backtop


Print 67 comment(s) - last by JediJeb.. on Jul 7 at 10:29 AM


EU to filesharers: we want to imprison you! The U.S. is considering similar measures.  (Source: Dvorak.org)

Watch out Pirate Party members: the EU plans to ban free speech on piracy and send those who fileshare to prison.  (Source: Gecko and Fly)
Britain has announced its opposition to the plan

A UK Intellectual Property Office representative made an important revelation to online publication ComputerActivecommenting, "ACTA should not introduce new intellectual property laws or offences. Instead, it should provide a framework to better enforce existing law."

That stance is very significant as the EU and U.S. governments, at the behest of copyright holders in the music and video industry, are pushing a treaty called ACTA which allows its member states to adopt not only fines, but prison time for those who fileshare.

Details of the plan to criminalize filesharing just leaked thanks to a citizen advocacy group La Quadrature du Net.  The document, found here [PDF], is entitled "ACTA Chapter 2 Criminal Provisions".

The new proposal would criminalize "infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain" -- which currently would be considered a petty civil offense in most countries.  The language about criminalization states "each party shall provide for effective proportionate and dissuasive penalties" to include "imprisonment and monetary fines".

Britain's decision to back down from supporting the most-extreme U.S. and EU proposed copyright enforcement measures is a blow to these governments and the corporate lobbyists that support them.  Under the Obama and George W. Bush administrations, the U.S. secretly brokered the ACTA treaty without informing the general public.  The EU similarly cooperated in secret negotiations.  

Only recently were the some of the terms revealed, in preparation for the measure to go before the U.S. House and Senate and EU Parliament to become law.  And as this most recent leak, shows, there may be more than a few surprises in store, in the form of still undisclosed proposals.

Britain has also indicated that it would also likely decline to enforce the provision against language "inciting and aiding" piracy.  That provision could impose criminal or civil fines for those who write supportively about piracy, essentially silencing their free speech.  The U.S. is allegedly one of the nations considering the measure.  

A Netherlands court already ruled against a newsgroup which had the locations of torrents posted in plaintext -- a seemingly strange decision, considering Google.com and other search engines provide direct links.  Such decisions to abridge free speech in the name of anti-piracy may be only the first of many court battles to come.

Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesperson for La Quadrature du Net comments, "The ACTA agreement, by its opacity and undemocratic nature, allows criminal sanctions to be simply negotiated.  The leaked document shows that the EU Member States are willing to impose prison sanctions for non-commercial usages of copyrighted works on the Internet as well as for ‘inciting and aiding’, a notion so broad that it could cover any Internet service or speech questioning copyright policies."

Previously published materials on the ACTA bill also reveal that it creates a new kind of crime called "imminent infringement" -- which could bring punishment to those who haven't even infringed.  An example of such a thought-crime would be if you searched "torrent daft punk" in Google.  The U.S. and copyright holders argue that if it can be shown you were thinking about committing piracy you've as much as committed a crime already.

The music and film industry continue to press towards their dream of one day having the bill of copyright infringement be footed by citizens, to ban backup copies, and ban free speech in support of piracy.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By LordSojar on 7/5/2010 2:10:17 PM , Rating: 5
The US has been heading towards this as well, on both sides of the aisle. If you don't think they are, you're delusional. This isn't an EU specific issue, it's a worldwide issue.

Copyright holders are getting more and more power. No one is giving pause to their aging business models and growing power except the customers they are screwing over on a daily basis.

You want this to change? Elect officials who aren't getting handjobs from the RIAA and MPAA, and who aren't financially backed by the the ISPs they so valiantly defend (who rat you out).

The majority of piracy is a product of bad business models; you can only f*ck your customers over for so long. Once they're fed up, they turn to piracy. Don't attack us for turning to alternative methods to acquire your DRM infested, legal gray area abundant goods... fix your stupid business practices and retail/marketing models.




RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By superPC on 7/5/2010 2:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that (fixing online business model). most of piracy would be eliminated if they just eliminated DRM from online distributors and just provide more stuff (video, music, book, what have you) online.

but you have to realize that classic distribution method concern a lot of people. not just the content creator but also the distributor and retail outlet. that's a lot of people that would surely went out of work if company fully distributed content online.

either way it's a catch 22 situation. move fully to online distribution and cut jobs in distributor and brick and mortar retailer or do things like this. either way the big corporation will always profit while people like you and me get screwed over like always.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By HotFoot on 7/5/2010 3:49:47 PM , Rating: 4
Doing things incredibly inefficiently isn't a good way to provide employment. If it takes fewer people to provide the same service, the cost of that service goes down and that leaves the average person with something left over to spend on something else.

This means jobs lost in one area are replaced by jobs in a different area. Meanwhile, the average consumer is able to get more for their money. This is a case of the pie growing larger.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By RW on 7/5/2010 10:01:34 PM , Rating: 3
Do they even think people will buy music like hot cakes ??? Of course no, people will always buy food over buying music, because if you don't eat you die, but if you don't listen to Lady Gaga, Madonna or Britney you sure won't die maybe even live longer btw.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By RW on 7/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By dtm4trix on 7/6/2010 3:39:06 AM , Rating: 4
I agree with you but I can not see the US supreme court upholding this treaty as it steps all over our rights guaranteed under the constitution. And well if it does come to pass I no longer wish to call my self an american as this is some 1984 bullshit and its time for me to go somewhere else.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By gorehound on 7/6/2010 8:04:31 AM , Rating: 2
I intend on voting for any politician who refueses to take the big money from the big industries.I am no longer voting for corporate mouthpieces.And I am surly never buying a new DVD/Music from any of these BS MAFIAAA Companies.This is garbage and we really need to get the Pirate Party or a new Party here who will enable us to vote both Republicans and Democrats out.I am fed up with both and see them as a bunch of rich pricks who have or no longer have anything in common with the average USA'er.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By bodar on 7/6/2010 5:07:46 PM , Rating: 5
So what do you intend to do with all this new free time on Election Day?


By wiz220 on 7/6/2010 6:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
I LOL'd :)


By JediJeb on 7/6/2010 11:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I am surly never buying a new DVD/Music from any of these BS MAFIAAA Companies


This is the only real way to get the point across. Only if 90% of those that purchase music and movies now will boycott any that are produced by the labels associated with RIAA and MPAA will the point be made. No matter how neat or good a new movie is, or how great a new song is, just refuse to purchase it, listen to it, talk about it, totally ignore it. Don't even download it for free! If people will completely turn their backs on the mainstream music and movie industries and give them absolutely no attention, then this problem will be solved. It will take away their money, and without their money there will be no politician willing to back them.

Also it is up to us who know what is happening to educate the average citizen because the news outlets certainly are not going to. Good musicians can turn to self marketing and distribution to remain viable, and if the general public will actively ignore any who flock to the major labels then those artists who are serious will learn to get by on their own. There are enough independent labels out there to pick up the ones without the tech savvy to go it on their own. It would also probably weed out the over hyped, run of the mill groups that the big labels feed to us trying to make us follow their idea of what is good entertainment.

Anyone who is serious about this will make the sacrifice of not purchasing or pirating any mainstream music or movies. Purchasing puts the money right into the pockets of the ones that are messing us over, and pirating only gives them fuel to use against those unwilling to put up with their nonsense. Take away their money and their reason to complain and they will fade away, though probably kicking and screaming to the end.


By wiz220 on 7/6/2010 6:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
I would like to agree with you, but sadly, I think the Supreme Court has made it clear where they stand when it comes to citizens versus corporate interests. They recently said that money = free speech in a case that gave corporations the "right" to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns (I know there are stipulations, but, in the end this is what it amounts to).

That, coupled with a decision long ago to give corporate entities the same "rights" as individuals could be the death knell for representative government that works for real living, breathing citizens.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By FaceMaster on 7/6/2010 8:16:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
most of piracy would be eliminated if they just eliminated DRM


...wasn't DRM made because of piracy in the first place?


By Silver2k7 on 7/6/2010 9:52:59 AM , Rating: 2
yeah its ironic isn't it.. the pirates, that drm is supposed to stop, can enjoy the product without the drm hassles, where the legitimate buyers have to deal with the drm crap.

the world would be better off without drm.. there is one thing that have stoped me from buying music online and that my friends is called drm.. lossless flac files, possibly even higher than cd-quality files and no drm.. and they (whoever sells music) will most likly attract more potential buyers.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By superstition on 7/5/2010 3:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
Read "The BP/Government police state", "New study documents media's servitude to government", and "How many Americans are targeted for assassination?" by Glenn Greenwald.

It's not just "pirates" who should be concerned with the secrecy and corruption.

"Elect officials who aren't..." Good luck with that. Given the recent Supreme Court ruling that not only are corporations "people", but they also have "1st amendment free speech" -- it's going to be next-to-impossible for ordinary citizens to make much of an impact in elections.


By Alexvrb on 7/5/2010 7:32:15 PM , Rating: 1
The Supreme Court ruling you are referring to changes nothing. You should be more worried about the new justices we're getting on the Supreme Court now. You know, the completely inexperienced, incompetent ones that refuse to answer even basic questions regarding whether the federal government has the power to ban foods it deems unhealthy.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By quiksilvr on 7/5/2010 3:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's slowly reaching the point where we are going from owning the movies to simply watching them online for free (or small fee like Netflix or Hulu).

I pray for a day when we can get unlimited movies and television shows for $10 a month on Hulu or Netflix with little commercial interruption.

We are at a transition point in this day and age. Lets hope that these companies do a good job in replacing cable, dish and the movie rentals.


By JonnyDough on 7/6/2010 5:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
It's kind of like returning to the olden days of theater...I sort of have no problem with that. I can rent an experience and have it live in my memory. Pay for the enjoyment, don't steal a performance. Seems fair to me. I don't entertain people for free, why should music/movie artists? Just because modern media allows actors to reach a larger audience does not mean they are not small stage actors.


By damianrobertjones on 7/5/2010 3:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but I cannot agree with what you've said, or at least the last part.

I **cough** acquire media from various sources but for some reason, over the last year, have decided to 'buy' the music and games that I want. Sure, I know where the movies are, for free, plus the music, but I'd prefer to give something back. (Even if the original artist gets a tiny amount)

I know people that simply get every movie they want each weekend and have no intention of buying, ever. I know a person who sits next to me that owns over 17,000+ albums and gets them as he wants to increase his album number.

I use steam to get most of my games and DRM, so far, hasn't caused my gaming pc one problem (I would prefer no DRM but I have a CHOICE)

If you want something, then you should damn well pay for it, full stop.

There is NO excuse for piracy and this is from someone that has... sampled.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By BZDTemp on 7/5/2010 4:15:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is NO excuse for piracy and this is from someone that has... sampled.


I agree however that does not mean I agree with how many of the right holders are handling the issue. I can see how many people are so offended by their tactics that they fell justified to obtain pirate copies in pure spite.

Here are some of the issues I have with how most of the industry has chosen to conduct them self:

- Calling taking a copy "stealing" and trying to say it is like stealing a car, a TV and so on. To me that is simply stupid.

- Making insane claims on how much damage piracy does. Firstly one pirate copy does not equal one lost sale and secondly their loss is not the number of copies not sold multiplied by the retail price of said items. If loss was equal retail price then shops having a sale would be "stealing" money from the right holders.

- The many obstructions consumers must live with due to "pirate protection" of which some are really not to stop pirating but to enable price control between regions of the world. Many "protections with what is fair use and adds costs. Be it HDCP, audio CD's that are not really Audio-CD's, regional coding and so on. Another example would be movie DVD's on which you must view whatever messages and sometimes even trailers before you get to the content you bought.

- The whole notion that so little of what I pay in a shop goes to the artist which created the product I bought.

- There is only so many times a person will buy the same product. Of course music sales would decline after the boom created by people re-buying their LP's as CD's.

- And finally the fact that the industry uses piracy, real and imaginary, as an excuse for their business decline. In any other industries a changing world something which is dealt with. The companies making model air plane kits are loosing sales because there are more ways of entertainment to choose from. But the music and movie industry choose to blame piracy for everything rather than acknowledging many spend less on movies and music because they choose to spend money on other things.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By fotoguy on 7/5/2010 5:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
- Calling taking a copy "stealing" and trying to say it is like stealing a car, a TV and so on. To me that is simply stupid.

Well call me stupid. Here is a better example to why they call it stealing; You walk into Best Buy, take a cd/dvd off the shelf and just walk out the door. So when the cops come and arrest you, you can just tell them "I wasn't stealing, I just took a copy."
Just because you don't have a physical copy doesn't make it any less than stealing.

Your second point on the damage piracy does is only half baked. The first part of the one to one is a reasonable statement, but your evidential last sentence doesn't really support the first in that a sale is an agreed upon, voluntary reduction of profit by the store. Making a copy is not agreed upon.

Your other statements are all in themselves correct, but their correctness does not give you rights to make unauthorized copies.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By Chaotic42 on 7/5/2010 7:05:06 PM , Rating: 3
Stealing implies that the person or entity from whom the item was taken suffered a loss. From the Cambridge dictionary:

Steal - to take something without the permission or knowledge of the owner and keep it.

Take - to remove something, especially without permission.

It's the "remove" that separates copyright infringement and piracy from theft. Please note that I do not support either, it's just not the same as walking in and taking a CD.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By fotoguy on 7/5/2010 10:03:59 PM , Rating: 1
I gotcha. You subscribe to the try before you buy, but I would be that most people downloading torrents are just doing the trying, but not the buying.

So, what do you call it when you take something without permission? Since you did say you were taking a copy.

With your statement that taking is not stealing just because what you took is not tangible, then how is that different than electronically taking money from someone else's bank account. Its all just blips in the "tubes".

If you take a copy and keep it, then you have taken from the recording industry and the retailer that would have sold you that copy. Heck, all you are ever buying is a copy anyway.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By zmatt on 7/5/2010 11:02:20 PM , Rating: 4
Stealing implies an incurred loss. There is no way to prove that people who pirate would have went out and bought any of this to begin with. Therefore one cannot make a rational argument that the industry is loosing money here. We have a dollar theater in my town where movies that are too old for the mainline but not old enough for dvd release are played. When i am bored I go and watch some of the films. What I find is that 90% of what is coming out now isn't worth the cost of viewing or the cost of the dvd purchase. Some I have seen aren't even worth the $1 admission cost. The people who really like the films will buy them. The convenience of the dvd and the nice packaging are pluses. But when the movie industry gets bent out of shape when film X doesn't do as well as they want, and they find some people doing essentially the dollar movie rout, but with their computers, corporate greed is involved. the same applies to the music industry. Most music isn't worth buying and when the radio which has a limited selection is the main way to find out about new music, something has to give.

The entertainment industry is relying on an old and obsolete model and they are too stubborn/big to notice or care. Our governments are corrupt enough to enforce their unreasonable demands and persecute its own citizens. This can't last forever, while most pirates are of the younger generation, eventually they will come of voting age and either vote in someone who doesn't bend over to the recording industry, or they will enact change violently. Right now there is little reason to stop pirating and, these habits are unlikely to die as people get older.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By fotoguy on 7/5/2010 11:36:38 PM , Rating: 1
Please! So you are saying that because these people would not have paid for it in the first place, they should then have the right to steal it? Or to flip it around, They are not stealing it because they were not going to pay for it anyway?

If you are not going to pay for something, physical or digital, and the owner of that something has not given you permission to take it, take a copy of it, then you have stolen it.

And I'm not sure where you are coming from about the entertainment industry delivery model. Today, you can download non-DRM encoded music from at least Amazon and iTunes.


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By derricker on 7/6/2010 12:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I'm not sure where you are coming from about the entertainment industry delivery model.


It is better to keep your mouth shut....


RE: Let's not forget the goold ol' US of A
By fotoguy on 7/6/2010 9:25:23 AM , Rating: 1
Seriously? You are threatening me because I pointed out a way for you to legally download music?


By derricker on 7/6/2010 3:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
...and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

Thanks for making Twain's proverb a factual truth.


By qkool on 7/6/2010 1:39:36 AM , Rating: 2
You have not stolen it.

If I take a cd w/o your permission, can you sell it?
If someone copied your cd without your permission, can you still sell the cd? Hell, you could potentially sell it to the person that copied it!


By wiz220 on 7/6/2010 6:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think you've missed the point. The "taking a copy" issue is referring to a situation where someone might PURCHASE a CD or DVD and then can be called a criminal for then making a copy of it (for backup purposes) or converting it to another format even with NO intention of distributing it to another person. THAT is what people here are calling BS on. It's just a money grab where the industry wants you to buy the same thing multiple times. This is seen as going completely against "fair use" rules of the past.


By Chaotic42 on 7/7/2010 12:44:50 AM , Rating: 2
No, I don't subscribe to that. I don't think you've "got" much of anything, honestly.

Either you're being obtuse or you're just not bright enough to get it. There's a reason why there's a different term for this and it's because stealing and taking don't quite fit.


By derricker on 7/5/2010 7:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is NO excuse for piracy and this is from someone that has... sampled.


This is waaaaay beyond piracy, it's called fascism, they are just using piracy as the new "commie" agent to enforce fascism in our laws, what will be next? jail for all that speak against government sanctioned pandemics? Taking the Swine Flu vaccine at gun point??

We really need to start looking at the bigger picture, this, coming from someone, who has...sampled.


By Silver2k7 on 7/6/2010 10:10:32 AM , Rating: 2
"There is NO excuse for piracy and this is from someone that has... sampled."

Well if you have sampled, then you should know the few reasons that do exist ??

Like say music [hard to find things] f.ex. Demos/Promos/Live Shows or just limited editions and things that are not not sold any longer..

Lets say tv-shows you could probably tivo those or whatever, but its also nice to get 1 file without any commercials and stuff in there.. Im guessing Itunes could do this, but im also guessing that they have DRM in the files.

Then there is a few, not avalible at all for purchasing a legit copy, do you order from some russian bootleger or download online then ??

If Kung Fu The Legend Continues would have been availble on legit DVD's I would have ordered it when I ordered 'Kung Fu'..
Anyway there is only crappy VHS rips out there.. so someone thinks that downloading a thing you watched as a kid, and wich makes you zero profit other than watching the show again, in poor quality mind you, should be a criminal act that they can dish out heavy fines or jailtime for, lets hope whoever it comes down to to let this law pass or not, is atleast a little sane!!


Countermeasures
By killerclick on 7/5/2010 3:46:27 PM , Rating: 5
Why is everybody concentrating on circumventing or defeating these anti-piracy measures? Why not simply avoid pirating? Why not also avoid buying music, movies and software altogether? There's plenty of free software, there's Project Gutenberg, there's radio, there's TV, there's sex, sports, art, alcohol (if you really need to distract yourself) and there's the fact that you have very limited time on this planet and you probably shouldn't be looking for ways to waste even more time and money on commercial entertainment.
The worst nightmare of RIAA and MPAA is that people are going to stop wasting time and money on their products and fulfill their lives in better ways.




RE: Countermeasures
By damianrobertjones on 7/5/2010 3:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
Respect your answer there!

Either pay and appreciate what's on offer, or actually go outside and communicate, express, live a better life


RE: Countermeasures
By Exodite on 7/5/2010 4:28:16 PM , Rating: 5
Because sometimes there's not an option.

I live in Sweden, by most standards a technologically advanced first world country. Yet it's impossible to legally acquire any copies of currently running TV shows here.

There's nothing like Hulu, no way of watching episodes through the publishers home pages unless you use a proxy or VPN tunnel and online stores like iTunes, Zune or Amazon don't carry TV shows here.

Thus the only options remain waiting, and praying, for a show to eventually make its way to local channels, waiting for it to be released on DVD or using sites such as EZTV or TPB.

Me and my better half have a pretty significant, and legally acquired, collections of movies and games and had there been a service which allowed for streaming of the shows we'd like to see for a reasonable sum - which means less than the cost of actually buying the shows on DVD/BD - we'd be all over that.

Alas...

Other forms of media have similar issues. For example, I bought ME2 and decided I should play through ME1 again to give myself a better starting position in the sequel. Sadly it turned out that the game had silently considered my hardware upgrades and OS change to be cause for reactivation which means my three activations were up with my latest install and I can't play it.

This being a product I've bought and paid for and I can't even get anyone to answer the support mail to address the issue. Of course, I could just go online and download a cracked copy in minutes to make the problem go away.

The 'problem' of piracy is largely an artificial one. The powers that be have essentially forced would-be consumers into piracy due to fundamentally flawed distribution, pricing and DRM measures and until that's rectified we're going to have software and media piracy around.

Granted, as people we're not entitled to free media or entertainment but neither are the providers of said media and entertainment entitled to whine about piracy until they provide reasonable means for their intended audience to acquire said content.


RE: Countermeasures
By killerclick on 7/5/2010 4:59:36 PM , Rating: 5
You're giving your power away to these copyright owners by convincing yourself you [i]have[/i] to watch their stupid shows and play their stupid games. If they hold such power over you that you can't live without their products then you should pay what they're asking under the conditions they're setting. If they don't want to sell you something (like the current hot TV show) then sorry, it's their right and you simply can't have it. There are perfectly good reasons why they may withhold distributions from certain markets. If they sell you software with ridiculous limitations (three activations) and you buy it then that's your problem. I wouldn't buy it, why did you?
The copyright owners can do these things because you (the consumers) let them. They seem to have such great products that you can't help yourself from breaking the law. The best way to fight their tactics is to punish them with your wallet.


RE: Countermeasures
By Exodite on 7/5/2010 5:19:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're giving your power away to these copyright owners by convincing yourself you have to watch their stupid shows and play their stupid games.

I reckon I already addressed your concerns in the last paragraph of my post, not that I disagree with your embellishments though. However, that said it's not a matter of having to play a particular game or watch a particular show but about wanting to.

As things stand I buy only the things I want and which seem worth the price. Sadly things like draconian DRM isn't properly advertised on the packaging, as it should be, so it's not always a guaranteed success. I'm a lot more careful today than I used to be though.

As for TV shows that's pretty well handled already, seeing as how I can't buy access or streaming for neither love nor money I don't have to worry about them getting my money anytime soon.


RE: Countermeasures
By HostileEffect on 7/6/2010 9:11:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is everybody concentrating on circumventing or defeating these anti-piracy measures? Why not simply avoid pirating?


I believe its on principle that other people concentrate on circumvention of anti-piracy measures.

If your home came wrapped in razor wire and a padlock that you do not have a key for as well as having to beg the original builders to let you in for every use, I calculate a high probability that you will find a pair of bolt cutters and start circumventing.

I don't just avoid piracy, I avoid buying just to spite all the subsidizes and taxes. I don't need cable, 1Mbit+ net, new cloths, junk food, or any of that mess.


Imminent Infringement
By chmilz on 7/5/2010 2:28:24 PM , Rating: 5
I openly fantasize about torturing and murdering every employee of the RIAA, and MPAA, plus the majority of Congress, but since there's no cash on the table nobody seems to care.




RE: Imminent Infringement
By chmilz on 7/5/2010 3:37:43 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, I should add that I have the following: knives, duct tape, rope, garbage bags, and a shovel.

So we can compare the murderous fantasies with imminent intent, and the tools listed above with P2P software, and I'd say the similarities are pretty clear. Based on their views, these people are as good as dismembered and buried in a field. Better charge and convict me of multiple counts of 1st degree murder now.


RE: Imminent Infringement
By Bladen on 7/5/2010 5:01:16 PM , Rating: 3
I once thought about crossing the street DESPITE the fact that the traffic light little man was red.

I guess that with the logic behind ACTA I should have been summarily executed then and there.


RE: Imminent Infringement
By marvdmartian on 7/6/2010 9:06:41 AM , Rating: 3
Don't forget your diaper and caffiene pills, for the long drive to Washington DC!! ;)

Oh, and this article needs a Guy Fawkes picture too, darn it!!


Bias Mick Prick
By B3an on 7/5/2010 4:04:46 PM , Rating: 3
This whole idea was created by the U.S.

But here Mick tries to make it look like the EU is responsible, i wouldn't be surprised if the U.S is bullying certain countries to join in.




RE: Bias Mick Prick
By TexMurphy on 7/6/2010 2:20:25 AM , Rating: 3
Here here. Also, as I recall, it was someone from the Netherlands that originally revealed some of the details of this secretive treaty.


RE: Bias Mick Prick
By Lerianis on 7/6/2010 4:26:22 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, it was NOT the United States idea by themselves. This was supported by everyone who was the EU people talking about this.

The United States might have brought up the idea, but the EU people jumped on WHOLEHEARTEDLY.


RE: Bias Mick Prick
By mcnabney on 7/6/2010 9:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Most media companies are owned by Europeans and Asians, so I would guess that the money pushing for this is not necessarily coming from the US.


Thankfully.
By dark matter on 7/5/2010 3:11:04 PM , Rating: 5
We have just got rid of our Labour Government. They would have had no problem signing this up. This was the government that created "anti-terror" laws that were subsequently used to spy on people trying to get their children in the right school and putting the wrong kind of rubbish in the recycle bin.




RE: Thankfully.
By themaster08 on 7/5/2010 4:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
Amen! I'm sure this is not the only thing that Labour would have signed Britain away to since our new government formed.


RE: Thankfully.
By Daniel8uk on 7/5/2010 6:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
Be thankful that we have a coalition 'add odds' government otherwise it would have been signed and done with by now.


RE: Thankfully.
By Helbore on 7/6/2010 1:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'd wager they were more involved than simply signing up to this. It's got Antichrist Mandelson's fingerprints all over it.


RIAA Pot Calls P2P Kettle Black
By Hlafordlaes on 7/5/2010 4:21:14 PM , Rating: 4
Having operated a retail outlet dealing in music and video in the 80's and 90's, I can testify to the illegal practices of the industry at the time. From forcing buyers to use their transport services (@4x going rates), to giving away a free copy per n items instead of discounting prices (promo copies pay no royalties to artists), to adding advertising costs directly as line items to product invoices (another royalty-free way of pricing), the industry did everything in its power to abuse their monopolistic hold while screwing artists and retailers alike.

That after decades of internet growth, abundant indications that online viewing with advertising can work as well as broadcast media, and drastically lower costs for digital distribution, media companies cannot (ahem, will not) make the mental transition from monopolist to fair player is clearly a testimony to their own greed, and is what is creating the bulk of piracy.

Lower prices, learn to actually provide value, and do your business homework!! There is more to business than calling your attorney every day to put another squeeze on someone.




RE: RIAA Pot Calls P2P Kettle Black
By Lerianis on 7/6/2010 4:39:15 AM , Rating: 2
Giving 'buy 4, get one free' is not illegal. Contrary to the popular belief on the part of music artists. If it was, then those foods and other things doing that would be doing something 'illegal', and the courts have ruled numerous times that they are not.


By JediJeb on 7/7/2010 10:29:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Giving 'buy 4, get one free' is not illegal. Contrary to the popular belief on the part of music artists. If it was, then those foods and other things doing that would be doing something 'illegal', and the courts have ruled numerous times that they are not.


There is a difference between illegal and unethical. By using a loophole to rob the artist of their royalty then the record company is simply stealing by legal means. To the record company it is ok to find a way around paying the artist or over charging the distributor, but when a consumer tries to find a way around paying the record company they fight tooth and nail to prevent it or even prevent you from thinking about it. It is not so much that record companies are going after pirates that make me upset, it is that they are doing the same thing themselves.

Didn't one record company just lose a lawsuit because they were selling song by an artist which they had no rights to sell, but since he had worked for them in the past, they assumed that they had rights to songs he made later even though there was no contract to that effect.

The British music group tried to sue people for playing their radio loud enough that others could hear it because that constituted a live performance. You would think they would want more people to hear it so maybe more would buy the music. Another example here in the US last year was the NFL shut down a church that was going to have a Super Bowl party where they would show the game free. Apparently it is ok for a couple hundred people to watch the game free at home separately but not all on one TV.


look at the bright side...
By crleap on 7/5/2010 3:27:05 PM , Rating: 5
there isn't room in US prisons for filesharers. the vacancies are already filled by people doing hard time for being caught with an eighth of pot.




I have an idea
By sweetsauce on 7/5/2010 2:31:33 PM , Rating: 4
Why don't these "copyright holders" take all the money they waste year after year on lobbyist and crooked side deals with politicians and keep it for themselves. Take it one step further and fire all these law firms they hold on retainer for their stupid lawsuits. I JUST MADE THEM BILLIONS!!!




By Beenthere on 7/6/2010 11:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
Piracy is a crime so I'm all for sending pirates to prison in addition to stiff fines. This will create construction jobs building and managing new prisons, so it's all good. We get scum off the streets and in prison and rebuild the economy at the same time. What's not to like unless you're a pirate?




By erikstarcher on 7/6/2010 2:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
So we should put speeders in jail because they broke the law? What about jay-walkers? Where do you think we should stop? Or should we put everyone that has ever done anything against the law in jail. Who would pay for all of this? The government could not afford it because there would be no taxes coming in since everyone (including most of the people in the government) would be in jail.


To whom it may concern...
By Daniel8uk on 7/5/2010 4:39:58 PM , Rating: 1
I have committed an illegal act, I have downloaded a file, in fact I have downloaded many files, a rough guestimate in GB (Gigabytes) would be around 700-1000GB, this being over the last year alone.

Now armed with the ACTA law and the above information you can quietly go fuck yourself in the corner while I get on with my life.

Thank you,

Your average person who doesn't give a fuck.




RE: To whom it may concern...
By Lerianis on 7/6/2010 4:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The average person is not going to give a flying flip about this, and will just keep on downloading 'illegally'.


Heading the wrong direction
By Stiggero on 7/5/2010 2:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
Filesharing isn't the issue, it's the result of an existing problem.




This smacks of imperial authority
By dreddly on 7/5/2010 2:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
Having a basis for criminal law that is decided in secret by ministers and leaders is the repugnant stuff that was supposed to have ended in WWII. It is amazing that this has been revived for intellectual property and is well beyond constitutional or domestic norms in law. Even the ICC can't reach this far and still respects the primacy of state law (first crack) over its own jurisdiction.

This is a fundamental corruption of democratic societies. After the stuff in Toronto last week, I can't help but think that the paranoid anarchists are right and this is a absurd abuse of power.




Modern America
By Jalek on 7/5/2010 2:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
This is what you get when you allow a private organization's lawyers to negotiate an international treaty.

We wouldn't want anyone tied to an elected person to negotiate such things. Unfortunately, the Senate ratification probably wouldn't cost too much, Congressional vote whoring seems to be cheaper after the bailouts.




Well THAT stinks
By mindless1 on 7/5/2010 3:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
Only bright side I can see to this is if we stop letting content holders sue people for dozens of thousands of dollar judgements for sharing a dozen $1 MP3 files.

All along I felt that if someone were caught illegally sharing files it should be a simple fine, a small fine considering it does not pose risk to life like exceeding the speed limit in an automobile, then repeat offenders PROVEN to have committed the crime ( more than just "this is your IP address" ) should get some jail time or short banning from having a personal internet service account.

Are these *complete* solutions? Of course not, nor do we need to fixate on 100% effective solutions when there are far worse problems in the world than people who can't afford content getting it for free.

Otherwise they'd just stick with only free content, there has to be a way advertisers can get in on the act and INCREASE profit to content holders when people share files instead of magically preventing it from happening at all. Ads can be stripped out of course, but they can be blocked on the internet as well yet advertising remains a viable, profitable venture when done well.




Bad things
By knutjb on 7/5/2010 4:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
In the US copyrights are a part of our founding documents. They believed if you protect inventors from those who profit from stealing their creations ideas will flourish, and they did.

They left it up to the holder to bring violations up in court to recover losses, i.e. MS word and the little company who sued them. The system worked, whether you liked the outcome or not.

The problem here is our leaders don't have much control over the internet and one slip-up on video goes viral their career is over. Free Speech at its best, the politician in their own words. What more could you ask.

So how do you clamp down or incite fear to those who would show such a video? Create a victim, copyright holders, create a "protection," criminalizing of file sharing, for said victim and include prison as a primary form of punishment to intimidate anyone from considering their participation.

Now you have a much smaller number to police. But they will write it in such a broad way that it could make all parties who's networks are crossed get included even if they have no knowledge but allowed a "crime" to occur. Now you have more eyes fearing they could be implicated and will rat out others to save their own skin. Kinda like East Germany.

Fear is an powerful excellent motivator, though fraught with more side effects than open, free, societies. Those who have power don't like to give it up and frequently change things to keep them in power.

This looks like people bedamned we're going to do whatever it takes to stay in power. Why else would they try to do all of this in secret? It certainly isn't rocket science.

The real rebels are those in power who violate the public trust for their own benefit.

All of this has the makings of a good conspiracy book...




Individuals vs State vs Business
By tech329 on 7/6/2010 4:33:14 AM , Rating: 2
I may be overly sensitive to the conflict here but we've been witness to the state favoring business over individuals for quite some time.

In the overall, business has seriously harmed the state in many instances but has yet to suffer any serious consequence. How this all works has changed very dramatically in my lifetime. In purely objective numeric terms the collective damage has been of great consequence but the political response has been anemic at best. Even though the reasons for this are more than apparent, I'm still in awe of the gravity and the denial of the error.




Some research...
By TheEinstein on 7/6/2010 8:13:20 AM , Rating: 2
I am a minor politician, devout statistics scientist, and more.

I have decided to try to make a personal policy paper on this subject but I would like to have aces to more discussion about ACTA, RIAA, and the likes.

There has to be a solution that does not allow piracy willy nilly but also prevents monopolistic activities. If not I intend to research this and to try to come up with some plausible solutions.

Links to forums and blogs would be much appreciated.




"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki