Once-Secret ACTA Copyright Treaty Approved By EU 255
itwbennett writes "By a vote of 331 to 294, the EU Parliament has approved the controversial and once-secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). According to an ITworld article, 'the most controversial paragraph in the final text leaves the door open for countries to introduce the so-called three-strikes rule. This would cut Internet users off if they download copyright material as national authorities would be able to order ISPs to disclose personal information about customers.... The proposed agreement would also place sanctions against any device or software that is marketed as a means of circumventing access controls such as encryption or scrambling that are designed to prevent copying. It also requires legal measures against knowingly using such technology.'"
Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
Works for me, and, I suspect, most others here too.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Funny)
Strike one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wish they'd use bowling instead of baseball for the number of strikes.
"Hey dude! I scored 300 with my ISP! I'm going to the library!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Funny)
I wish that it was more like Golf.
Then if I didn't like that download I could call it a Mulligan, and if the ISP tells me I've got a Bogey all I have to do is get a Birdie next month and I'll make Par.
Then the Legalese can get extra convoluted.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The thing is, with these guys the par is 1, so it's awfully difficult to get birdies.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Informative)
Quoting from Christian Engstroms blog [wordpress.com]:
This was a defeat, but it is far from the final word on the issue. The resolution has no formal effect at all, but is merely an expression of how the Parliament feels.
Re: (Score:2)
so why does the slashdot link claim it passed? It has no weight currently, so it's not even really approved.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot isn't staffed with people who understand the political structure of the EU?
Re: (Score:2)
"...people who understand..."
You mean slashdot is staffed by people, you can't tell by the summaries.
Re:Cool! (Score:4, Funny)
Sometimes it feels like there are approximately two people in the world who understand the political structure of the EU, so it's not particularly surprising that a random Slashdot staffer isn't one of them.
Neither am I, really.
Once again (Score:3, Insightful)
A government demonstrates that it puts the interests of the rich above the interests of the many, even when the results mean plenty of injustice for the many.
Humans are not competent to govern themselves on a national level.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You make a great point about the American Revolution. The masses essentially coalesced because the oppression of England was highly visible and briskly felt by nearly all Americans. But in our day, freedom is more apt to be stolen at the tip of a pen, rather than the end of a musket. Most people don't possess the ability to think critically or abstractly. They simply operate in a world that has been pre-arranged for them. The boundaries have been clearly defined by those in power and there is very litt
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Make it like a movie preview... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's actually a brilliant idea. It's a shame we couldn't get some independent director and/or studio to shoot a brief commercial and then pool resources together to show it during prime time television (since most of the population isn't aware of anything unless they're fed the information via TV--sadly). Better yet, make it look like a movie preview with a dark overture of sorts, including the same baritone narration style common to previews. I'd imagine it could start off something like this:
[Camera pans through a dark office complex or government building with people in suits walking passed. Perhaps a gray haired actor playing the part of a high powered government official could be seen shaking hands with a corporate CEO of sorts.]
Narrator: Drafted in the darkest bowels of the US federal government lurks a treaty...
[Scene shifts to a young 13-14 year old boy basking in the soft glow of his monitor.]
Boy [sounding panicked]: Oh... no...
[The breaking of glass can be heard in the background as his mother screams. Trampling boots thunder through the house before the door to his room is broken down and armed agents grab the child, dragging him away.]
Narrator: ...that threatens the very essence of our freedoms.
[Scene shifts to a group of scruffy and clearly homeless individuals gathered around a burning barrel sharing stories.]
Bearded homeless man 1: I remember back when I used to be able to buy anything I wanted on the Internet.
Homeless man 2: Yeah, then they took it all away from us for sharing music. Now, we can't even buy groceries. Ol' Jack over here was forced to give up a kidney for sharing a movie, weren't you Jack?
*laughter*
Homeless woman 1: Oh yeah? They took everything away from me just for feeling up a TSA agent.
*more laughter*
--
(Okay, that last part was stretching it a bit.)
Anyway, you see where this is going--and maybe it's even a little overboard. Regardless, I think your idea is excellent! It needs to be professionally produced, written, and directed in order to capture the attention of the average viewer. Then it needs to be posted to Youtube.
Re:Once again (Score:4, Funny)
"...injustice for the many."
The many just have to borrow a couple of guillotines(per country) from France and use them during the half-time of national football games(soccer/american). The rich/manipulative, as the cause of this shit and therefore initially responsible, go first. The politicians who are also responsible for not listening to the many will switch quick once they realize they're next. Ah hell, both at the same time with twice the fun in half the time. Once the body politic is directly held accountable for its behavior this shit goes away. You want to hold the big seat, pay the big price.
Problem fixed.
"Humans are not competent to govern themselves on a national level."
We've done it a hell of a lot longer than you now buzz off skynet!
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
Awesome! This just means higher adoption of encryption and more bodies on darknets!
The problem is you can't hide the data. The bit is either there, or it isn't. It's on or it's not. All you can do is apply statistical and mathematical formula and methods to the data in an attempt to obscure or distort the information to the point that it is no longer useful to anyone other than the intended recipient(s). And almost every method we have of creating plausible deniability is being hunted down by governments around the world. If they want it to stop, they just pass a law saying "If you can't give us the keys, methods, etc., used to mask, alter, obscure, etc., your data, we can simply throw you in jail."
In other words, the mere act of creating privacy between two entities will itself become a crime. That is the next step after ACTA. And it's already being planned.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Informative)
Planned? Hasn't it happened in the UK?
Re: (Score:2)
Planned? Hasn't it happened in the UK?
Globally, good sir, not locally. It takes time, luck, and large amounts of money to make governments cooperate.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can hide the data. Good enough encryption is indistinguishable from random noise.
There are several tools around that make that possible, and even more on the way.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
His point was, they can know that you're doing heavy traffic, but if your traffic is encrypted, they have to figure out whether you're sharing Batman or acting as a Linux mirror, or perhaps just VPNing into work and uploading lots of research data, or even mirroring the latest WoW patches. Even traffic analysis, which can reveal that you're sharing data with a thousand other hosts rather than primarily one or two (as one might in the case of a VPN), has a hard time distinguishing between infringing uses an
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cool! (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you even do a search for such tools, it will attract the black van since you know only criminals....
Re:Cool! (Score:4, Interesting)
Trouble is, that's a lot of pictures you're going to have to send to embed a useful payload. Maybe you could set up something like a 1080p webcam looking out of your window so you have a constant stream of plausible signal in which to hide your "noise."
Re: (Score:2)
most smart folks have been using encryption from day one and, what do ya know? they also never saw a single lawsuit threat or settlement letter, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Gee, this guy is using encryption. We'll have to leave him alone then".
Or
"He's using encryption, so he must be a terrorist. Ship him to Gitmo".
Pick the one you think it's more likely.
Re: (Score:2)
It wont help in the long run, as they wont have to find out what you are doing. If you encrypt and get caught, you will be guilty of encryption alone.
Re: (Score:2)
It's time... (Score:4, Insightful)
... to go kill some lobbyists.
Re: (Score:2)
So when are they coming for us? (Score:3, Insightful)
So when will the cops nab me for watching DVDs I pay for or rent then play using libdvdcss?
Re:So when are they coming for us? (Score:5, Insightful)
They won't. They'll nab you for child pornography that appears on your desk an hour before the dawn raid.
Re: (Score:2)
All the more reason to practice good network security, with lots of logs of traffic, so you can prove that you didn't download it, or that the intrusion came from elsewhere. OF course, good luck being able to find an expert witness who can back that up. Scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So when are they coming for us? (Score:4, Insightful)
They won't. They'll nab you for child pornography that appears on your desk an hour after the dawn raid.
There: fixed that for you.
Old school? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the key difference there is that you are going to start buying.
If it wasn't so easy to mass pirate, I would suggest that the black market street prices like in the old days might make a closer to actual value price point that the record and movie companies could shoot for and avoid piracy almost entirely.
Re:Old school? (Score:4, Insightful)
"I guess the key difference there is that you are going to start buying."
Good luck with that. Until my country's copyright law will be amended, I am still entitled to make copies of whatever non-DRM'd copyrighted work I want for my sole personal use. Not even ACTA changes anything about that - I would simply face harsher punishments for things I am already *not* allowed to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Please read the above sentence I was replying to.
Then consider what I wrote again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, but the op said he was going to start buying. That's the key difference between having the acta and not.
On the other hand, if you could buy the media outright for the black market prices, I don't think many people would find it worth their while to pirate it.
Good! (Score:2, Interesting)
From there to banning FOSS, the slope is slippery...
Re:Banning FOSS? Can't happen soon enough (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, yes, I know it was really "linux distros and public domain music/movies" you were torrenting not the latest Hollywood movie and Miley Cyrus CD *wink* *wink*
I am 105% certain that when I pipe the latest Debian DVD into my sound card, it will sound much better than the latest Miley Cyrus CD.
Re:Banning FOSS? Can't happen soon enough (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little surpised (Score:2)
I'm torn on this (Score:2, Insightful)
On the one hand I'm angry that it seems like they are cracking down on filesharers and have left open this "expansion slot" to fill in with whatever they want later. On the other hand, I'm even more angry that they are going to start cracking down on CD bootleggers. These people perform a great service for many poor kids who don't have a computer to download files or $15 bucks to buy from the store. These kids would end up stealing and getting into much worse trouble if it weren't for the ability to buy fro
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Those kids could, you know, just not have a copy of the music. I don't know where this divine right to have stuff comes from.
Out of curiosity, w
Re:I'm torn on this (Score:4, Insightful)
Whats "material" cost of music? Most of the cost comes from a distribution method that has been obsoleted in the digital age. This law only tries to impose limitations on a better and less costly way to get digital "wares", to save the ass of a distribution bussiness that is simply not needed anymore: music labels, cable companies, tv channels.
We should have ONE link, the internet, and content providers, both independent and from label and shit, competing together: THATS HOW CAPITALISM WORKS.
Protecting unnecesary monopolies with law is both plain stupid and a plain robbery from the people. We are supposed to do "as if", the internet wasnt there with regards to digitalizable content. But it is there. And digital content can travel through the net. That is "bad" for the distribution monopoly and they thus bought politicians to FUCK US ALL IN ALL OF THE WORLD.
THAT SUCKS.
Re: (Score:2)
None of this stuff just appears from nowhere. It requires musicians, producers, directors, actors, artists, developers and lots of other technical and administrative people to get it made in the first place. Should they all work for free just to keep cheapskates like you happy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So instead you want government deciding what we should watch, listen to and play? I can't see that working too well either. I'm not defending the MAFIAA but I'm at a loss to see how the creation process, which does cost a lot of money, gets paid for in the world of those who think it should all cost nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a nice idea in theory but how does the government decide what gets funded? Worthwhile programmes like universal health care are controversial enough; imagine how unpopular billion dollar funding for our current copyright beneficiaries would be. The current system doesn't work - anyone can see that. However there doesn't seem to be a viable replacement either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens to the content once it's outside that paywall? Do you think people won't copy it?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Avatar cost $500 million. That is half a billion dollars.
And, assuming you're right, if people didn't steal then the costs would drop by more than 50%. Isn't that good?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm torn on this (Score:4, Insightful)
Stopping someone from doing something that doesn't affect others is generally what needs a justification. The scarcity is what we are creating, so that is what needs something to back it up.
Several viable methods are available for authors to get money, and many would do things for the love of doing them, for fame, or because it enables other revenue streams. We had books and music before the Statute of Anne, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, scarcity not what copyright is about. After all, sans copyright, non-disclosure agreements could fulfill the same purpose. Every purchase would be accompanied with a contract. The lack of standard terms would mean libraries would have to ascribe to the strictest terms or that they would cease to exist.
Copyri
Re: (Score:2)
NDAs aren't effective for end users, and tracking the leaks is going to be nearly impossible. That's why NDAs are generally done on very small scale.
Product placement is already quite pop
Re: (Score:2)
You're well within your rights to, and I certainly believe in optional copyleft licenses. But you used the word "gesture". It ceases to be as meaningful if you're forced into it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those poor poor kids, unable to play pirated games, watch pirated movies, and listen to pirated music.
The correct thing to do here is to eschew commercial media entirely. Libraries are free, and they are the proper place to go if you need a book.
A law that has been passed... (Score:2)
... with no consultation of the people, and by an institution that many of us already consider to be nowhere near democratically accountable enough.
Do they expect us to follow it?
Re: (Score:2)
Comply or Die...
Government says so.
But in CrazyWorld corporations are people (Score:2)
... with no consultation of the people, and by an institution that many of us already consider to be nowhere near democratically accountable enough.
Do they expect us to follow it?
According to Unequal Protection by Thom Hartmann [amazon.com], we've been putting up with it for decades in the US. And now that the SCOTUS says money == speech and corporations == people, we're totally screwed.
riasing to a higher plane (Score:2)
Actually, I thought the entities we refer to as "corporations" were non-corporeal. So does that make them spirits?
Re: (Score:2)
... with no consultation of the people, and by an institution that many of us already consider to be nowhere near democratically accountable enough.
Do they expect us to follow it?
Cops have guns that say you will. Don't think it will come to that? Look at what can happen to people who have a nickel bag.
If this becomes law, it will be abused, as all laws which are pretexts for invasive searches are.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore it? Tell them to go fuck themselves? Vote for anti-EU parties? etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A law that has been passed... (Score:5, Informative)
They still riot in the streets against perceived injustice in Europe.
background and swpats (Score:5, Informative)
Background info:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement_overview [swpat.org]
On the software patent problems (or patents "in the Digital Environment"), it seems most or maybe all have been fixed (provided the the signatory uses the Section II option of excluding patents from that section) but a thorough reading is still needed:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA_and_software_patents [swpat.org]
they work fast (Score:2)
That was fast. Did they not read and discuss it, or were they simply in on it from the beginning?
Re: (Score:2)
The "once secrete" part of the story should have indicated that this has been around a long time before we started talking about it. They were most likely in it from the start.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Was it the EU parliament or people in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
I fear for Canada (Score:2)
I have often felt we are one of the more sane countries with respect to the digital age, but seeing this I believe we are all F***ed.
I guess I should start voting Pirate party.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter?
Canada is a lemming when it comes to things like this.
Patent on life and seeds: check
Software patents: check
body scanners: check
DMCA/ACTA: In progress
Constitution free zone: TBD
Police state: TBD
Re: (Score:2)
Does THAT matter?
You mention all those things like they are terribly bad, Patents are a good idea but just terribly implemented. We're a lemming on things like that because they generally don't affect us. And when they do, (like Copyright issues) we just work our way around it (Blank CD Tax).
DMCA and ACTA? Let them come. The people will complain, we actually still hold some influence over the government. If they don't take it away, they'll at least make some kind of legal loophole for the people to exploit.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's better than the US method - those who buy blank CD's only have to put in pennies more and support Canadian Artists and you don't get people's Lives ruined due to crazy lawsuits.
Call it crazy - but it keeps musicians happy, keeps the people happy, and isn't a giant FU to the States.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is johnnie copying a cd the real issue? (Score:3, Interesting)
The real problem is not the occasional copying of a CD for ones personal use, heck, it might not be the same quality, but you can record it off the radio. The real problem is the wholesale mass production of reproducing copyrighted material. Most of this occurs in South East Asia. So, exactly how will passage of ACTA stop it?
It's meaningless (Score:2)
Mixed feeling about this.... (Score:2)
I have some rather mixed feeling about this....
On one hand your have the music and film industry complaining about piracy of their product and being completely ignorant that their business model is out of date.
On the other hand there is the chance of counterfeit components appearing on cars, trains or aircraft that produce a serious hazard in a situation where potentially lives are at risk.
Mind you we have a third problem in that we have fake politicians that don't really know anything but what their adviso
No, this is factually wrong (Score:2)
It doesnt matter. (Score:2)
So long and thanks for the fish (Score:2)
It was fun while it lasted, but this is the beginning of the end for digital freedom.
Christian Democrat = Republican (Score:3, Informative)
The European Parliament just narrowly failed to adopt a joint resolution demanding that the Commission should clarify and assess the consequences of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ACTA. The numbers were 306 in favour, 322 against, and 26 abstentions. The resolution had been put forward by the Green group (including the Pirate Party), the Social Democrats, the Liberals and the Left. A resolution from the Green group (where I was one of the co-signatories) was also defeated. Instead, an alternative resolution by the Christian Democrat group EPP and the Conservative group was carried. This resolution basically welcomes what the negotiators have been doing so far, without placing any specific demands on the Commission for further clarifications or assessments.
http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/acta-resolution-failed/ [wordpress.com]
basically, these kind of right wing capitalist parties everywhere, are those stripping any freedoms if any profits at stake. this includes any kind of constitutional indispensable, unalienable amendments.
way to go. and there are still morons who are defending the philosophies of those zygotes. im sure a few will pop into comment after this post. its not like they 'know' that those philosophies will work. its that they WANT them to work, despite it havent worked at any point in human history, for the benefit of the average citizen.
Fuck no (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's interesting that you bring the church up as an obstacle to new ideas, research and technology when it was the church that created the very university system that is used to spread new ideas, research and technology (along with the modern court system, hospitals, etc.). Not that I am an apologist for the church (big C or little c), but I do think that if one is to spout off, they should at least get their facts straight.
Re:Been there already (Score:5, Insightful)
No it didn't.
The church built its learning institutions on the model of others, and there were secular learning institutions alongside them.
The church is in conflict with the forces of reality. It has a long history of oppressing the free spread of knowledge, and of couching its tyrannies in the language of benevolence. And of coopting institutions and traditions and pretending they were the province of their religion all along. It's only typical that they would pretend to have invented higher education, and would call it open and free exchange of ideas.
Re:Was voting anonymous? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it. That page seems like the right page to me too, but it also says they DECLINED on ACTA with 306 votes for and 322 votes against.
So what gives ? Can anyone explain ?
Re: (Score:2)
a joint resolution demanding that the Commission should clarify and assess the consequences of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ACTA.
Re:Was voting anonymous? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is apparently a vote to ask the commission to clarify the consequences of the treaty. This is EU diplomatic talk for a vote to reject it. With this vote rejected, the treaty was not blocked or questioned by the EU parliament. It is the among Nay votes you have to look for your traitors. (this had me confused for some time too)