ACTA

[boyst]

I rarely post here. Maybe 3 times ever. However, I do troll this board. I am surprised there has been little if any mention of ACTA. I understand there are mixed reviews on downloading copyrighted material and that is not my concern.

 

My concern is that it will force ISP's to provide possible identities of suspected infringers. It allows the confiscation of devices thought to have been used for copyright violations. MP3's are exempt, oddly. It criminalizes willfull dissemination of copyrighted material. In some ways it makes it a violation to be broadcasting copyrighted materials in your own home while in possesion of the original media. Websites will be forced to monitor all content on their site for violations. It will be interesting to see if posting links or videos from YouTube will be accepted, especially since the stuff is usually illegal! ACTA could, and very easily, rewrite the entire internet...or worse.

 

Because it is a Treaty it is not governed the same as a common law or amendment. It gets even more power in many way. If anyone thought the Patriot act was bad why are people not jumping on this? I do not know if protests will do anything, but people are planning protests. Maybe I am entirely wrong, afterall, I did not read it word for word. It was not released in full until recently, as well. If anyone knows more about this and I am wrong, correct me. But, I am pretty fed up by this.

[drnykterstein]

Yes, I agree, this is another thing we should all be outraged about, but aren't (because demonizing Peggy Joseph is more important). This is just another case of us sacrificing our liberties so corporations can profit.

 

Cory Doctorow is a voice to be listened to regarding these things.

http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=188055&

 

Various drafts of ACTA have included a duty on ISPs to spy on their customers and interdict anything that looks like a copyright violation. (Will that mean that you'll be stopped from capturing a clip of a misleading or fraudulent TV ad and sending it on to your Congressman?) ACTA has also advocated border searches of digital media to look for copyright infringement (your laptop's corporate secrets, confidential client materials, personal correspondence, your will, your bank details, and pictures of your kids in the bath might all end up being searched and copied the next time you go on a business trip). And ACTA has called for streamlined procedures for knocking whole households off the Internet if any member is accused of infringement (so your spouse will lose the ability to email the geriatric ward for information on Grandad's health if your kid is suspected of downloading too many files from P2P).

[boyst]

I have read enough on the sites to verify all of this. You can receive a lifetime ban, from the internet, too.

This is just the best video I found explaining it. He does so in a Beck type way, quick breaking it down way to explain it.

 

I will bump this from time to time because people need to be aware of this!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Also, for you conspiracy people: What stops the media from accusing their opponents of copyrights? Talk about media controlling our thoughts, this would be huge.

Edited October 14, 2010 by jboyst62

[GG]

As with any new technology that disrupts the current state of industry economics, there needs to be a break in period of where the laws catch up to the technology. You may look at the absolute draconian part, but the bottom line is that it costs money to create that copyrighted work and the creators of that work need to be compensated for it and for their rights to be protected.

 

The question facing everyone is, how do you do that when technology is available to easily pilfer that copyrighted work? Self-policing obviously doesn't work, because most people have no compunction in taking somebody else's copyright or even feel guilty about it.

[boyst]

As with any new technology that disrupts the current state of industry economics, there needs to be a break in period of where the laws catch up to the technology. You may look at the absolute draconian part, but the bottom line is that it costs money to create that copyrighted work and the creators of that work need to be compensated for it and for their rights to be protected.

 

The question facing everyone is, how do you do that when technology is available to easily pilfer that copyrighted work? Self-policing obviously doesn't work, because most people have no compunction in taking somebody else's copyright or even feel guilty about it.

While I respect the artists who create I do not believe them to be the leaders of this movement. It is clearly the recording industry, the MPAA, and other copyright owners who are in this for greed. Piracy has been along as far as time can remember, whether it actual pirates, dubbing tapes off the radio or reprinting paintings. While I see positives in this I see only more negatives. It will be unregulated. It will be backed by groups much larger than the government who can actually run a business. I do not feel I should give up one freedom to help line the pocket of some company that cannot find a way to adapt. If the companies spent half as much time and development as the pirates do they would be able to slow down piracy at their best. There will always be piracy, right or wrong, to eliminate rights given to us as Americans is wrong.

The Patriot act was nothing compared to this and look how invasive that was. Of course, if you were not impacted by it you don't really care but I see no reason to allow a government who can't operate a whore house in Nevada the right to more power. I am not saying we're living in the 1985 realm where big brother is watching all the time but we're inching closer with this move, and this time big brother is not government. It is coporate greed who will watch over us, wanting in our pocket. This is no different than cities handing over power of redlight cameras, speed cameras, and "public monitering."

[GG]

While I respect the artists who create I do not believe them to be the leaders of this movement. It is clearly the recording industry, the MPAA, and other copyright owners who are in this for greed. Piracy has been along as far as time can remember, whether it actual pirates, dubbing tapes off the radio or reprinting paintings. While I see positives in this I see only more negatives. It will be unregulated. It will be backed by groups much larger than the government who can actually run a business. I do not feel I should give up one freedom to help line the pocket of some company that cannot find a way to adapt. If the companies spent half as much time and development as the pirates do they would be able to slow down piracy at their best. There will always be piracy, right or wrong, to eliminate rights given to us as Americans is wrong.

The Patriot act was nothing compared to this and look how invasive that was. Of course, if you were not impacted by it you don't really care but I see no reason to allow a government who can't operate a whore house in Nevada the right to more power. I am not saying we're living in the 1985 realm where big brother is watching all the time but we're inching closer with this move, and this time big brother is not government. It is coporate greed who will watch over us, wanting in our pocket. This is no different than cities handing over power of redlight cameras, speed cameras, and "public monitering."

 

Last I checked, the record company and the ISP are private enterprises and it is your choice not to use them if you think they will infringe on your rights. But if you elect to use their services, you have to abide by the EULA of the providers.

 

 

PS - who do you think the record companies, RIAA and MPAA represent if not the artists and content owners?

[drnykterstein]

Last I checked, the record company and the ISP are private enterprises and it is your choice not to use them if you think they will infringe on your rights. But if you elect to use their services, you have to abide by the EULA of the providers.

 

 

PS - who do you think the record companies, RIAA and MPAA represent if not the artists and content owners?

So for the sake of the profits of the RIAA, MPAA and the artists they represent, I have to sacrifice my personal liberties and subject my personal computer to searches? Reality is theses industries need to adjust to the technology, not make the technology adjust to them. Otherwise we'd all still be using buggy whips (look it up).

Edited October 14, 2010 by conner

[RkFast]

So for the sake of the profits of the RIAA, MPAA and the artists they represent, I have to sacrifice my personal liberties and subject my personal computer to searches? Reality is theses industries need to adjust to the technology, not make the technology adjust to them. Otherwise we'd all still be using buggy whips (look it up).

 

 

If you dont like it, dont buy from them.

 

While I respect the artists who create I do not believe them to be the leaders of this movement. It is clearly the recording industry, the MPAA, and other copyright owners who are in this for greed. Piracy has been along as far as time can remember, whether it actual pirates, dubbing tapes off the radio or reprinting paintings. While I see positives in this I see only more negatives. It will be unregulated. It will be backed by groups much larger than the government who can actually run a business. I do not feel I should give up one freedom to help line the pocket of some company that cannot find a way to adapt. If the companies spent half as much time and development as the pirates do they would be able to slow down piracy at their best. There will always be piracy, right or wrong, to eliminate rights given to us as Americans is wrong.

The Patriot act was nothing compared to this and look how invasive that was. Of course, if you were not impacted by it you don't really care but I see no reason to allow a government who can't operate a whore house in Nevada the right to more power. I am not saying we're living in the 1985 realm where big brother is watching all the time but we're inching closer with this move, and this time big brother is not government. It is coporate greed who will watch over us, wanting in our pocket. This is no different than cities handing over power of redlight cameras, speed cameras, and "public monitering."

 

Just admit it...To YOU any kind of profit is "corporate greed", isnt it? Like those EEEEVIIIL oil companies, 'raping' the public to the tune of 8-some-odd cents on the dollar.

Edited October 14, 2010 by RkFast

[RkFast]

Whoops....wait, what?

 

But on Wednesday, the U.S. Trade Representative released the latest draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. And several proposals that had the high-tech sector most worried — including language that some expected to hold Internet service providers and other technology companies responsible for copyright infringement by their users — are missing.

 

In their place are broader, more flexible provisions that expose tech companies to less legal risk and are likely to be more palatable to the industry.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39545679

 

 

Edited October 14, 2010 by RkFast

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Last I checked, the record company and the ISP are private enterprises and it is your choice not to use them if you think they will infringe on your rights. But if you elect to use their services, you have to abide by the EULA of the providers.

 

 

PS - who do you think the record companies, RIAA and MPAA represent if not the artists and content owners?

 

 

So what rights do I, as the owner of a piece of media have under this "treaty?"

[boyst]

Last I checked, the record company and the ISP are private enterprises and it is your choice not to use them if you think they will infringe on your rights. But if you elect to use their services, you have to abide by the EULA of the providers.

 

 

PS - who do you think the record companies, RIAA and MPAA represent if not the artists and content owners?

Much like it was in 1920 the car was a choice that people did not need to live a productive life. The same can be said today with this still and the internet is in a similar situation. How far in life would you be if you had been permabanned on the internet when you were a teenager stealing music? I understand parents are responsible for their children, but can't always watch everything.

 

Also, one of my issues is why does it feel like I as citizen feel I have no representation in this? Why do I feel like these companies like is said below are forcing the world to adapt to them? The internet grew faster than anyone could have ever imagined and has revolutionized the world. This would change all of that. Don't you ask yourself why is YouTube successful and riping off copyrights by the millions every day yet RIAA and MPAA go after private citizens for DLing? It is hypocracy.

 

So for the sake of the profits of the RIAA, MPAA and the artists they represent, I have to sacrifice my personal liberties and subject my personal computer to searches? Reality is theses industries need to adjust to the technology, not make the technology adjust to them. Otherwise we'd all still be using buggy whips (look it up).

Bingo

 

If you dont like it, dont buy from them.

 

 

 

Just admit it...To YOU any kind of profit is "corporate greed", isnt it? Like those EEEEVIIIL oil companies, 'raping' the public to the tune of 8-some-odd cents on the dollar.

 

Vague generalization. I can tell you don't read much of what I post which is hardly on this board. I am pretty much an anarcho-libertarian with conservative fiscal beliefs. That means if you can make money by burning the fetus of stillborn children for fuel, knock yourself out. When someone doesn't support your company, tough beans. I am a capitalist to the fullest but this is not about capitalism and if you do not understand that I want to help you understand my point. This is about imposing on my beliefs not through law or government regulation but through private treaties set up by corporate organizations that will dictate much of my life. There are thousands of people disgusted with this, even if you aren't. Anonymous is is rallying this like crazy and at the forefront of this battle and the reason so much is changing. If you don't know /b than you don't know the power of the internet. Granted it is a quarter of what it used to be, but anons vacate many places across the internet and there is power in the numbers.

 

Whoops....wait, what?

 

But on Wednesday, the U.S. Trade Representative released the latest draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. And several proposals that had the high-tech sector most worried — including language that some expected to hold Internet service providers and other technology companies responsible for copyright infringement by their users — are missing.

 

In their place are broader, more flexible provisions that expose tech companies to less legal risk and are likely to be more palatable to the industry.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39545679

This is the movement we want. I am glad this is falling apart. If I DL something there is no reason that my ISP should provide my IP to anyone unless subpoened due to criminal acts. I had not seen this link, thank you!

 

So what rights do I, as the owner of a piece of media have under this "treaty?"

I do not think it is about rights. Under the act of any treaty it does not recognize rights or laws to specific countries. It trumps all laws in actuality, however, it can be taken to court. Of course, this would cost thousands vs. paying the fine. As part of paying these fines assessed there is an agreement you will not speak of how much you were fined. The fines are imposed not by the government, but by the treaty.

I am fine with metal detectors at the airport and at schools. I am fine with most laws, in fact. I am not fine with the continued influence of outside sources on our government meant to represent our communities.

[GG]

Much like it was in 1920 the car was a choice that people did not need to live a productive life. The same can be said today with this still and the internet is in a similar situation. How far in life would you be if you had been permabanned on the internet when you were a teenager stealing music? I understand parents are responsible for their children, but can't always watch everything.

 

Also, one of my issues is why does it feel like I as citizen feel I have no representation in this? Why do I feel like these companies like is said below are forcing the world to adapt to them? The internet grew faster than anyone could have ever imagined and has revolutionized the world. This would change all of that. Don't you ask yourself why is YouTube successful and riping off copyrights by the millions every day yet RIAA and MPAA go after private citizens for DLing? It is hypocracy.

 

Actually, Youtube started as a rip off site, but now catively polices itself and removes all copyright infringing material. But good try. Ask SDS if he likes playing the cop in deleting copyrighted posts that people love to put on his site here. He probably doesn't. But as a responsible owner of the site, he recognizes that people put time & effort into their work, and just because it lives in a digital domain, doesn't give every yahoo the right to copy it and use it as they please, and he takes the offenders down.

 

No, parents can't be on top of their kids every day. But the parents SHOULD instill a sense of right and wrong in their kids, so the kids and parents understand that ripping off works from an internet site is not a victimless crime. Just because a content company makes $$ millions doesn't entitle you to use their property as you see fit.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Actually, Youtube started as a rip off site, but now catively polices itself and removes all copyright infringing material. But good try. Ask SDS if he likes playing the cop in deleting copyrighted posts that people love to put on his site here. He probably doesn't. But as a responsible owner of the site, he recognizes that people put time & effort into their work, and just because it lives in a digital domain, doesn't give every yahoo the right to copy it and use it as they please, and he takes the offenders down.

 

No, parents can't be on top of their kids every day. But the parents SHOULD instill a sense of right and wrong in their kids, so the kids and parents understand that ripping off works from an internet site is not a victimless crime. Just because a content company makes $$ millions doesn't entitle you to use their property as you see fit.

 

Question restated to see if you'll respond:

 

If I own a piece of media (i.e. a DVD) and I rip it to my hard drive for future viewing without having to swap disks in and out, would that put me afoul of this treaty and therefore under surveillance?

[boyst]

Actually, Youtube started as a rip off site, but now catively polices itself and removes all copyright infringing material. But good try. Ask SDS if he likes playing the cop in deleting copyrighted posts that people love to put on his site here. He probably doesn't. But as a responsible owner of the site, he recognizes that people put time & effort into their work, and just because it lives in a digital domain, doesn't give every yahoo the right to copy it and use it as they please, and he takes the offenders down.

 

No, parents can't be on top of their kids every day. But the parents SHOULD instill a sense of right and wrong in their kids, so the kids and parents understand that ripping off works from an internet site is not a victimless crime. Just because a content company makes $$ millions doesn't entitle you to use their property as you see fit.

Actually, the processes to remove the copyrighted material are very hard. Howard Stern speaks of this often. He has had to hire people who police the website and fill out the forms neccessary. One form for each violation, mailed to YouTube. I would bet that 50% of YouTube is copyrighted materal. 25% original content. The last 25% remaining belongs to forced mergers of companies to work with YouTube. Sirius has now worked out an agreement to display Stern's material which does not copyright material. Many other networks and copyright owners have done this. This is the Copyright owners adapting to the internet, not us adapting to them.

 

It has nothing to do with making millions of dollars it has to do with content. When the TV came out media organizations had to find ways to broadcast their material to this new tool. When Tivo came out and eliminated the need to watch commercials they began to plug advertisements like crazy. Maybe in a few years we'll be listening to Muse or Green Day singing commercial themes on regular radio as a popular song.

 

Now, back to YouTube. Let's say I go to YouTube to watch a video of a new song. The video is on the Capital Records Music channel on YouTube. Before the video begins there is a commercial. The commercial is for GMC. Does GMC pay Capital Records for the advertisement or do they have to split it with YouTube for hosting the video? We do not know for sure but I think everyone here can imagine the 2nd choice being correct. While Capital records was busy doing other things during the internet revolution YouTube created an amazing service that utilized a great demand. Now, for Capitals mistakes, YouTube gets a share of all of their action. Is that not capitalism at it's finest? My point is not that, however. My point is that if you snooze you lose. The RIAA and MPAA has stood idly by the last 15 years trying to find unsuccessful ways to police pirating which has been around since I VHS'd movies on Showtime and dubbed tapes off radio...and probably before that! Remember, like you said earlier, the RIAA and MPAA is strictly existant to police the copyright violations, so they should have been doing nothing else but finding new methods and proceedures to do so. Now, with the faults of the RIAA and MPAA to modernize their business model they are now forcing us to adapt to their world, setting us back years.

 

Question restated to see if you'll respond:

 

If I own a piece of media (i.e. a DVD) and I rip it to my hard drive for future viewing without having to swap disks in and out, would that put me afoul of this treaty and therefore under surveillance?

I know it used to be you were allowed a "copy" of any material you owned as long as it was for personal use. This was huge during the MP3 player days when this was determined so you could buy a CD and copy it to your device vs. having to buy a seperate copy. This is one reason why I hate Apple. They were behind the movement to ensure that you would need to purchase a digital copy which came with one backup copy.

 

 

******** edit

Google's earnings for 3Q were 2.17 billion. They added 1,500 jobs while posting expences of 2.19 billion. YouTube is just another cog in the 2.17 billion made that the RIAA and MPAA could have tapped in to much earlier if better managed. In my capitalistic views I simply insist that because the MPAA and RAA could not operate well enough to succeed in business they do not deserve existance. It is obvious that their clients are let down dramatically. But, I blame the big oil industry, it's their fault that Hollywood has to pay so much for oil to drive those neat little billboard trucks around that advertise upcoming movie...[joking].

Edited October 14, 2010 by jboyst62