Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Government Canada The Courts United States

ACTA Internet Chapter Leaked — Bad For Everyone 410

roju writes "Cory Doctorow is reporting on a leaked copy of the 'internet enforcement' portion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. He describes it as reading like a 'DMCA-plus' with provisions for third-party liability, digital locks, and 'a duty to technology firms to shut down infringement where they have "actual knowledge" that such is taking place.' For example, this could mean legal responsibility shifting to Apple for customers copying mp3s onto their iPods." Adds an anonymous reader, "Michael Geist points out that the leaks demonstrate that ACTA would create a Global DMCA and move toward a three-strikes-and-you're-out system. While the US has claimed that ACTA won't establish a mandatory three strikes system, it specifically uses three-strikes as its model."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ACTA Internet Chapter Leaked — Bad For Everyone

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21, 2010 @06:44PM (#31222878)

    This is a much bigger threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could be.

    • by clang_jangle ( 975789 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @06:50PM (#31222926) Journal
      Indeed. Surely some people must be thinking it's getting to close to time to create some drones of our own to take out the corporatocracy. Not me of course, but "some people".
      • by BountyX ( 1227176 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @06:56PM (#31222986)
        Too late already done. [hackaday.com]
        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:27PM (#31223312)
          Friend, it ain't done until corporations are no longer entities with rights superior to those of human citizens. And it probably will take a real, old-fashioned insurgency such as our forefathers performed.

          Remember, it's not terrorism if it's by the people, of the people, for the people!
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by hairyfeet ( 841228 )

            Welcome to the United Snakes [youtube.com] home of the thief, only the thief is the mega corps stealing all our rights and leaving only the "freedom" to work for ever shittier wages while they try to find ways to offshore your job or bring in scabs so they can give themselves gold plated toilets.

            Everyone said those survival nuts gearing up like it is fixing to be WW3 were just crazy, they don't look so crazy now, with that slippery slope turning into a roller coaster going straight down and your only choices being "Ri

            • by garg0yle ( 208225 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @11:57PM (#31225572) Journal

              Now that thanks to SCOTUS foreign corps and nationals can just openly buy any politician they want I expect the slide to be even quicker.

              If it were that easy to buy public opinion, we'd all be drinking New Coke.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by scruffy ( 29773 )

                Now that thanks to SCOTUS foreign corps and nationals can just openly buy any politician they want I expect the slide to be even quicker.

                If it were that easy to buy public opinion, we'd all be drinking New Coke.

                But a lot of people do seem to be drinking Bud Light.

      • Concerning (Score:4, Interesting)

        by symbolset ( 646467 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @10:17PM (#31224758) Journal
        I'm actually kind of concerned that there's a shadowy group of corporate advocates purporting to be agents of US policy negotiating international treaties which must remain a secret from the citizens of the respective countries, and the practice is getting serious play in the halls of large governments. I'm not the tinfoil hat type usually, but there's something about this that makes me slightly uneasy.
      • by Tuoqui ( 1091447 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @10:40PM (#31224904) Journal

        You'd be able to help out best by joining your local Pirate Party.

        Pirate Party Canada [pirateparty.ca]
        Pirate Party International [pp-international.net] - Find your own country's here.

        • by GaryPatterson ( 852699 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @11:29PM (#31225360)

          Whilst the motives of the pirate party are generally okay, they're all but a gauranteed failure due to their ridiculous name and single focus. Few voters will put a tick next to "Pirate Party" on their ballot form, just from the name alone.

          It'd be infinitely better to get real political parties onboard with the ideas than play around with joke parties that will never have the power to implement their ideas. Sadly many nations are stuck in faux democracy two party politics where voters get to choose the lesser of two very similar evils.

          Failing that, at least change the name to appeal to the more general population. Something like "Reform Party." Something that isn't trivial to twist in the voters minds. Something that's not setting the party up to be easily demonised into irrelevance.

          It's up with "The Gimp" for 'worst name ever' award. It's hard to think of a worse name for a political party, although rural canola producers one day might come up with the "Farmers for Rape" party. I live in hope.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        They are trying (and getting away) with this crap so they can pull disgustingly immoral tricks like Disney is doing. I saw the most sickening book yesterday:

        "Disney's Alice in Wonderland", based on the movie by Tim Burton and the screenplay by whomeverthefuck. No mention of Caroll whatsoever. This is your new future. I hope you've never been too fond of Eurasia...

    • by causality ( 777677 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:02PM (#31223034)

      This is a much bigger threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could be.

      I wish I could attribute the saying, but here is how I've heard it said: If your law requires a police state to enforce, then your law is a bad law.

      The very fact that these meetings were held in secret was a dead giveaway that nothing in our interests is going on in there.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      But it's far less personally dangerous. Most people are not killed by the *AA nor by DMCA or ACTA. People ARE killed by terrorists (and war, etc). Thus it is most definitely a more personally dangerous threat.

      And most people care more immediately about their personal welfare than their freedom, if it comes down to it.... I think.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Wowsers ( 1151731 )

      There's a difference between this ACTA treaty and terrorism? They both aim to control and / or destroy economic activity, and keep control of it in the hands of the few.

      • Both are terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bussdriver ( 620565 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:49PM (#31223984)

        If you can be terrorized and that is their intent then they are terrorists. You do not have to be killed for it to be terrorism.

        A team of industry lawyers taking you for everything you have, your time, possibly your freedom and now even more criminal law. They want to make examples and terrorize their customers. "Hired guns" now wear suits but the phrase lives on for a reason.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by skine ( 1524819 )

          If you can be terrorized and that is their intent then they are terrorists. You do not have to be killed for it to be terrorism.

          Furthermore, the point of terrorism is that terrorists don't have the means to directly attack everyone, but instead have the means to directly attack anyone.

    • by Larryish ( 1215510 ) <<larryish> <at> <gmail.com>> on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:39PM (#31223900)

      If this looks like it will actually come to pass, stock up on ChiPods. As many as you can buy, buy them. When new hardware _requires_ DRM and locked-down transfer channels, those things will be golden.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      This is a much bigger threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could be.

      Worse than that, it could actually cause some terrorism. Wanna snipe around some MPAA or RIAA parking lots?

  • What's good for the *AA is good for us, right?
    • Here is the letter I sent via regulations.gov:

      BTW, here was my comment submitted to the USTR regarding the treaty.

      RE: 2010 Special 301 Review
      Docket Number USTR-2010-0003

      Jennifer Choe Groves
      Senior Director for Intellectual Property and
      Innovation and Chair of the Special 301 Committee
      Office of the United States Trade Representative
      600 17th Street NW
      Washington, DC 20508
      Filed electronically via Regulations.gov

      Dear Ms. Groves:

      I am a software engineer and developer here in the US. I own copyrights to a number of software programs and published papers, some jointly with corporations or other natural persons. I have also authored two ebooks which are distributed online and one printed book which is available through major retailers. Software I produce is distributed world-wide.

      I am deeply concerned about the rush towards greater liability for neutral service providers where copyright infringement is alleged. Holders of copyrights (including myself) should not be able to make end-runs around our traditional system of legal protections by threatening third parties into shutting off services which may be vital for conducting lawful business. This is especially dangerous where very fact-centric elements of copyright and trademark infringement accusations may need to be adjudicated by courts. These cases can occur where questions of fair use or derivation occur.

      Thus I am concerned that the rush towards greater protection and greater third party liability will become a sword of Damocles hanging not only over the head of the average citizen but most especially over the head of the copyright holder. After all, if a set of mere accusations is enough to insist that material be taken down or internet access denied, then those who produce copyright-worthy materials will be the most exposed.

      Instead, balance is needed, and consumer protections must be a major part of the equation. These consumer protections don't just protect consumers against rights-holders. They protect rights holders against unfair competition, and they protect innovators against entrenched market interests.

      Instead of dictating how foreign countries should make laws ensuring elements well outside the traditional boundaries of copyright law (circumvention device control, etc), we should instead be interested in looking at ways to make claims more easily adjudicated when they come up. The emphasis on third-party liability is a major step backwards.

      Please reconsider.

      Chris Travers

  • Tyranny vs Liberty (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Afforess ( 1310263 ) <afforess@gmail.com> on Sunday February 21, 2010 @06:46PM (#31222904) Journal
    A Man much wiser than me once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

    Which is true today?
    • by BradleyUffner ( 103496 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:11PM (#31223130) Homepage

      Which is true today?

      People can't be scared of things they aren't aware of. Most people aren't aware of much the government is doing these days.
      Governments passing laws to control people so much seems to indicate that the government is scared of the people and is trying to regain control.
      Oddly enough it seems we are in the situation of government fearing the people more that the people fearing the government. So that means... We have Liberty?

      • by Spad ( 470073 )

        I think it's more a case of the government being afraid that the people might realise what they're up to and so is trying a pre-emptive strike. It gives "the people" too much credit to claim that they're clued up enough to actually frighten the government; the ludicrous state of US politics should show you that (by which I mean the Democrats being in-fighting pussies incapable of pushing through any legislation even with a super-majority and the Republicans having whipped their supporters into such an anti-

      • by Adrian Lopez ( 2615 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:27PM (#31223310) Homepage

        So that means... We have Liberty?

        If ACTA is anything to go by, it appears there are those who feel we do have [too much] liberty.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DigiShaman ( 671371 )

      I fear the government. That much I know to be true.

    • by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:23PM (#31223256) Journal
      The much wiser man was a complete moron then.

      When government fears the people there is a ineffectual weak populist government that fears making difficult decisions because people collectively are pretty damn stupid. Alas that isn't catchy and doesn't use a clever mechanic of opposites, but alas, reality can't always be handled in a pithy statement.

      Government should respect the people, earn their trust, and work as their loyal servants. Neither side should fear the other.
      • That much wiser man was Thomas Jefferson. Care to revise your moron comment?
      • by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:23PM (#31224302)

        To see this at work, just watch the French. It is the one country in the world where the government is genuinely worried about the population. The French have a habit of instigating work actions that would result here in the National Guard being called in. The French government, not being quite as quick to shoot at its own population (unless they live in the poor suburbs....) is constantly forced to cave to populist demands.

        How is it working out for them? I don't know about you, but Time Magazine recently rated France the best place to live. On the other hand, be ready to plan your vacations around predictable strikes that cripple the nation's transportation system.

        I wouldn't go so far to say that such a government would be weak and ineffectual, but it certainly comes with its own set of challenges.

    • by the_humeister ( 922869 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:25PM (#31223284)

      A Man much wiser than me once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

        Which is true today?

      Depends where you are. In Somalia, it would seem that the government (and everyone else) does indeed fear the people.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Depends where you are. In Somalia, it would seem that the government (and everyone else) does indeed fear the people.

        I think they did that before their government collapsed. Somalia was a hell hole then, and remains so now, although I have heard it reported that, despite this, they have a fairly decent telecom industry for that neck of the woods. Their tribal Xeer law system is also fascinating.

    • Either you are a person of acceptable intelligence, or you make false dichotomies.

      In which category are you?

      (I like your sig BTW)

  • by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @06:47PM (#31222914) Homepage

    Sounds more like "DMCA-minus" than "DMCA-plus", with mines being planted in the DMCA safe harbor.

  • by BlueBoxSW.com ( 745855 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @06:50PM (#31222928) Homepage

    Seriously. You want all the world to abide by an anti-piracy measure and don't include the biggest pirate on the planet?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Gorkamecha ( 948294 )
      Wait, I thought Canadians were the biggest pirates on the planet? (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117939142.html?categoryid=19&cs=1&nid=2570)
    • They don't play baseball?
    • China doesn't seem to be a big player in software or IP in general..at least from what I've seen, I could be wrong. I wouldn't get in on a treaty that doesn't benefit me in the same way it benefits everybody else, which, to me, it seems like China would be getting the raw end of the deal I'd think they'd be entirely rational to ignore the ACTA treaty stuff...whatever it is anyway. That being said, I think countries who bind themselves up in these deals while HUGE countries like China sit it out are really
      • By big player I mean currently and internationally. China most definitely has potential to be as big or bigger than any other player in anything in the world wrt "Intellectual Property"
    • by TheNarrator ( 200498 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:32PM (#31223354)

      Because the Chinese don't think Europe and the Anglo-Americans run the world. Seriously, whenever you hear the word "global" or "international" that really means Europe (Specifically the EU leaders), the Anglo Countries (spearheaded by British and American think tanks), any third world countries they can bribe or intimidate into going along with them and NOT China or Russia (and occasionally Brazil and India will opt out too).

  • by Joe The Dragon ( 967727 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @06:58PM (#31223010)

    been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS

    Do like what you market competition is doing just a accused them and watch how they can't do any work any more then they get shut off.

    some get's layed off then to get back they just accused them.

    You make your own art / music and you trun down a deal and they just trun around and accused you

    You give a bad review of a moive / game / any other thing and they just accused you and shut down your web site.

    You say that x is doing a bad job and he shuts you down.

    This like a red light cameras with no court that goes off on yellow and goes off right before you hit the stop line.

  • by jr2k ( 1434921 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @06:59PM (#31223012)
    I think I have posted 1 time since I opened am account here. This issue caused me to find my login /password. This thing scares the shit out of me. Something that is seemingly "all encompassing" treaty for internet use should be out in the public for ridicule. What would be the due process for contacting whomever in government has the power to stop this thing? Or do we have no option? I am generally apathetic about internet policy because I have FIOS, but this treaty has changed my outlook.
    • by geminidomino ( 614729 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:06PM (#31223080) Journal

      What would be the due process for contacting whomever in government has the power to stop this thing? Or do we have no option?

      We have no option. You know how, when talking about annoying/abusive advertising practices, people love to say "you're not the customer, you're the product?"

      Welcome to reality: the government views you exactly the same way.

    • by slashqwerty ( 1099091 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:51PM (#31224002)
      In the United States a treaty has to be signed by the President and approved by two thirds of the Senate. So you can:
      1. Convince the President not to sign it (he has been pushing for this treaty and has to sign it in order to repay his very favorable media coverage during the election).
      2. Convince 34 senators to vote against it (they will be crucified by the media if they do so). They will likely need to vote against it every year until the deadline runs out.
      3. Convince two thirds of the states to hold a constitutional convention to fix copyright law. Hope they come up a with a fair constitutional amendment. Then convince three fourths of the states to ratify it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hurricane78 ( 562437 )

      Well, you can do many things.

      You can get the word out. (But beware to not act or sound like a crazy or raging person. They have to want to listen to you!)
      If you are relatively skilled in PR / politics / marketing / psychology / social engineering / etc, you can create a critical mass of people agreeing with you. They will then take care of things... the hard way. ;)

      Or you can go guerillia (= the best war strategy for minorities) and create a virus that lands on ACTA creator/supporter computers/sites, has a

  • I'm reminded of the beautiful phrase: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ..." Too bad this sort of response is no longer a realistic alternative.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It's in your interest that the rich become richer. After all, doesnt it trickle down?

      I'm still waiting for that top 1% to release the cash on us poor 99%ers

      Oh wait, they're just going to lock us up for pirating things they sell that we cant afford, because they refuse to pay us a humane living wage and provide us a country of fair laws that represents the interest of its people....

      we are so fucked.

      Its the kind of shit that makes you want to fly planes into buildings... but then they label you as "crazy" rat

  • That the powers that be do not care one bit about the cattle... er consumer.

    If this goes into effect with any really weight, I'd say it's time for some good old fashion protest vis-à-vis an all you can eat pirating fest across the globe. Start mailing your grabbed goods on disk to MAFIAA members, pols, etc.

    We're inching closer to a point where something has to give in this system. I say nerds unite. The internet was built on the backs of our nerd fore-bearers. Time for the nerds of today to stand up an

  • by syousef ( 465911 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:11PM (#31223132) Journal

    Can't think of anything that fits with the definition of treason better than a system that passes laws that the citizens aren't permitted to know. That immediately removes the incentive for being law abiding since you can't know if you're breaking the law. Anyone enacting or enforcing such laws should be covered by treason laws.

    Can't think of anything more terrifying than threatening to take away a person's ability to communicate, possibly their livelihood without having to PROOVE a crime in court. Enacting such laws is the very definition of terrorism. Where's the anti-terrorism legislation now?

  • Why dont we really curb piracy and close the internet all together.

    If this bullshit becomes a reality, it will destroy our economy and technological progress. Think about it.... think really hard about that.

  • Until it gets ratified by the Senate (for us US folk). Write your senators, get the word out, take care of business. If the entire thing stinks to high heaven, the politicians just need to be convinced by their constituents that it's important enough to be shot down.
  • by mudshark ( 19714 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:25PM (#31223294)
    People have been using the postal service to commit fraud for decades, but even repeat offenders are not banned from sending or receiving mail. And when was the last time you heard of someone getting kicked off the telephone network? Just because the medium has evolved, the right of people to have access to common means of communication does not change.
  • Canadian solution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jvillain ( 546827 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:28PM (#31223316)

    For me the proper solution to the piracy concerns from the US is to stop the import of all movies, music, tv shows and any thing else they are so worried about people stealing at the border. If other countries did it as well then production would move from the US to other locations. Problem solved they wouldn't have to worry about people stealing their content any more. I swear, I try not to hate Americans, but when they start demanding that we abandon our laws and customs and adopt theirs I just loose it. How long till the next secret treaty is about making every one, every where abandon their gun control laws because that is how it is in the US?

  • by headkase ( 533448 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:28PM (#31223320)
    If this goes through here's what I'm going to do: make suggestions wherever there is a receptive venue to restore a functioning public domain. If regulation such as this actually does go through and all those pipes (heheh) are suddenly sitting there underutilized, well, they need something else to fill them back up! Starting with restoring a sane public domain would be a poetic way to accomplish this! Say everything 20 years and older is the target to be public domain. So, any movie, music, book, and software from 1990 and back right now. ISP's who would suddenly be looking at a drought of demand for their infrastructure would probably be receptive to such a proposal. Mom and Pop who suddenly found they couldn't download the latest pop song would also probably be receptive to the idea at least out of a sense of revenge. Seriously if it's going to be class warfare then throw a little corporate warfare into the mix: pit ISP's against content industries. At the very least I could be a little smug. And if it doesn't work, get all your friends and family to move to the really cheap ISP plan which is all they'll actually and reasonably need in this new corporate dawn. ISP's are the ones set to lose the biggest in this, all the more reason to give them ideas as much as possible.
  • Keep dreaming *AA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sqrt(2) ( 786011 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:33PM (#31223368) Journal

    Lofty goals. This isn't enforceable, legally or practically. Three strikes and you get kicked off the internet? How? Will I have a chip in my arm that keeps my router from working? Even if they were somehow able to blacklist me from every ISP how would they stop me from using freely available Wifi? How will they shut down Freenet? How will they stop me from burning CDs and just handing it to my friend?

    This isn't going to change anything.

    • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:19PM (#31224274)

      Lofty goals. This isn't enforceable, legally or practically. Three strikes and you get kicked off the internet? How? Will I have a chip in my arm that keeps my router from working? Even if they were somehow able to blacklist me from every ISP how would they stop me from using freely available Wifi? How will they shut down Freenet? How will they stop me from burning CDs and just handing it to my friend?

      This isn't going to change anything.

      (In my best Morpheus impression when speaking to Neo during training). What makes you think these laws have anything to do with enforcement? You think they care about what numbers they change on this Internet?

      Remember NO law is ever suggested without it ultimately meaning money and/or power to someone.

  • Law vs law? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:50PM (#31223520) Homepage Journal
    This implies no privacy, as whoever that provides us connectivity with others (ISPs, cell/line phone companies, postal service, web services like email/chat/voice/webcams/etc) as could held liable for what their customers do, that must follow all we do using their services. And privacy is an human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, plus probably most governments constitutions. Will that be enough to stop them or we will not have human rights?

    It makes the worse totalitarian governments in the world in history look like the land of the free.
  • So now you know!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by noz ( 253073 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:04PM (#31223622)

    Keeping it secret is a matter of national security when the nation is controlled by private interests.

  • The Furture (Score:5, Funny)

    by BountyX ( 1227176 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:28PM (#31223824)
    *some time in the near furture*

    Due to ACTA, everyone now listens to CC music, watches youtube, and uses only GPL software. Copyright is considered a very large liability by companies and people. All of Microsoft's servers have been shut down due to ACTA accusations made by GPL developers. Microsoft uses thepiratebay (which is still online) to distribute copies of the new Windows 10. These copies are infected with a malicious software that downloads bootleg Disney movies and reports the end-user to Disney for affliate revenue. The malicious software developer also sues the end-user directly for copyright infridgment. Meanwhile, the RIAA and MPAA are the single source of all remaining pirated musics and movies since they need pirates to survive. They eventually all go to jail for downloading illegal copies of "The Little Mermaid". NewYorkCountryLawyer is now in the Supreme Court trying to overturn ACTA; however, the Supreme Court judges have been replaced by drones provided by the airfoce. NewYorkCountryLawyer uses a legal loop-hole in the constition that allows a EULA to trump every US law ever made. Guns are no longer needed, becuase you can just throw a EULA into someones face demanding they kill themselves. The world finally achieves universal peace.
  • unenforceable (Score:4, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <{circletimessquare} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:44PM (#31223934) Homepage Journal

    seriously, let them pass every goddamn unenforceable law they want

    ten million technologically sophisticated, media hungry and POOR teenagers have them beat, sight unseen. they simply cannot enforce ACTA. seriously. its castles in the sky

    i understand completely the concept of a legal framework to encourage the creation of cultural works via economic incentives

    except what they are talking about goes WAY WAY beyond that concept and extends into the realm of corporate ownership of culture for no purpose that serves the general public in any way whatsoever

    seriously, when

    1. grandchildren of some guy who wrote a song are legally entitled to a cash flow, and
    2. when pseudolegal structures are empowered to intrusively monitor the supposed free exchange of ideas central to a healthy society,

    then the very idea of intellectual property law is philosophically and morally broken, and must simply be ignored and/ or outright actively destroyed by anyone with a moral compass and a passion for the concepts underlying western liberal democracy

    ip law is a parasitical device distribution companies have bought and paid for via legislative interference to somehow validate their existence. distribution companies that have simply been replaced by the internet. they can buy all the fucking laws and all the prostitute legislators and all the legions of corporate legal goons. who fucking cares. unless they actually break the internet to the extent of china and iran, which even their legislative whores would feel uncomfortable about, their entire legal fantasy is an unenforceable joke for some highly motivated teenagers to route around, package as a point and click interface, and give away for free

    technological progress is a bitch. no law can trump it unless you want to stop the very notion of progress itself. so for all of the power of media companies, i simply don't see them powerful enough to crush the foundational concepts of western liberal democracy simply in order to retain their antiquated reason for existence

    death throes of a dinosaur. people should fucking know when they are defeated already. and the entirety of the media industry has most certainly been defeated

    if they won't go peacefully, we'll just kill them. p2p is only the beginning. there are a million more technologically sophisticated methods. dark nets. steganography. obfuscation. protocol impersonation. and best of all: play countries against each other. set up shop in one, jump to the other. always a step ahead of the assholes. who are we? any goddamn poor terenager. there's no structure needed. a simple desire for one's own culture is the only imperative needed to defeat these assholes. let them sniff all they want. it's a pandora's box. a hydra: cut off its head, we grow ten more. they're doomed. let's make sure they fucking know it

    bring it on media corporate assholes. bring all your legal goons and all your bought and paid for legislative puppets and all your paid for tech hacks and all your pseudo corporate governmental entities. we have you beat, and we welcome the fight in the name of the greatest principles of the free exchange of ideas and a free society and simple moral integrity. you're fucked, and your defeat is for the common good

    you can't own our culture. we won't let you. we are simply motivated for the love of music, literature, and cinema. you don't own it. we the people do. fuck off and die. we will burn your toll booths to the ground

    bring it on. bring your worst. we have you beaten, hard

    i spit on you corporate assholes. i relish your comeuppance

  • by CondeZer0 ( 158969 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:20PM (#31224280) Homepage
  • Who leaked? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fyoder ( 857358 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:41PM (#31224474) Homepage Journal

    From the article:

    Someone has uploaded a PDF to a Google Group that is claimed to be the proposal for Internet copyright enforcement that the USA has put forward for ACTA, the secret copyright treaty whose seventh round of negotiations just concluded in Guadalajara, Mexico.

    I wonder who that someone is who leaked it. It could be part of a strategy to scare the crap out of people so that when they come out with something no more than an international DMCA people will breath a sigh of relief instead of getting all up in arms. What they've leaked is so bad as to almost seem not credible.

    From the computerworld.co.nz article: [computerworld.co.nz]

    The chapter on the internet from the draft treaty was shown to the IDG News Service by a source close to people directly involved in the talks, who asked to remain anonymous. Although it was drawn up last October, it is the most recent negotiating text available, according to the source.

    So is this a real leak, or something they want disseminated? /paranoia

Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan