Secret Copyright Treaty Leaks. It's Bad. Very Bad. 775
Jamie found a Boing Boing story that will probably get your blood to at least a simmer. It says "The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to 'national security' concerns, has leaked. It's bad." You can read the original leaked document or the summary. If passed, the internet will never be the same. Thank goodness it's hidden from public scrutiny for National Security.
So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jamie found a Boing Boing story that will probably get your blood to at least a simmer.
Well maybe Jamie should read yesterday's Slashdot [slashdot.org].
I would just like to point out that everyone is getting their information from a single point: Michael Geist's blog. Granted, he's rarely wrong but blogs are blogs. So where is this "leaked document" that the summary alludes to? Every source I find online points back to Geist. Even the articles Geist cites at the bottom of his blog point back to him. Even Wikipedia points back to him [wikipedia.org]. I'm not saying that he's wrong nor am I trying to deflate the severity of this but Geist is even relying on other sources:
Sources say that the draft text, modeled on the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement, focuses on following five issues...
Then following that even he says:
If accurate ...
Doesn't leave me a whole lot of confidence that we're getting all the unadulterated facts here. I would seek information better than third or fourth hand accounts of something before I went around screaming about the sky falling (trust me, I speak from experience [slashdot.org] of being fooled by a single blog post).
Secret Copyright Treaty Leaks. It's Bad. Very Bad.
So where is the leaked document so that I may judge for myself?
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question here should be where's the original document and why is the Administration hiding behind 'National security' to avoid releasing it. I've had enough of that over the previous 8 years. Change!
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This proves one thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I voted for Nader.
In 2000.
In Florida.
My bad.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Re:This proves one thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I for one am extremely happy with the actions of Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
Their ever-increasingly central control via government of private citizens' lives, homes, and communications will make it MUCH easier for me. I and my brownshirts will be able to sweep-in to the Congress, declare emergency powers, turn-off the communication networks, and consolidate power with ease. Thank you Bill, George and Barak.
Signed,
Napoleon the X
Re:This proves one thing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This proves one thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This proves one thing (Score:5, Funny)
*I* voted for Osama bin Laden. Sure, he would put me to the sword, but at least he wouldn't raise my taxes!
Re:This proves one thing (Score:5, Funny)
I voted for Kodos.
.
Re:This proves one thing (Score:5, Interesting)
No, this is the same people / same industry lobbyists / same secretive, greed-crazed financial companies who control our health insurance *already*.
If we had a system of publically accountable, transparent entities running health insurance (as we do with health *care*, thank you very much the hospitals are mostly fine,) then it would be crazy to propose a federal takeover. But the groups presently running the insurance scam in this country are the same financial institutions responsible for all the worst excesses of the commerce department.
Re:This proves one thing (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting that you're voted Offtopic while the post that went offtopic was your parent. You are spreading misinformation, but it ought to be corrected instead of simply modded down.
The NPR program This American Life recently had two episodes (391 and 392, found here [thisamericanlife.org]) on the health care system, and the problems with it are just not as simple as the Democrats or the Republicans are making them out to be.
For one thing, the hospitals are most certainly *not* fine. A big part of the insurance problem is that companies who serve a large area population use that influence to negotiate really low service rates with hospitals in their area. The hospitals want that customer base, so rather than standing firm at a reasonably profitable price, they lower prices for the big insurance company and jack up prices for the same procedures when dealing with smaller companies. The example given in the show was of one hospital in CA which charged one company $1600 for a procedure, and charged another $11,000.
There's a lot more where that came from in the shows. I highly recommend them to everyone who wants to open his mouth to talk about health care. Everyone knows it's broken, but too many people are looking solely at the broken parts their party claims will fix the whole thing.
Re:This proves one thing (Score:4, Funny)
Foo?
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Informative)
The whole point is that there are precious few details about any of ACTA because nobody outside of the governments involved, their lawyers and a few high-paying lobby groups have been allowed to see any of its contents.
