokers -- but I'm not nearly that optimistic.

Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle

[Tom (822)]

Times have changed. No law is going to change that. They're just embarrassing themselves trying.

Except that, like in the "war on drugs" they can ruin thousands upon thousands of lives while they do.

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

[Smidge204 (605297)]

I think it's particularly serious because it will fail. It will just justify a potential snowball of draconian bullshit legislation and heavy-handed enforcement.

=Smidge=

Re:Can't put that genie back into the bottle

[zappepcs (820751)]

There is a small portion of this equation that seems to have been left out. This law seems to be ostensibly aimed at protecting the **AA and associated groups and their business models.

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

[bertilow (218923)]

elrous0 wrote:

is there a single person here who has trouble downloading a pirated song today?

Trouble finding songs I want to download? Absolutely. There are hundres of songs that I'd like to download but can't find anywhere. The torrent sites have a very thin and boring choice of music. Only the most popular stuff is easy to find.

That's not good. That's not good at all.

[Nursie (632944)]

Whilst I can understand and to some extent sympathise with the desire to take down the PyratByran, Wikileaks is in no way part of the same phenomenon. It's a site exposing what we, the great unwashed, are not supposed to know.

Fuck this!

Re:That's not good. That's not good at all.

[Hatta (162192)]

Not just the Pirate Bay. This law could criminalize services like Freenet or TOR, as they can facilitate copyright infringement. Or hell, even google.

Well done!

[LockeOnLogic (723968)]

You just outlawed every search engine!

Too little, too late

[tietokone-olmi (26595)]

The copyright cartels are already broken. Musicians, moviemakers and other participants of creative industries are already exploiting the Internet as a means of distribution. This genie certainly won't go back into the bottle unless another "trade agreement" enacts a system of strong guilds such as that found in Mussolini's Italy.

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.

Government stupidity . . .

[cashman73 (855518)]

First, they killed Napster. So we moved to Limewire. Then we moved to Kazaa. Then, after a bunch of **AA lawsuits, we moved to bittorrent. Now, what in God's name makes them think that we won't move someplace else? They're never going to kill filesharing. What the fracking industry has to do is come up with content that has value and that we actually want to pay for. Piracy will never go away; it's been around in one way, shape, or form since the age of exploration. But, if content is good enough, the majority of people WILL spend money on it. The problem with radio, television, movies, and music today is that they've been feeding us crap since the early 90s, and no one but a select handful of zombies and drones wants to throw their good, hard-earned money at it.

liars

[nguy (1207026)]

"Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement"?

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".

Too much power

[Anita Coney (648748)]

This is exactly the problem with the world today, corporations have way too much power. Even when they lose under the law, they simply create new laws to suit their needs. They never lose. Thus there is no balance between any power citizens may have and corporations have.

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?!

Re:And you wonder why world hates U.S.

[FredFredrickson (1177871)]

They say don't feed the trolls, but.. *sigh* .. it's true.

Re:Time for Tea?

[SaDan (81097)]

Right after you head to Washington D.C. and find them in the right town. ;-)

Re:Oh, that's just great!

[Amouth (879122)]

it isnt' just for the stop downloading copyrighted shit - this can be used and twisted in many diffrent ways..

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!

[zotz (3951)]

"If you want people to respect the GPL then you must respect copyright law in general."

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!

[Shakrai (717556)]

All any influential(i.e. rich) company or person needs to do is state that they have a copyright over something they don't want distributed, and they can stop anything from being put up on the 'net.

That would never happen..... oh wait [slashdot.org]....

Re:Do it for the children of Terrorists

[bsDaemon (87307)]

Most legislation flies through with barely a comment from most people. Unless it is something HUGE that the media can make a sensation out of -- PATRIOT ACT, assault weapons, etc -- there is no coverage except maybe on CSPAN.

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.