Jump to content

Oppose the ACTA!


Cthulhu

Recommended Posts

 

Taken from: http://www.anti-acta.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=1

 

Click to reveal..
ACTA, or it's full name, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is an International Treaty that will be established by 2010. It is a treaty that has been discussed in Private since October 2007, but has been leaked by government officials who were against the sheer unconstitutional, ineffective and the Violating of Humans Rights of such a treaty.

 

Countries affected by this treaty are:

 

Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, The Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States

 

The official goal of the agreement is the international enforcement of strong intellectual property rights. Some of our concerns include the vague, amorphous manner in which “counterfeit” is used in many of the public comments. These uses run the gamut from undisputedly illegal products to expressly legitimate generic products. We believe that ACTA holds the potential to restrict innovation, consumer choice and freedom on the Internet by it's many restrictions and its changes to the legal front on copyrights.

 

The scope of ACTA is includes counterfeit goods, generic medicines, Internet censorship, irrational new downloading laws and what is termed "piracy over the Internet", because it is in effect a treaty, ACTA would overcome many court precedents in your own country that defines consumer rights as to "fair use" and would remove any limitations on the application of intellectual property laws. This means that ACTA would overrule any laws in your own country, and deal harsher, unfair and ineffective punishment to anyone suspected of piracy, without a trial in court. If you are SUSPECTED, not even convicted, but SUSPECTED of listening to songs illegally, or uploading anything illegal, you may be dealt with harshly, against the laws of your own country.

 

ACTA also makes Internet Service Providers legally responsible for any of it's users downloaded content. ACTA gives recording industries more rights to enforce copyrights and officers of the law the right to search any digital device for copyrighted material. Did you pay for the songs in your iPod? Under the new law, that instantly classifies you as a criminal, and the same classification as murderers and rapists. You WILL get a criminal record. Even if you do not download songs into your iPod, you will feel the effects as millions, possibly billions of dollars in taxpayer's money will be poured in to catch these "criminals", money that can be used to save lives.

 

Part of ACTA deems anyone accused of copyright infringement to "compensate" for the loss in profit to recording companies. They want harsher punishments for these criminals. These recording companies, such as UMG, earn upwards of 1 billion dollars in 2009. However, the RIAA ( Recording Industries Association of America ) recently sued a 12 year old girl for downloading, as well as many other people. They are seeking $150 000 PER SONG, on allofmp3.com[1] How much harsher will they go?

 

Isn't there a point where they must stop?

ACTA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh dammit australia's in on this too?

 

i do find it kinda funny how it's pretty much accepted that nobody pays for recorded music any more though. i don't think any legal measures are going to change that; people really don't like paying for things they're used to getting for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
oh dammit australia's in on this too?

i do find it kinda funny how it's pretty much accepted that nobody pays for recorded music any more though. i don't think any legal measures are going to change that; people really don't like paying for things they're used to getting for free.


I still buy records, since you can't actually pirate those. And Itunes is essentially free due to all the $10 gift cards I get...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Master1
TL;DR
But I'm not too worried about more copyright protection, since I obey copyright laws. So long as my free movie sites don't get taken down. But they're all run by foreign countries...


so i take it you never fast-forward through the commercials when you watch a video then
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why Morocco is on that list.

 

The government has been trying to control the internet for a long time. There are people (i.e. Joe Lieberman) in the U.S. government that want to grant the president power to take control of the internet in the event of a "national crisis." In much of the E.U. a person must present ID before entering an internet café. People don't seem to care, though, before it's too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: Master1
TL;DR
But I'm not too worried about more copyright protection, since I obey copyright laws. So long as my free movie sites don't get taken down. But they're all run by foreign countries...


so i take it you never fast-forward through the commercials when you watch a video then


What does that have to do with this? Maybe I should have read it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Master1
Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: Master1
TL;DR
But I'm not too worried about more copyright protection, since I obey copyright laws. So long as my free movie sites don't get taken down. But they're all run by foreign countries...


so i take it you never fast-forward through the commercials when you watch a video then


What does that have to do with this? Maybe I should have read it...


Video sites make money by making you watch commercials. Simple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Master1
But I'm not too worried about more copyright protection, since I obey copyright laws. So long as my free movie sites don't get taken down. But they're all run by foreign countries...
Quote:
Even if you do not download songs into your iPod, you will feel the effects as millions, possibly billions of dollars in taxpayer's money will be poured in to catch these "criminals", money that can be used to save lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Master1
Originally Posted By: Dantius
Video sites make money by making you watch commercials. Simple.

You, my friend, need to learn about Megavideo.
Also, SurfTheChannel gives links to tons of tv shows/movies that don't have commercials.


Well, there's this site called Youtube that makes you watch commercials, but it's pretty obscure, so you might not have heard of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Master1
Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: Master1
TL;DR
But I'm not too worried about more copyright protection, since I obey copyright laws. So long as my free movie sites don't get taken down. But they're all run by foreign countries...


so i take it you never fast-forward through the commercials when you watch a video then


What does that have to do with this? Maybe I should have read it...


You said that you obey copyright laws. If you videotape a show on TV and don't watch all the commercials, or you watch the show more than once, you've violated copyright law, according to the broadcasting industry. The only legally established use for a VCR's record function is "time-shifting": watching the exact same program in its entirety at a different time, once. If you skip the commercials when you watch a video, you could legally be sued for hundreds or thousands of dollars, and depending on where you live, you may be a criminal.

A lot of people don't realise how absurd the current state of copyright law is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Cthulhu
Part of ACTA deems anyone accused of copyright infringement to "compensate" for the loss in profit to recording companies. They want harsher punishments for these criminals. These recording companies, such as UMG, earn upwards of 1 billion dollars in 2009. However, the RIAA ( Recording Industries Association of America ) recently sued a 12 year old girl for downloading, as well as many other people. They are seeking $150 000 PER SONG, on allofmp3.com[1] How much harsher will they go?

Now that assertion is disingenuous. It should be fairly obvious that record companies aren't going to sue every person who downloaded a song, much like the movie industry won't sue any person who's torrented a movie. The point of this is a deterrent; they are basically trying to ruin these people's lives so other people will think "I shouldn't mess with these people", and pony up the 99 cents and buy it on iTunes. This article seems to be asserting that if we don't IMMEDIATELY band together, get out the pitchforks, and go demonstrate in front of RIAA headquarters, we'll all be killed in our sleep by stealthy ninja assassins. THe whole point of taking ridiculous action is to game people's misunderstanding of probability and think "This could happen to ME!!!!", instead of thinking that "I have a one in five hundred million chance of having this happen to me, let's download/crack/torrent away!".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote:
You said that you obey copyright laws. If you videotape a show on TV and don't watch all the commercials, or you watch the show more than once, you've violated copyright law, according to the broadcasting industry. The only legally established use for a VCR's record function is "time-shifting": watching the exact same program in its entirety at a different time, once. If you skip the commercials when you watch a video, you could legally be sued for hundreds or thousands of dollars, and depending on where you live, you may be a criminal.
........Are you saying that TIVO is copyright infringement?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dantius
Now that assertion is disingenuous. It should be fairly obvious that record companies aren't going to sue every person who downloaded a song, much like the movie industry won't sue any person who's torrented a movie. The point of this is a deterrent; they are basically trying to ruin these people's lives so other people will think "I shouldn't mess with these people", and pony up the 99 cents and buy it on iTunes. This article seems to be asserting that if we don't IMMEDIATELY band together, get out the pitchforks, and go demonstrate in front of RIAA headquarters, we'll all be killed in our sleep by stealthy ninja assassins. THe whole point of taking ridiculous action is to game people's misunderstanding of probability and think "This could happen to ME!!!!", instead of thinking that "I have a one in five hundred million chance of having this happen to me, let's download/crack/torrent away!".


A law that only "works" because it's almost never enforced is a bad law.

Originally Posted By: Øther


Quote:
You said that you obey copyright laws. If you videotape a show on TV and don't watch all the commercials, or you watch the show more than once, you've violated copyright law, according to the broadcasting industry. The only legally established use for a VCR's record function is "time-shifting": watching the exact same program in its entirety at a different time, once. If you skip the commercials when you watch a video, you could legally be sued for hundreds or thousands of dollars, and depending on where you live, you may be a criminal.
........Are you saying that TIVO is copyright infringement?


You didn't hear that the manufacturers of TiVo got in a huge legal battle over exactly this? They worked out a settlement where they pay licence fees to broadcasters in every country they operate in, I believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dantius
Originally Posted By: Lilith
A law that only "works" because it's almost never enforced is a bad law.


It could still be an effective law, though. The RIAA wants results, not "good" laws.

Yes, and I want good laws, because like most people I don't care what happens to the RIAA. A law that that heaps disproportionate penalties on a small fraction of violators is effective much the way that fascists are effective railway managers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, the RIAA doesn't need to sue in such a way that, on average, illegal downloaders lose some meaningful amount of money and just decide to pay. They just need to make it bad enough if you get caught that it's not worth the miniscule risk of actually being the one sued into the ground.

 

Failing that, the RIAA needs to make enough money suing people that they're content. They seem to be making plenty of money. Maybe happiness will follow.

 

—Alorael, who has no idea how piracy affects economies and industry. He's fairly sure it's here to stay, though, and the real problem with ACTA really is enforcement. If it becomes expensive, it's a waste of money. Leave it to industries to create DRM and then fight it out with the consumers who hate DRM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would definitely have to say that was a snippet from Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Arc.

 

Why not deal with Copyright infringement the same way some places deal with marijuana? If the person just has a little bit, take it away or fine them a $25-$100 penalty. Save the big punishment(s) for the dealer/distributor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Sarachim

No, Dinti had it right. It's the ending of Falling Stars.
I am certain that this is Indiana Jones. Its been an extremely long time since I have seen the movie, but when I saw it I immediately though of Indiana Jones. I clearly remember (somehow) that weird guy with glasses who was the movie's antagonist (or main one. whatever.), and I even remember that he burned his hand on this golden amulet thing and used his burn as a map.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Øther
Originally Posted By: Sarachim

No, Dinti had it right. It's the ending of Falling Stars.
I am certain that this is Indiana Jones. Its been an extremely long time since I have seen the movie, but when I saw it I immediately though of Indiana Jones. I clearly remember (somehow) that weird guy with glasses who was the movie's antagonist (or main one. whatever.), and I even remember that he burned his hand on this golden amulet thing and used his burn as a map.


No, I think you'll find it's from Falling Stars, and this link is proof.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
You said that you obey copyright laws. If you videotape a show on TV and don't watch all the commercials, or you watch the show more than once, you've violated copyright law, according to the broadcasting industry. The only legally established use for a VCR's record function is "time-shifting": watching the exact same program in its entirety at a different time, once. If you skip the commercials when you watch a video, you could legally be sued for hundreds or thousands of dollars, and depending on where you live, you may be a criminal.


Yay for copyright. I now hate it. Or at least its current manifestation.


Originally Posted By: Means and Ends Committee
Failing that, the RIAA needs to make enough money suing people that they're content. They seem to be making plenty of money. Maybe happiness will follow.


You forget that the correlation between money and greed is exponential. The more money you have, the more you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more money you have, the more the PR blow of suing teenagers isn't worth the extra cash.

 

—Alorael, who considers that not really the point. The RIAA does want money, but it wants money in amounts so large that the lawsuits are trivial for income purposes. They want to sue enough people to scare away downloaders but not so many that everyone hates the RIAA. So far they seem to have it backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/

 

hey here is a new article on why copyright laws are terrible

 

some dude bought up the copyrights to a bunch of old newspaper articles and is suing blogs that quote the articles for statutory damages of $150,000 each

 

most people aren't even willing to defend themselves because retaining a lawyer costs more than settling the case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...