*Everything* about it is hearsay until either someone succeeds in getting an FOI request honoured or the thing gets ratified and it's too late to do anything about it.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Insightful)
But Obama was to have the most open government in the history of humanity. WTF happened??
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama is a politician. This is what professional politicians do.
I doubt we'll ever see another Cincinnatus.
As Douglas Adams wisely told us, no one who wants to be president should ever be allowed to become the president.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Insightful)
As Douglas Adams wisely told us, no one who wants to be president should ever be allowed to become the president.
That was actually Plato, in "The Republic" (written almost 2,400 years ago!).
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Insightful)
An "Honest" professional politician can't exist.
If they are honest, they won't be a professional politician.
If they are professional, they won't be a honest politician.
Honesty means they are either admitting they are the pawns of their paymasters, which means the public won't be voting for them (even though it's a given for politicians, they just aren't supposed to be open about it), or they are admitting they won't be the pawns of lobbyists, which means they won't have enough money to win against the guy that does dance to the lobbyists' tune.
Honest politicians tend to be one shots. If they get in, they soon find they can't get anything done since the regular politicians don't want the upstart rocking the boat and either make him completely ineffectual so he won't be re-elected or they turn him to their style of politics so he's not a problem anymore.
And those lizards, they've come up with quite the scheme to be sure one of them always gets elected...
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Informative)
Here, read this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ [politifact.com]
Thanks
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a complete picture, but it's actually worse than the GP said, not better. The U.S. actually has a trade deficit, which means that we have more money going out to other countries than we have coming in. Therefore, in effect, every dollar that goes to American businesses came out of the pockets of the general public. That's not perfectly precise, but that's the net effect. (Plus we're giving a little bit beyond that to foreign companies.)
Thus, it's entirely correct to divide dollars of debt by the number of American households to give a debt per household figure. The only way that would be wrong would be if we had a positive trade balance such that other countries were helping to pay off that national debt. As long as we have a trade deficit, we're paying for it, and whether we pay for it directly through our own taxes or in the form of higher prices for goods and services caused by business taxes, the net result is the same. We're paying for it. All of it.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:4, Insightful)
George Washington wasn't really a politician.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is: do we let this sort of secrecy become a precedent? If this thing passes, no matter what it actually says, it will be used to justify the next attempt.
Informed public is the cornerstone to maintaining democracy, don't let it slip away. (By public I don't mean the redneck sitting in front of the TV drinking beer, but the experts who can at least comment on the proposal and its effects before it's too late.)
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Insightful)
Government + a few high paid lobby groups?
Really. ANYONE should be able to put 2 and 2 together here.
This stuff should be a surprise to NO ONE.
Really, what did you think they were doing? Of course this is why they were hiding from public view.
The "national security" consideration is that there are some countries (France) that still riot in the streets over this sort of stuff.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole point is that there are precious few details about any of ACTA because nobody outside of the governments involved, their lawyers and a few high-paying lobby groups have been allowed to see any of its contents.
*Everything* about it is hearsay until either someone succeeds in getting an FOI request honoured or the thing gets ratified and it's too late to do anything about it.
There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own. If you don't believe me, just ask the government to show it to you and prove me wrong. Tell all your friends.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own. If you don't believe me, just ask the government to show it to you and prove me wrong. Tell all your friends.
Secrecy cuts two ways. If they want to keep it a secret because it benefits their agenda to do so, then I don't have a problem with rumours like that being passed around because it benefits everybody else's agenda. A couple of good rumours like that may be what it takes to make this treaty dead on arrival.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own.
No, that's not true.
The section you mentioned allows them to confiscate all your possessions if they suspect there might have been a single infringing item on any electronic device you own.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, if you're less than 40 [slashdot.org], you were born with it.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the *internet* wasn't born until January 1, 1981 when the IP protocol took-over, and it was first opened-up to non-military or non-academics.
But even then most people never heard of it until the Killer Application called Mosaic was released to Amigas, Macs, and PCs, and people first discovered the world wide web. Then suddenly everyone wanted to get online.
So we're really talking about 1994 to the present, or fifteen years. People 15 or younger don't remember a time when the web never existed. People 15 and up probably do.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Funny)
I use the internet outside, you insensitive clod!
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, if all else fails, we can make this thing sound so horrible that any politician that touches it would be publicly shamed. They can't prove us wrong unless they publicize the details of the treaty... ...
I read part of the treaty, and the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" will allow American children extradited to Japan if they watch an animated Japanese video!
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd say 95% of the population can't be made to listen to a 90-second dinner party discussion of ACTA, IP laws, and internet freedom. How do you expect to whip significant numbers of people into an indignant frenzy?
The government(s) know they have a yawner on their hands here, and they can operate behind a cloak of indifference. Don't make the mistake of assuming prevailing opinion on a technology discussion board mirrors prevailing opinion in the population at large.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell them this will shut down FaceBook?
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:4, Funny)
Don't worry, I'll start up a protest group called "Don't Shut Down Facebook!" and try to get a million people to join it. I'm sure that will help a lot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If those in power won't tell us the truth we should assume the worst very loudly.
Then later when they come back and say "Look it's not as bad as all that, we're just going to put a harmless chip in everyone's head at birth to monitor their multimedia consumption." at least we'll know.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:4, Insightful)
That didn't work for us with the DMCA. I think we lack the clout.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Insightful)
That there is no due process. If you neighbor is angry at you they can make a claim and have your internet shut off.
What are the provisions for false claims? I suspect much closer to none than some.
Call the newspapers. Call the TV stations. Lay out exactly how trivial it will be to have their internet shutoff. The ISPs aren't going to follow up or verify these letters. They'll pull the switch, grab the immunity, and let you deal with your problem at that point.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:4, Informative)
If you are interested in "that democracy stuff", you'd know that all treaties have to be ratified by Congress before they take effect.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The president can sign all the treaties he wants, but he can't force Congress to enact legislation to enforce it all."
Or even force the Senate to ratify it. Until it's ratified by the Senate, by 2/3 vote, a treaty has no legal standing in the United States. Thus, you only need to get 34 Senators to vote against ratification to prevent a treaty from coming into effect.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or even force the Senate to ratify it. Until it's ratified by the Senate, by 2/3 vote, a treaty has no legal standing in the United States. Thus, you only need to get 34 Senators to vote against ratification to prevent a treaty from coming into effect.
Don't count on MAFIAA to forget to pay off that many senators.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Insightful)
So where is this "leaked document" that the summary alludes to?
To quote from Geist's blog:
selected groups granted access under strict non-disclosure agreements and other countries (including Canada) given physical, watermarked copies designed to guard against leaks.
I hope that answers your question. Unless you want to out the person leaking this document, he can't ever publish a photocopy of it as it will be traced back to him. And if you think such deception is beyond our autocrats, read up on this [wikipedia.org] and this [wikipedia.org]
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't know why this was modded funny, since that's the actual concern. As for circumvention: just rewrite it using your own language.
--e.g.--
I'm not sure as to why this was modded funny as this is precisely the concern. Circumventing it would be as simple as rewriting it in your own words.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:5, Insightful)
What you and several other posters are missing is, TFS says specifically "you can read the original leaked document". Those words are a link, even. But to what do they link? The blog -- which oddly enough is not "the original linked document".
When someone promises something and doesn't deliver, I instantly stop trusting them.
Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not much of a legal document if they're all a little different
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even drafts (for distribution) are legal documents - they all have to be exactly the same. How else could you sign off on it if everyone has a different copy?
Copyright (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Copyright (Score:5, Funny)
No, it's money vs. the serfs. Didn't you get the memo?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, they won't give us the memo, they say it's a matter of "national security" and that we should just trust them.
Re:Copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line.
But it better work this time...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. We the people, in order to create a more perfect union...starting with those who have money. once perfected, we will implement this system in a few test markets, and, if it goes well, it will go "live" shortly afterward.
So what's new? (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't know why everyone acts so surprised that this administration has carried on with the exact same Intellectual property and "national security" policies of the previous one. Democrats are just as much in the pockets of Hollywood as conservatives are in the pockets of big business (meaning BOTH support oppressive IP legislation). And Obama loves his presidential power just as much as Cheney did. So why anyone ever expected things to somehow be different with this administration, I don't understand. Cheney may not have been right about many things, but he was pretty much dead on when he predicted that Obama would keep most of Bush's national security policies in place (the same ones he criticized during the campaign) once he got a taste of that power for himself.
It also doesn't surprise me that they're using a treaty to quietly push this crap through. They did the exact same thing with the DMCA. A lot of people don't realize that the DMCA was just the formal ratification of a WIPO treaty [wikipedia.org] that had been debated and agreed to in secret. The powers that be know this shit would never stand the light of day with the electorate, so they quietly push it through with the kind of obscure international treaties that they know CNN, NBC, et. al. are never going to cover. By the time it actually makes it into Congress, it's already a fait accompli. The mainstream media only notices it when someone's already being prosecuted for violating it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheney may not have been right about many things, but he was pretty much dead on when he predicted that Obama would keep most of Bush's national security policies in place
USA doesn't have presidents. They have president-like spokespersons.
Maybe Obama wanted genuinely to change some things, maybe he didn't, or maybe both. It's irrelevant, since his power is only on paper. You can't make a different choice, when you're given only the same options.
It's a really nice PR stunt, though, works fine for most people. It'll work again in 3 years.
Re:So what's new? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what's new? (Score:5, Informative)
The mainstream media only notices it when someone's already being prosecuted for violating it.
I agreed completely until this statement. Mainstream media isn't that oblivious- they simply don't have YOUR best interests at heart.
I'm sure most news networks themselves do notice it, but their parent companies are the very entities lobbying/pushing for more legislation. CNN = Time Warner, NBC = Vivendi Universal, FoxNews = News Corp, ABC = Disney, etc... These news companies (either through affiliates or parent corps) own most of our music, movies, TV shows, and other media, so it's only natural for them to protect their interests by trying to distract us from the draconian laws they're currently pushing through the governments of the world.
Sadly, it seems that blogs and independent news are our only hope.
Re:So what's new? (Score:4, Insightful)
WIPO should be WIPOed out. Its members are all traitors to their respective counties and should be lined up against a wall somewhere ane shot. In the groin. Before spending the rest of their lives in prison.
WIPO is pure unadulterated evil, the spawn of Satan.
Why is this meeting secret? Or rather, why do the respective citizens of its member states allow it to be secret? The world has returned to feudalism, it seems. Personally, I will continue to respect copyright -- under the old pre-20th century, constitutionally legal copyright laws. I won't download new music, but I have no qualms about downloading twenty year old music. Lessig was right and SCOTUS was wrong. When SCOTUS said that "limited time" meant whatever Congress says it means, they effectively said the Constitution is meaningless.
I still don't know why everyone acts so surprised that this administration has carried on with the exact same Intellectual property and "national security" policies of the previous one.
The Governor of California stated on "This Week" that "there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats". Refreshingly honest, for a politician.
Re:So what's new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what's new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes! Bob Lassiter (radio commentator in 80's-90's) went on and on about how all the regular cultural divisive stuff (gun, abortion, etc) was just used to keep the electorate distracted while the rich consolidated their kleptocratic hold on the world. The rich (the real rich, that you don't really hear about) don't care what y'all think about such things, as long as the little folks keep toiling away producing money for them.
There's no left-right axis to anything. That's just an artificial gauge set up in the French revolution as a way of targeting folks for 'wealth transfer'.
Secret laws aren't legal... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
at least here. I don't know in the US, but here in Brazil (and I guess in most countries) it is simply impossible to have a "law" or treaty be secret and have any legal value. Of course, given enough money, these laws might be approved anyway, public scrutiny and all, and that is the sad part.
Well, the really scary part is that treaties via treaty supersede all national laws... so once approved they are almost impossible to change or nullify
Re:Secret laws aren't legal... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just further proof (Score:5, Informative)
Dreadful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dreadful. (Score:4, Insightful)
Musicians should move to live performances to make money and accept that they shouldn't be millionaires for 1 album.
Very, very few musicians get rich no matter how talented they are. They should learn to realise that. If you love music, become a musician. If you love money, become a thief.
The next war. (Score:4, Insightful)
We should call this the War on MP3s. It will be about as effective as the War on Drugs.
Looks like /. may be on the same side as ISPs... (Score:5, Insightful)
for once.
From TFA: "That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material." ISPs will be fighting this one pretty hard. There's no way they want to invest their resources to trying to patrol the internet. It's not their job, it's likely illegal and it's expensive.
I do, in fact, think that copyright holders have every right to defend their legal rights but they absolutely must not step on the rights of others in so doing. Take-downs without due process, ISPs acting as police and blanket anti-DRM-violation rules are all measures that stomp on the rights and freedoms of the public. This treaty will infuriate everyone other than the content producers and I think will spark some lobbying from groups that haven't previously been seen on the side of openness.
The general public (that means a broader public than /.) must become aware of the issues here. Most people simply aren't concerned with IP law even if it should concern them. That said, a threat to YouTube or Facebook or Twitter will spark a response. Here's what I propose: start a group that issues indiscriminate take-down notices of all sorts of media. If there is no punishment for frivolous DMCA notices then there's no risk. Start pissing people off, the service providers that have to deal with the requests and the content producers. Piss people off until legislation to prevent such action comes in, then we've own.
How can you be convicted of breaking a secret law? (Score:5, Interesting)
This sounds tongue-in-cheek, but is really a serious question. On one hand, you have the notion of ignorance is no excuse although there are precedents now stating if you're famous, that's okay. There are precedents for secret treatises for national security, like the withdrawal of missiles from Turkey at the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis. But how would the mechanics of enforcement work?
Will the FBI kick in your door, shoot your dog, and haul you off for breaking a secret law?
Would they need a secret warrant?
If you ever got your day in court, would that court be secret too, to protect that law?
----
Now for Canada: A judge last year tossed out a RIAA style copyright suit because the defendant had made CDs. As everyone knows, Canada has a special tax on blank media to reimburse the copyright holders for piracy that may or may not happen. Kind of like paying a partial speeding ticket before you get into your car each day. Since this implies guilt, the defendant was deemed to have been punished already, and was so exempt from being convicted again.
How would the secret treaty work in Canada? Change the laws secretly?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
What Do We Know? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of what we have seen so far on this is second hand, conjecture, etc. The "leaked document" in this case doesn't seem to exist -- it looks like Michael Geist's blog entry is what is being referenced. I think it is reasonable to suppose that the blog entry may be accurate, but we don't really know that it is.
So what do we know? What conclusions can we draw from the information we have?
1. It is called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The word "counterfeiting" in there seems like an important data point.
2. It has been quashed by citing national security. National security has certainly become an extraordinarily loose standard, but it still means something.
3. Lots of copyright bigwigs have signed the NDA.
4. Three Google representatives have signed the NDA. (not sure what that contributes to this post, but I think it is worth noting)
5. The Obama administration has appointed a number of high ranking RIAA lawyers to the DoJ. I think that they are prohibited from being involved in official court duties related to copyright issues for two years from leaving the industry.
Item 5 leads me to wonder what those lawyers would be up to if they can't participate in actual proceedings. It seems reasonable to hypothesize that they might be working on ACTA, and combined with item 3 above makes me tend to think that the conjecture that ACTA is related to copyright is true. Yet its title mentions "counterfeiting."
For years the government has referred to selling fake packaged copies of Windows 95 as counterfeit, which seems fair enough. They are an attempt to pass something off as the genuine article, to deceive the recipient into believing it is the real thing. This is a particularly dangerous thing with money, where the term "counterfeit" is most commonly used, because it devalues the currency. It is also a problem with things like software, in part because the person buying it cannot be confident that they are getting the real product.
In short, the reason "counterfeit" is worse than mere copyright infringement is because its misrepresentation as the genuine article has extra costs to society. It is on this basis that investigation and punishment of counterfeit products is a more serious issue than of copyright infringement alone.
So, that makes me wonder: Is the ACTA about what has traditionally been defined as counterfeit, or might it be about redefining all copyright infringement as counterfeiting? If so, it might make the national security issue make sense; counterfeiting is somewhat reasonably considered a national security issue. So if copyright infringement is redefined to be counterfeiting, then all copyright infringement would become, by a wave of a magic wand, a national security issue and would activate sections of the law created to deal with the more serious problem of traditional counterfeiting.
Heck, if you were sufficiently twisted, you could even think that because this will classify a whole new swath of people as counterfeiters, and because counterfeiting is a national security issue, that disclosing the reclassification of copyright infringement would "tip our hand" to the people who are soon to be defined as counterfeiters. And we wouldn't want to disrupt these enemies of the state before we get a chance to classify their actions as hostile to the state.
How do we PREVENT this? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care about the reasons for keeping this from us, nor whether the current administration is the same as the old, or more (or less) truthful than the old one.
I care about how to prevent this. What can I do? Are senators and representatives in on this? How can I make an argument about this, over the phone to some staffer, which doesn't make me sounds like a lunatic, or someone who's only upset that they can't torrent the latest movies? What concerns can I highlight which will motivate OTHER people to contact their representatives? How can I pitch this in such a way that my representative will be inclined to listen to my reasoning?
I don't mind calling my reps, I just have no idea what the hell to say.
Re:I warned you all (Score:5, Funny)
You all laughed at me
Yes...yes we did.
Re:Devils avocate... (Score:4, Insightful)
It will supposedly mandate 3-strike disconnection laws in all signatory countries without any reasonable standard of evidence because any ISP who *fails* to disconnect you will become legally liable for anything you may have done.
I call that a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What you call "property" was nothing of the sort a couple of short centuries ago.
It was typically a sort of monopoly granted by the King.
If anything "intellectual property" is the exact opposite of what Enlightenment sorts thing of as property such as personal posessions and real property.
Real property never "expires" and is subject to seizure due to abandonment.
Re:What do ISP's have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's cheaper for the entertainment industry than doing it themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They want the ISP's (the ones that are giving us the Internet connections) to block the content that we should not be seeing (whether it's for copyright or puritan reasons). Right now the liability lies with the content provider but the problem is that most of the content is hosted outside the jurisdiction of any of the lobbyist companies.
That's why it's such a bad treaty, because it would basically create an international agreement for copyright infringements and censorship with the RIAA, MPAA and it's fri
Re:What are the chances of this being adopted? (Score:5, Funny)
Priceless.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are people (the decision makers) taking this seriously? It reads like something from The Onion...
Even if agreed upon as a treaty, will it hold up in any courts?
Ratified treaties are the highest form of governance second only to the Constitution itself. In other words, if a treaty provisions don't violate the Constitution, we are stuck with them. The treaties can't be undone. The Congress and President are force to pass legislation to enable the terms of the treaty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if agreed upon as a treaty, will it hold up in any courts?
The United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."
So, Yeah. If the President and two thirds of the Senate pass the treaty, than it is the Law of the Land.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The thing with US Federal law though is that treaties override constitutional laws.
Well, then it's a good thing the OP was talking about Canada. Here in Canada, treaties are not law, and domestic law must be amended to fall in line with treaties. (citation [pwgsc.gc.ca]). As such, in Canada, treaties have no legal force until domestic laws are implemented, and those laws are subject to the usual restrictions imposed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . (Score:5, Interesting)
"I'm agreeing with most of the intent, and certainly all of the purpose. Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former."
Sorry. You are a minority. A corporate drone without creativity and/or life. Please, move along. Don't let the door hit you.
And yes, I'm a corporate owner with intellectual property to protect. No, I do not support neither software patents (even though I hold some), nor this treaty. My software is sold as a service and as a product, I do lose some sales due to pirates (not much, really). But I would rather lose more sales than lose more freedoms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd certainly say you're supporting software patents by holding some. The alternative is obviously to fight them having not protected yourself. But I'm no corporate drone, I own the corporations. They run my way.
I'm not worried about someone pirating my software -- that just won't happen. I'm worried about someone benefitting from my work, and to a lesser extent, my being liable for what they do with it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"I'd certainly say you're supporting software patents by holding some. The alternative is obviously to fight them having not protected yourself."
That's the theory. But in practice having a defensive patent helps. I'd happily burn my patent when/if software patents become invalid. I also won't use it offensively.
"I'm worried about someone benefitting from my work, and to a lesser extent, my being liable for what they do with it."
??? I'm writing software with the sole purpose that its users will benefit from
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an attitude thing.
There are people like yourself who feel you should be able to produce something and continue to profit off freely/easily replicated copies of that effectively meaning you can over time make a fair bit of money for relatively little work.
Then there are those who realise that strong copyright isn't needed, they are the ones who accept that people should work for a living, they're the ones who produce IP as a service- musicians who perform, programmers who write bespoke software and so o
Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there are plenty of people who have filed to run their business as a corporation. You arent a 'corporate owner', that phrase drips with sanctimonious self-importance. I certainly hope you hire a lawyer very quickly to handle your copyright, as you obviously have zero idea what copryright law actually is.
When 'your friends' create a mix from someone elses music, or use video clips for school work, they are NOT violating copyright. If your friends took someone elses creation, did nothing, and then made a million copies of it to sell for profit, THEN they are violating copyright.
Seriously, get a lawyer. If you proceed in your misinformed thoughts you are going to find yourself on the receiving end of whats called a 'declaratory judgment' from someone who your all-encompassing ego sent a threat of copyright litigation.
How do I know this? Well some self-important ass clown tried to send me a cease and desist letter claiming copyright infringement [demystify.info]. So instead of backing down, I hit back harder and filed for a declaratory judgment against them. They obviously lost, as their understanding of copyright is about as accurate as yours. When you dont have any idea what the law is, you better not be making legal threats against people, or spending your time looking for people who you suspect of violating something based on your own inaccurate understanding of the subject.
If you ever crossed paths with me with that BS in public, I would hang you out to dry in the court system so fast, you wouldn't know what hit you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your wants are no more important than other people's wants. Especially when your wants are short-sighted, selfish, and lead to a stalled society.
Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . (Score:4, Informative)
Id gladly make a genetic clone of my dog and give you the copy to do whatever you want to do with it.
Thats YOUR freedom... get it?
Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . (Score:5, Informative)
I don't want my friends to take my songs and mix them. I'm fully aware that it's legal today.
Look, that makes you a jackass. Worse, you're a profiteering jackass. You care that your friends remix your songs? Some friend you are... Honestly, I'm surprised you have any. With that attitude, I'd be ashamed to know you.
Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . (Score:4, Interesting)
I create intellectual property as well. Every day. Furthermore, I work in a small enough company that copyright is a critical issue. And you know what we found? We can't afford to pay every single idiot who thinks that what they created is so special and unique it cannot be put into the public for 75 years after they die. What do we do? We use stuff licensed under BSD, GPL or CC terms. And we're able to create far more stuff than if we'd have to pay someone like you because it just so happens that what we create might be close to what you created.
What you're doing is nothing more than locking up existing content and ideas. Because if you think that what you create is unique - you're deluding yourself.
Re:OH NOES (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't think they'd be any different. I just knew the alternative was even worse.
The only shocker to me is that it's gotten to the point where I can't hate politicians and large multinational corporations enough. Like there's not enough vitriolic words and energy contained within the human brains and body to express adequately what monumental bastards they are. They're fucking blights on society. They're massive drag on the intellectual and economic progress of a country. They are the arch-enemy of freedom and free expression. They are absolutely opposed to anything that advances the state of the average man that doesn't grant a pile of money to the elite in the process.
Fuck these people and institutions. To quote Joe Pesci in Casino: "Don't fuck me in the ass and tell me it's a blowjob!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you kidding me? Bush was a gold mine for the comedic industry!