MPAA Asks If ACTA Can Be Used To Block Wikileaks 322
An anonymous reader writes "With the entertainment industry already getting laws to block certain sites, it appears they're interested in expanding that even further. The latest is that at a meeting with ACTA negotiators in Mexico, an MPAA representative apparently asked if ACTA rules could be used to force ISPs to block 'dangerous sites' like Wikileaks. It makes you wonder why the MPAA wants to censor Wikileaks (and why it wants to use ACTA to do so). But, the guess is that if it can use Wikileaks as a proxy for including rules to block websites, how long will it be until other 'dangerous' sites, such as Torrent search engines, are included." Note: TechDirt typically has insightful commentary, but make of the original (Spanish) twiiter message what you will.
Did they (Score:2, Interesting)
Did they ask if it could be blocked because they wanted to, or because they think it could mean backslash for using ACTA as a censor tool instead of enforcing copyrights?
Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (Score:5, Insightful)
Did they ask if it could be blocked because they wanted to, or because they think it could mean backslash for using ACTA as a censor tool instead of enforcing copyrights?
I'd imagine the MPAA and government have similar interests in forcing ISPs to block certain websites. The MPAA is probably making a calculated move to suggest they would be the watchdog going after Wikileaks if such a censorship method could also be used to protect their copyrights.
Frankly, it looks like they're trying to show to the government that they have aligned interests. As the TechDirt article notes, the MPAA could merge The Pirate Bay with Wikileaks in the eyes of the government and then from there it's guilt by association. Personally I think this is the MPAA fishing for how extensive they can make ACTA by appealing to the United States government's emotions. Think back to the DMCA and Patriot Acts and how following their passage into law we all sat around scratching our heads wondering WTF was going on with some of the prosecution that was falling under those acts. Wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA ran a campaign saying that passing ACTA into law worldwide will stop terrorists, child porn, small arms traders, drugs, wildfires, Satan, etc.
I'm guessing the MPAA would love to prosecute cases of copyright infringement under the same law (and maybe even penalties) as cases of threats to national security.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was thinking something along the same lines. Proposing that maybe this would be possible.. and if it isn't possible, why not - and how CAN they make it possible? After all, ACTA is being negotiated with quite a few other nations and it would be nice for the U.S. government if they can invoke that agreement to shut down sites within/access to sites from other nations as well; as a side-benefit, all the funny business about piracy would get accepted as well. Like a 'rider' attached to a bill.. except tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're not dealing with stupid people here. Just imagine the thought process: "I want to block Piratebay and other copyright-infringing sites. But the politicians won't cooperate."
- "Well why don't we take advantage of the War on Terror. Instead of asking to block Piratebay, let's ask to block wikileaks and other sites. The politicians, even Øbama, would jump all over that." - "But for what purpose?" - "Once we have the power to shutdown wikileaks, we'll also have the power to shutdown Piratebay,
Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing the MPAA would love to prosecute cases of copyright infringement under the same law (and maybe even penalties) as cases of threats to national security.
Why shouldn't copyright infringement and national security come under the same law? They're both tools for stopping the spread of information built around assumptions that have long ceased to be even half true.
Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (Score:5, Interesting)
I have always had this idea as a car mechanic to create how to videos for popular model vehicles, instead of just vague books, with high-def video cameras and step by step instructions for each task... such as changing out an A/C Compressor, Replacing a bad power steering pump, fixing broken this that and the other thing.... and selling them for a REASONABLE price all across the nation. This would require a decent amount time and money in equipment, time to film, edit produce etc...
Then I realized that some dickhead would probably just take the videos, put them up on Piratebay and I would be left poor and broke after spending a crapload of time and money on this project so I said fuck it.
Hollywood might overcharge and not provide a distribution model that the people agree with, but there are a lot of other legit businesses with honest hard working people that are not getting their honest pay for the work they did. The spread of "information" could be something YOU spent years working on, then you'd be pretty bitter too.
Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I realized that some dickhead would probably just take the videos, put them up on Piratebay and I would be left poor and broke after spending a crapload of time and money on this project so I said fuck it.
I agree completely. This is a reasonably accurate evaluation of the market conditions for video content and a sound business decision based on that evaluation. What I don't understand is why the MPAA members don't seem to do this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are, one way or another, still making a lot of money based on their existing business model. People still go to movie theatres. They still buy the DVD or BR for watching at home. TV networks still pay them to program those movies - especially pay-TV channels, which people pay for to be able to watch those movies on.
GP on the other hand was talking about independent production, and independent distribution. That way GP would not have easy access to the shelves of the retailers (both on- and off-line).
Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (Score:5, Insightful)
Make the videos anyway. If you market it to the right crowd, and it's actually worth it, it will sell.
I don't imagine car mechanics and car enthusiasts are like you average college student, downloading everything in sight. Chances are your target audience would be more than willing to pay a fair price. People who work on cars for a living should be used to the idea of buying materials/manuals, and similarly for people who have the time/money to routinely work on their own cars.
No, not really. (Score:2)
Free is good.
Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (Score:4, Interesting)
Or alternatively, make one or two video's, distribute those, and state you'll make more if you get enough pre-orders. You can then even have users vote on which ones they want first.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know... There is a series of Volkswagen how-to videos that seem to get by pretty well.
http://www.bugmevideo.com/ [bugmevideo.com]
Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I appreciate that you might not want to do that for free. Back in the day, when I ran a BBS, I incurred a lot of hard costs to do so and I did not charge for access, while many of my contemporaies did. I had a P.O. box for registration, which ensured that I at least had a valid address, and many people sent me unsolicited money. I sent it back. My point is, you are under no obligation to undertake a risk that, to you, would be a loss. To many people, giving is enjoyable. At least it was for me.....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then I realized that some dickhead would probably just take the videos, put them up on Piratebay and I would be left poor and broke after spending a crapload of time and money on this project so I said fuck it.
What's a reasonable price to you?
$2 per video on iTunes?
Seriously, there is always the possibility some 'dick' will steal. You can have a mechanic shop, tomorrow or 10 years from now some dick can smash the window and steal things.
The attractiveness of anyone pirating is minimal. As far
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you're overlooking the fact that you're more likely to get ripped off from bigger companies than piracy. For instance, you could go out of your way to make your instructional films, do an excellent job with them, only to find that a large publisher, such as Haynes, would rip your idea and force you out of the marketplace entirely. Your brand is totally unknown while Haynes is well known and respected. You don't really have a fair shot at making it.
Say what you want, but piracy is a market leveling
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I forgot to mention the bigger risk is not BT or TPB.
The bigger risk is someone else sees you selling videos, and sees how they sell (if you are successful), and gets the idea about doing the same thing, to compete with you, since you don't have a robust competitive advantage -- many mechanics would be capable of making those sorts of videos.
People would not necessarily buy from you just because you are first -- you would have to differentiate your product, you would have to be better, which is extre
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hollywood might overcharge and not provide a distribution model that the people agree with, but there are a lot of other legit businesses with honest hard working people that are not getting their honest pay for the work they did. The spread of "information" could be something YOU spent years working on, then you'd be pretty bitter too.
You said it yourself, the MPAA and RIAA are simply not interested in getting a fair amount for their work, they are interested in greater than fair returns (such is the stigma of capitalism). Furthermore, since the volume of works from those represented by the MPAA and RIAA dwarf the small number of "legit" people you describe, and the MPAA and RIAA are not interested in "legit" people's rights, you pretty much have a non-argument.
Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous troll much. Mechanics video, somebody will do it for free http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=change+oil+filter&aq=f [youtube.com], http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=change+transmission+fluid&aq=0 [youtube.com], http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+to+change+differential&aq=7m [youtube.com], etc etc etc.
Don't you people know when you are being trolled by a marketdroid dickhead.
PS it ain't stealing and it never will be, it is copying, the mechanics knowledge wasn't stolen, it wasn't vacuumed from their head, they are not wandering around the landscape sprouting nonsense like some zombie marketdroid.
Of course the MPAA and the pigoploists given the opportunity will not just demand copyright protection of the video of changing the oil filter but also the idea of creating a video about changing an oil filter and even a licence fee from anyone who ever changes an oil filter because they might have seen the video or spoken to someone who has seen the video.
The problem is the continual extension of copyright, its duration, scope, power, criminal penalties, invasion of privacy and control of the public. It is even worse, copyright has led to the direct corruption of the whole political process, as a result of it largely being run by psychopaths with narcissists as their puppet front people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have a question:
What is more important, the complete enforcement of copyright, or making money?
If people people copy your stuff far and wide, but still pay for it often enough for it to make a profit, isn't that better than not releasing and not earning any money at all? Because no matter how much piracy there is, there are still people who pay. You shouldn't think about how many will pirate, but about how many will pay.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be a bitch. Those are the exact same conclusions he came to, and that's exactly what he did.
Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference between not wanting to pay for tables, and not wanting tables. I would imagine that, were GP to do what he says, a lot of people would find it quite useful. But quite a few of those people would figure that they don't really need to pay for it, under the usual excuse of "well, I wouldn't buy it otherwise, anyway". Which is bullshit, because the mere availability of the free option already affects one's reasoning for the "buy / don't buy decision", even if subconsciously.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People forget that prosecuting innocent computer-less grandmothers for piracy isn't the MPAA's only claim to fame. Their ratings board has a long history of using it's weight to bully film makers around, and is for all intents and purposes a censorship tool that has been used in very heavy handed political ways. They may not be government, but they're made of people with the same sort of mindset.
I'm sure they actually oppose wikileaks for many of the same reason that the US government does, and are not do
Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (Score:4, Interesting)
The origins of the rating system were a desperate (yet successful) attempt to prevent the federal government from instituting its own rating system. The Hays Code dealt with the spread of local laws, and would eventually be replaced by Jack Valenti's letter-based rating system that provided film-makers with much more freedom in how to craft and tell the story.
Kind of amusing, I think, that an organization was once so desperate to keep government out of its business and now runs crying to the government to help it preserve the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, historically it is two completely different realms of law. Copyright is civil law -- conflating it with national security is a he'll of a bad idea.
Commercial interests can't drive national security issues, or we will go to war with whoever is pirating the most videos.
They don't belong in the same law.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA ran a campaign saying that passing ACTA into law worldwide will stop terrorists, child porn, small arms traders, drugs, wildfires, Satan, etc.
It's probably the wildfire stopping that will be the most effective part of that. The others you'd be prepared for. Wildfires though comes out of the blue and catches you off guard and before you can catch your breath, you've already signed the bill in your own blood.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
enforcing copyright is censorship, there's no "instead". Copyright: Party C wants to stop party A passing information to party B. Censorship : Party G wants to stop party A passing information to party B.
They're the same thing, justified differently. It's all just 1s and 0s folks, you can't enforce copyright and have a free society. It's impossible.
Re:Did they (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok. Now Party A is your doctor/hospital worker, Party B is a data mining company, and the information is your personal health files.
By your definition, it's censorship too, right? It's all just 1s and 0s?
People have rights over certain data, and protecting them isn't censorship. If authors should have rights over their creations - even at the expense of others' rights - is another matter.
Re: (Score:2)
There's some differences between individual contract or trust and a statutory requirement for everyone, but there's also a lot of overlap:
1. Violations put people in court either way. If someone violates a contract with you, you will usually have to turn to the courts to resolve your differences just as often as if they violate a statute. The court will more frequently be on solid ground in settling a case based on someone violating a statutory requirement. If the first few cases have been resolved decently
OK, lets get a rating system for websites. (Score:3, Interesting)
How about... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't that they are unpopular the problem is to the public the MPAA is unknown. Most people don't know of or why they should care about the MPAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I wish to alter the code, repackage it, then redistribute it. Then, by virtue of requiring me to meet various conditions, it limits my rights. There exist other licenses which grant all of the GPL's but come with no restrictions on further use, such licenses are, in absolute terms, "more free". I do not believe that "more free" is synonymous with "better", or with "worse" for that matter, but it is important to keep our terms straight if we're going to argue semantics.
Re:Did they (Score:5, Informative)
Ultimately the GPL is designed to protect the rights of end users. The freedom to modify programs they use, and the freedom to use them as they wish.
You're correct that there are more "free" licenses out there, but they're only more "free" if you're the developer. With a BSD or other similar license, there is no guarantee that the program will continue to give the end users any freedoms that the repackager had.
Re:Did they (Score:5, Insightful)
OS-X may be based on BSD code, it's now closed-source and highly protected. You may not redistribute it, even though a lot of it is based on BSD coded. Those parts may be redistributable, however that will not result in a working system. And forget about having a look at the source code.
So a lot of freedom has been lost: the freedom to look at the source, the freedom to modify the software, the freedom to distribute it.
Otoh look at Android: this system is based on the GPLed Linux kernel. Therefore the Android kernel is still GPLed which means you can get the source code for the Android kernel, and that you can redistribute it. No freedom has been lost there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you have missed the point. OS X contains some stuff based on BSD code and some stuff that was developed in-house at NeXT or Apple. You may distribute all of Darwin, which includes some Apple extensions to BSD code. This does, contrary to your claim, result in a working system. You can take the code from Darwin, modify your kernel, libc, or any of a number of other libraries or programs (e.g. libdispatch, Launchd), and then replace the ones that were included with OS X with your modified version.
You
Web censorship at its best (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you for a moment believe that isn't really the US government asking, using MAFIAA as a mouthpiece, you live in a happier world ...
Re:Web censorship at its best (Score:5, Insightful)
If you for a moment believe that isn't really the US government asking, using MAFIAA as a mouthpiece, you live in a happier world ...
The US government isn't using the MPAA as a mouth piece, the MPAA wants to use/abuse this power and will turn around to ask other governments around the world, US included, to help them get what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong about that.
The US government has been actively using Hollywood as mouthpiece since at least the glorious days of WWII propaganda. The war for "hearts and minds" is not from yesterday.
The enthusiasm with which the government has been embracing MAFIAA lawyer ideas for increased surveillance, control and enforcement suggest a deeper interest than lobby money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, no, I don't think the US government is using the MPAA as a mouthpiece. What I DO think is that the MPAA came up with the idea, and the US government is going "Fuck, why didn't WE think of that? Give them another couple hundred million."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hate to tell you but the US gov really doesn't want to shut down wikileaks like this.
Wikileaks doesn't really matter. Most people have never seen or heard of them.
This is the MPAA trying to expand ACTA.
It will fail but the MPAA figures if you don't ask you will not get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Web censorship at its best (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is the biggest load of bullshit yet. The idea of copyright is to give artists a protected environment in which to profit, and then ultimately, it RETURNS to the public domain .
If it is produced by the government, then it was always the public domain to begin with. Slimy situations like transit authorities trying to claim they "own" the schedules is beyond ridicule and proceeds to outright abuse and tyranny.
All of the laws that are being negotiated, international treaties, etc. BELONG TO THE PEOPLE. Copyrighted my ass.
I would sooner by into national security, but even in those cases the information should eventually be declassified. ACTA under national security? Nothing could have been more ludicrous and I am sincerely impressed that even politicians could have said that with a straight face.
Ever notice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ever notice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shhh. Most people think freedom of speech is there to protect what they agree with.
Re:Ever notice... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is worse, they've come up with a very neat way to do it - it is called "international agreements".
The ideas that would be opposed at home get floated at the IFPI, WPO, WTO, etc. Then a number of small, spineless or otherwise dependent countries are made to support those. Then the idea is re-branded as "the international consensus". Then it is heavily marketed and accepted by the European Commission and the US whatever representative, who work hard to sell it to the respective national legislatures.
Then it becomes a binding treaty, and is fast tracked at the various national legislatures, usually sweetened with some pork. Job done, consumer raped again.
International cooperation at its best.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The constitution says
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
While international agreements puts legislative powers in unelected bureaucrats.
While I understand the point of things like the UN (to prevent something like WWII from happening again) it, along with all the other international organizations have defrauded the
Wrong fraudster fingered (Score:5, Insightful)
While I mostly agree with you, I think you lay the blame at the wrong feet.
The UN itself has done no such thing. The ones defrauding the US public of their constitutionally guaranteed rights are the elected representatives in the US government, and by extension their financial masters (a.k.a. "donors"), using the UN and other international groups as cover to get what they want. Though given the state of voting in the US (black-box hackable e-voting machines [blackboxvoting.org], gerrymandering [google.com], overly large constituencies [thirty-thousand.org], etc. etc.), the term "elected" might not hold much meaning here.
Cheers,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time I checked, international agreements on their own did not carry the force of law within a sovereign country. Unless a treaty is ratified or subsequent law is passed by the legislature, I don't see how a government could prosecute anyone unless they already have the power discussed in the agreement. Look at the E.U.--when they decide on a policy, their member nations each pass laws that comply with the EU policy, but aren't necessarily dictated by the EU itself. If they don't, there may be conseq
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume that ACTA won't be given the consent of Congress? Did you miss the fact that the DMCA passed with unanimous support of the Senate and virtually no opposition in the House when it was passed?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except that the President is endowed with the power under Article 2 section 2 to make treaties which according to Article 6 are the "supreme Law of the Land." You can't just quote the parts you like and ignore the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
consider that the ACTA talks where initiated by, among others, USA, because the WIPO started becoming to open to non-commercial representatives (EFF and others).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Keep doing it. If enough people continually push the douschers out of office, perhaps they will get the message. Send them welcoming letters. Make them feel the recession (thats supposedly over). In reality, businesses swept off all the excess cream and just went with lower quality, cheaper wages, and cut benefits, and offshoring and no
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree opposition is important, it is too bad the economics of this plan works against you and me.
The outcome of ACTA across the economies of the participating states will be, of course, a huge cumulative loss of what the economists call "consumer surplus" (which is, simply put, the difference between price in a free, competitive market that in a market, restricted by monopoly or regulation).
The problem is the structure of that cost. While huge to the whole economy, to the average consumer it doesn't
Re:Ever notice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever notice how governments actively seek to forbid citizens from actually -using- their rights?
In spite of the name, "rights" is a game of subtraction, not addition. A person not under the domain of any government or any other higher power has no restrictions on their actions at all. Government and law add new restrictions (do not kill, do not steal).
The Bill of Rights and all related articles are there as a desperate attempt to stop this from getting out of hand, explicitly for those times when it seems like going down that slippery slope seems appropriate. It was never adding anything, because it was never capable of adding anything. People knew it was necessary to include it because they knew times like these would happen.
It's up to us as a country to make sure we don't disappoint the wonderfully insightful gentlemen who included those provisions as part of the nation's Constitution by allowing them to fade on our watch.
Re:Ever notice... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's up to us as a country to make sure we don't disappoint the wonderfully insightful gentlemen who included those provisions as part of the nation's Constitution by allowing them to fade on our watch.
Actually many of the founders were against the Bill of Rights on the grounds that they saw that it could be used by some future generation to try to deny rights to the people because they weren't explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights. This perversion that they foresaw has been shown to be true in such examples as how right-wingers try to claim there is no right to privacy since it isn't explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Re: (Score:2)
I was not aware the right to privacy was an inherent right, if the government was not here to grant it to you, anyone can come along and spy on you all they want.
Re: (Score:2)
"I was not aware the right to life was an inherent right, if the government was not here to grant it to you, anyone can come along and stab you all they want."
See what I did there?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Story worthy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Link to a blog which links to another blog which links to a twitter post: [twitter.com]
Pide MPAA en junta de #ACTA que en mexico sea posible cortar acceso/pais a sitios "tan dañinos" como wikileaks. Neto: WTF!
Amazing what's become of journalism in the era of blogging.
Anyway, it sounds like a good tactic on the part of the MPAA as they're trying to sell ACTA to various governments.
"Hey, if you pass ACTA, you may be able to use it to block Wikileaks too!"
hey MPAA (Score:5, Funny)
I can think of two reasons... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can think of at least two reasons:
1) Wikileaks has leaked details of draft ACTA proposals, and these have somewhat politically embarassing to the politicians who are doing MAFIAA's work.
2) MAFIAA hates it when people singing songs with lyrics like "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" and they really hate that funky sequel that begins with "6692d179032205".
Re:I can think of two reasons... (Score:5, Insightful)
3) The US government has figured out that people are so accustomed to the MPAA buying laws, they put them up to it so it could slip under the radar.
The MPAA gets the stuff they wanted in ACTA. The government gets carte blanche.
While I don't really believe that the US government is behind this, they do actually gain more from this than the MPAA does. I think more plausibly, the MPAA is trying to use this as a wedge so they can shut down anything which infringes on information they would like to retain control of or how to circumvent copyright -- such information gets effectively equated with sedition or somesuch.
Either way, the outcome of ACTA allowing for the shutting down of web sites "because we want to" basically means that the world is now fucked, and all signatories to ACTA are enforcement arms for multi-national companies ... with the US wielding a stick over everybody else.
This awful treaty is going to propel us into a future ran even more by corporations, and they keep adding more shit to it every time there's a leak.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many left wingers would have made a deal about "BUSH/CHENEY" if this was 4 years ago? How many right wingers are going to claim this is a Obama thing?
Libertarians realize that it doesn't really matter (D or R), government is too powerful now, and need to be reigned in. It doesn't matter "who" is in power, they abuse it. And it doesn't matter what the reason is (save the children,environment,rights,minority,tatas), there is always a nefarious outcome.
Liberty is not just for select few, it is for all. Eit
Re:I can think of two reasons... (Score:5, Interesting)
Libertarians believe that by completely dismantling government we will live in this wonderful utopia without regulation and we can all be happy capitalists and thrive in harmony, and be free to shoot anyone who threatened that harmony.
While I agree that government needs to be reigned in, I don't see removing a lot of the good things that governments accomplish as the right thing.
Weakening the 1st Amendment, and strengthening the ability of government (and corporations) to censor does move us towards tyranny, that much is true. I definitely agree with you. However, I disagree that:
Yes, government does abuse their power, but saying we should stop trying to accomplish the goals of education and an overall. "Libertarians" would dismantle a lot of these things on the basis that it's onerous to individual freedoms and that they should be able to opt out of helping to pay for society. Boo hoo. Without these things, we'd all be friggin' eating one another in 6 months.
What needs to happen is stronger controls on how government does its job -- and I sure as hell don't claim to have an answer to this. However, human nature and history has shown time and time again that people try to consolidate power, and aren't above retroactively deciding they want to change how things work and want to undo change. Heck, that's exactly what the Taliban did.
Libertarianism has some interesting ideas, but it wouldn't solve any of these problems any better than modern economics does at really understanding how the economy works -- it's based on perfect models in ideal circumstances, and assumes that everyone else will all magically play by the same rules. It's grossly incomplete, and assumes way too much; and neither wrap things up quite so neatly as people believe.
And, in closing ... we're all screwed, now get off my damned lawn. *grumble* *grumble* Damned kids. :-P
--END RANT
Re: (Score:2)
Because the US Gov't is interested in WikiLeaks (Score:5, Insightful)
The MPAA (probably) isn't asking about WikiLeaks for its own interest -- it's asking because it wants the US government on board, and the US government is far more concerned about WikiLeaks than movie pirates.
This is a lesson to all you slashdotters about how to lobby - convince people that you have the solution to their problem. (If it solves your problem, great!)
Or maybe Wikileaks has their hands on certain (Score:3, Interesting)
ledgers and might just dump those as well.
Re:Because the US Gov't is interested in WikiLeaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, maybe they're thinking ahead to the day when an insider leaks some "creative accounting" ledgers. :)
Re: (Score:2)
It's official, then: WikiLeaks is the new child porn.
You must be so proud, Mr Assange!
MPAA wants to write its laws in secrecy (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't so much a move against Wikileaks as a sharing site like TPB, but instead a move against anyone who might expose the collusion between **AA and their government lackeys.
That Wikileaks might reveal things like ACTA ahead of time, allowing users to mobilize support against them, makes Wikileaks very "dangerous" to the **AA's goal of complete control.
Re:MPAA wants to write its laws in secrecy (Score:5, Informative)
What are you talking about, the **AA is GOVERNMENT now. Let me refresh you memory:
Source Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So why do the **AAs seem to want this? They don't have SWAT teams, highly trained well armed investigators, or special laws protecting their 'agents' in the line of duty, after all. Why help the government in a law enforcement role, if that makes you look like just another police agency, but you don't have the power to deal with criminals who take it off the internet and get physical? There are people out there talking second amendment remedies, secession, and extreme violence daily - look like just another
Re:MPAA wants to write its laws in secrecy (Score:5, Insightful)
Every government wants to make politics so "boring" that the masses ignore it. Every government wants to make a country with rights that are never exercised.
The ideal state for a government is where the people are cattle, a cow doesn't feel imprisoned, after all he can walk around this whole big pasture, and if he really wanted to he could jump the fence, but why jump when there is all this free food...
What irks me the most... (Score:5, Interesting)
ACTA was rejected by EU (Score:2, Informative)
ACTA was rejected by EU - it is effectively dead.
The MPAA just missed the memo.
Who decides what is "dangerous"? That's the issue that I have. BluRay master keys are not dangerous, they are just inconvenient for a tiny group of people.
Re:ACTA was rejected by EU (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, no. ACTA was effectively rejected by the European Parliament, whose *elected* members represent the people of the EU. However, it has not so far been dropped by the European Commission, whose *un-elected* (appointed) officials generally do whatever they want regardless of what Parliament says.
There is still hope that the EU will finally reject ACTA, but the fight is not over yet.
wikileaks because they're the site to hate. (Score:3, Interesting)
The only reason they are asking about WikiLeaks is because it's the current website that's "okay to hate/censor". Once they get approval for WikiLeaks, they'll move to other sites that actually target THEIR industry.
Citation needed. (Score:2)
However if this is true, I say we build more pipelines so it is harder for them to enforce.
censorship and publishing control 450 years ago (Score:5, Informative)
In 1557 the British Crown chartered the Stationers' Company and gave the company a publishing monopoly in order to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books.
This publishing monopoly lasted for more than 150 years.
After revolution, publishing monopolies were first abolished then limited to 14 years with the Statute of Anne.
The founding USA adopted the 14 year rule.
However, due to pressure from large companies in the US, the monopoly has been continually extended, and is now 95-120 years.
The media associations relationship to the Internet is very similar to the Stationers relationship to the printing press.
Re:censorship and publishing control 450 years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
And the revolution already came and is called the Internet. I've started to not care about ACTA and how it'll mandate capital punishment for file sharers. The bird has flown, the horse has left the barn, the cat is out of the bag, time can not be turned back. They can just make copyright infinity - 1 day already and I still won't care. I still won't think it's wrong. So they can shut down Wikileaks, will it really matter? I mean seriously, in how many kazillion copies is the HDCP master key now? We could do the same with anything wikileaks wanted to publish, there's no way they can win over a huge number of people spreading it over a huge number of channels. They can try legislating away reality and reality will laugh at them.
Their copyright == theft campaign is a huge failure. Despite the Pirate Party not making a good election, the percentage of Swedes who think so is down to 30%, down from 38% last year. They've lost 8% of the public opinion in one year. There's not been a single round of mass copyright lawsuits, nobody wants to take another shot at taking down The Pirate Bay, they get services like free Voddler that is very close to a giveaway. They're not even in fight mode anymore, they're in damage control mode so it doesn't spark the copyright revolution and they can keep making money in the rest of the world. It's really too bad that the Swedes don't have a public referendum system like in Switzerland, or it would already have happened.
End the MPAA (Score:2, Insightful)
It's high time the citizens of the U.S. work to dissolve the Motion Picture Association of America. This is an organization that actively works against the best interest of all Americans. It must be destroyed. The freedom and liberty of all Americans -- even much of the world -- is under attack by this organization.
END THE MPAA
And start the MPAA's successor (Score:2)
END THE MPAA
The MAFIAA cannot be put down so easily. There's one thing you have to understand about shutting down a central organization: successors tend to pop up. Napster is dead; long live Kazaa. EDonkey is dead; long live TPB. Likewise, dissolve the Motion Picture Association of America and the major movie studios will just found the American Film Industry Organization.
Stupid (Score:2)
Only fools pick fights that they are ill-equipped to handle and the MPAA are fools. Rich fools, but fools none-the-less.
ACTA promotes child pornography; here's how: (Score:5, Funny)
If we stop ACTA, we stop child pornography. It's as simple as that.
First Wikileaks... then the next 'Dangerous Site' (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a slippery slope when free speech is censored.
Hold on big guys (Score:2)
I think that ACTA is now a dead letter.
censoring dangerous sites... (Score:2)
America, land of the 'free'. (Score:2)
Programmers and Experts Needed (Score:3, Interesting)
We can fight on the political side to keep the net free and we can fight on the social side as well. But the chances are that we will need to make regulation either impossible or so expensive that downloading and communications simply can not be blocked. We need programs that can seek the materials that interest us and encrypt them and then send them through anonymous servers. If this is done right it should be next to impossible for a third party to determine what went over the net and who sent and received whatever the item was. If it is expensive enough and difficult enough to penetrate then information will flow freely.
Don't Worry Guys! (Score:5, Insightful)
But here is the possible up side. The MPAA have been around since 1922. And by my calculations that means that their copyright on evil will run out by around 2200. At which point mad rioters can burn down all the CEO's homes slaughter them like pigs and give them as a blood offering to Satan.
So at least there is something to look forward to.
It wont work anyway so why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they block the Wikileaks site then some volunteer will post the information on 4chan and then they'd have to block that, and a whole bunch of other sites because volunteers can basically post the information to random websites. This is a complete and utter waste of time.
Twitter message (Score:3, Informative)
After careful analysis, I've concluded that it's in Spanish.
Re: (Score:2)
Hand in hand (Score:5, Interesting)
Call me a foil hat wearing lunatic but I say at this point we've seen more than enough [wikipedia.org] evidence [chuckbaldwinlive.com] of close [sourcewatch.org] cooperation [seekingalpha.com] between the American government and America's large industries to call it a budding facism [wikipedia.org].
Consider: Pluralism [thehill.com] has been steadily weakening [abcnews.com] as congress and the presidents sign law [rawstory.com] after law giving and allowing the president to take unprecedented power. The courts [andyworthington.co.uk] already lack any real ability to stop this [ccrjustice.org] trend. [wikipedia.org]
New laws have made everyone a criminal. Those against whom the government chooses to enforce these laws are being imprisoned and harassed. It's no longer possible to be a law abiding citizen in America -- only on the ruling powers' good side or not. Police all over the US have an "us against them" mindset that has led to countless abuses to the extent that a police uniform is no longer a comforting site even for those who obey the law. It's now illegal in several states to even record these abuses and Americans everywhere are shutting up and keeping their heads down.
If these dangerous trends are not stopped the US will be a fascist police state very soon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Vote, encourage others to vote - for anyone, just get out and vote. Don't buy into the bullshit that is often repeated: "my vote does not matter, anyway" - this phrase is music to radical-wing political parties ears for it means that their small band of supporters, who will certainly be voting, will have a great piece of the smaller voting pie. With voting rates trending lower [wikimedia.org] as laws get more draconian - the media of various countries has sold their populations on apathy (more on this here [wordpress.com]).
Create website
Re: (Score:2)
Until dangerous sites like wikileaks (and any other site we have a whim to block, like review sites that give poor reviews and non-MPAA/RIAA indie movie and music sites) are blocked, we and our children are not safe!
Re: (Score:2)
I tried it a few months and it was slow (although it depends on the files) and it has little content, yes, but it worked just fine with three days of uptime.