ACTA is going to kill the Internet.
- Thread starter Akai Shizuku
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's too long to read now and I've only got 5 minutes.
I know it's odd to say this, but maybe we should tell Glenn Beck or Shawn Hannity.
I mean, they're always talking about how US Sovereignty is in danger.. I think having an international body forcing the federal government to overlook Constitutional Rights would be right up their alley.
I mean, they're always talking about how US Sovereignty is in danger.. I think having an international body forcing the federal government to overlook Constitutional Rights would be right up their alley.
Goodbye democracy, hello totalitarianism.
It seems that most people are more worried about copyrights than important stuff, like for e.g. corruption, murders, famine, humanity becoming a space faring civilization, disease. But apparently these don't count; copyrights are more important.
This is an invasion of privacy. The government should not have the right to search my computer without a fucking warrant. It's like if a cop came to your house, opened your door and started searching your house without the need of a warrant.
But hell, the amount of public backlash will be INSANE. Surely, politicians can't be so stupid not to realize that if the population get's mad, everything goes to shit.
It seems that most people are more worried about copyrights than important stuff, like for e.g. corruption, murders, famine, humanity becoming a space faring civilization, disease. But apparently these don't count; copyrights are more important.
This is an invasion of privacy. The government should not have the right to search my computer without a fucking warrant. It's like if a cop came to your house, opened your door and started searching your house without the need of a warrant.
But hell, the amount of public backlash will be INSANE. Surely, politicians can't be so stupid not to realize that if the population get's mad, everything goes to shit.
It's exactly the same here in the UK, what you are refering to is that law's made cannot have a retrospective effect.Zetona said:
Impossible, in order to be convicted of a criminal offence you must be found to be guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". The burden of proof is much higher than your stated "accusations".Akai Shizuku said:
A.C.T.A. Will not be world wide, but if any such thing is implemented it will be at each countrys discretion to implement any such laws.Akai Shizuku said:
Due to lack of time I have not had the chance to watch both video's fully or do any further research so excuse me for the moment if anything i have stated is partialy incorrect. However as a Degree law student what you are saying appears to be little more than fear mongering at this stage.
Ow well A.C.T.A Will screw things over but i've searched what i can do against it all i know atm is a petition thats going around http://www.petitiononline.com/stopacta/petition.html signed just incase it will work u never know
Out of 435 representatives, I think we'll be okay. Considering both the seats in the house and senate will be up for election again in November 2009, they'll be walking on egg shells. The biggest supporter is the EU. They always seem to try and fuck things up for the rest of us.lodo_bear said:
Never mind the fact that I know how to clean a hard drive if I need to, I'm not even using the same computer anymore. The computer with all the pirated files is no longer on the net, no ever will be again. Finally, if I went back into software/media piracy I'd use dual systems at a minimum and keep my tracks covered.stinkychops said:
The same concepts that go into espionage and counter-espionage apply to piracy, especially in this day and age. If you want to be successful, be invisible. The net is a wide-open forum and should be treated as such if you plan on these sorts of activities, whether or not this treaty gets passed.
OT: If we ever want to get past this kind of thing, we are going to have to re-think property rights, especially intellectual property rights. I know this flies in the face of all capitalist and free-market theory, but we do have options. I loved listening to one radio show host ask "Does Tiger Woods wife really deserve $300 million for only two years of marriage?" There's obviously a lot of tangential commentary that could be made but the point I would bring up is this: If we ask that of her, shouldn't we ask if Tiger Woods deserves the extreme amounts of money and the buying power it affords him for playing a game? Furthermore, once anyone reaches a certain point in terms of buying power, don't we need to ask if they have crossed the line from free-market agent to political power and need to consider how powerful we want to allow individuals and groups to become. Ayn Rand would have a fit over this line but she and many others forget that every action we take in the developed world is predicated upon being able to take that action. Almost all of the options afforded us are based upon living in an integrated society where many individuals work hard to make that society even possible. Many of those individuals have effort as their token and not exceptional talent (even if that talent is only rising to ones highest level of mediocrity). In the US, this adds up to a life of hard work where those you work for reap the overwhelming benefit of the effort for many. Ultimately these are the people who will be hurt by this the most: When mom downloads a movie for her and her husband that they can't afford, and months later they get tagged with a penalty, or dad's hard-drive has a pirated game on it his son managed to get a copy of. The owners of intellectual property rights are being hurt most by each other. Take an honest look at technological development, especially in computers, and you will see a history driven as much by courtroom finangling, intellectual espionage and hostile free-market take-overs as you will actual development of new products. Thanks to such a mentality we now have laws like this to keep us all in line and good little cogs for the machine.
This is part of why I'm a pirate and will be until the day I retire to Taoist monk-hood.
It never works out that way. We started building up our security in order to keep terrorists at bay. The same systems have nailed more than a few stoners, anyone staging 'terrorist-like' activities such as trying to stop developers from cutting down trees (without hurting anyone) were asked held to the same standards as murderers, and one of our wonderful three-letter agencies had operatives in a group of something like 'grannies for goodness'. It's damn-near a simple maxim: Every law implemented will be abused by the power structure, and the farther reaching the law, the greater the abuse.JimmyBassatti said:
Welcome to human nature, and stay the hell away from my hard drive, it's none of your business without a properly sanctioned warrant. And that goes for every hard drive owned by everyone I care about, the vast majority of whom are not pirates.
What are they going to do? Search every teenager's laptop for pirated stuff and remove P2P completely?!Akai Shizuku said:
Like people who were never Communists weren't accused of Communism back in the '50s? Or how American citizens of Japanese birth weren't put into camps because of something they couldn't help? Or how innocent muslims weren't arrested and sent to prison because of their religion/nationality, despite their protestations of innocence?Internet Kraken said:
Basically what it sounds like it comes down to is that if you do anything wrong, or even if somebody there doesn't LIKE you, they can just accuse you three times. Bam! Doesn't matter if you were innocent or not.
It's better to seem innocent and be guilty than be innocent and seem guilty.
Oh, and somebody said "don't give them anything to accuse you with." That's not how things work. They don't NEED evidence or even PC to "accuse" you. They can just charge you with a paper-thin case, then let your lawyer get you off. And repeat 2 more times. And then you lose your Internet forever.
It's a scare tactic, they cannot actually persecute that many people EVERYONE infringes on copyrights now and then online are they going to go after every teenager with an I-pod or mp3player, every guy with a YouTube account, every fan art, mod that uses copyrighted material, pirate, file sharer, torrent uploader, every guy watching a stream, downloader. Use your damned minds they cannot persecute that many people and Europe has heavy sanctions on monopolies to stop people being fucked by corporations like this.
This won't go anywhere. If the treaty passes(which I doubt), nothing will change. People won't become "afraid", because they know that everyone does it, and will continue to do so. And at that point, what is the government going to do? Confiscate 95% of all digital devices that the country owns? During a depression? Yeah, they're not that stupid.
That, and everyone would cry "fair use" and get away with it anyway.
That, and everyone would cry "fair use" and get away with it anyway.
I'm going to have to call just a little bit of exaggeration here. The video sources you have quoted, while containing a large amount of relevant information, have a large level of political bias within which seems to be against the Obama Government. Putting that aside though, the ACTA is a treaty that is under consideration and hence under construction. Its purpose is primarily to act as a watchdog for illegally obtained content, as the Internet is currently subject to a ridiculously small amount of law. Anything you want - you can find it on the internet. Warez, child pornography, instructions on how to create weapons, you name it.Akai Shizuku said:
Now while I may not agree with the ACTA, it does not come anywhere near "destroying the internet and turning the world into a totalitarian hellhole." The treaty itself must be subject to laws already in existence, which therefore elminates access to a computer's hard drive and any personal information. The data which would theoretically be available is limited to the data passed through your ISP - essentially a summary of the sites you visited, files you downloaded, and so on. So basically this treaty would allow the free transmission of this data. Is it ethical, or in breach of privacy? Perhaps, that depends on your own morals and beliefs. However, I do not think it is unethical to attempt to reduce the amount of internet piracy, and this does not denote a totalitarian destruction of the internet.
We live in what you could call the Goldern Age of the Internet, and as I mentioned, I'm not in support of the ACTA, as its laws seem too harsh and rigid. However, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the state of the internet should change, as currently the internet allows the breach of a ridiculous amount of laws, particularly in regards to intellectual property and copyright. You're just going to have to face that one day the piracy of a game, film, or program over the internet faces the same ramifications as its piracy in the physical world.
Stop being such a drama queen.
This makes me laugh. How many people use the internet worldwide? Think of all the manpower, and the computer power, that would be needed to moniter each and every computer in the World.
The really funny thing is though, that the people who do it will be adults, and the younger generations are far more tech-savvy than us older generations will ever be. They have 5 year olds on PCs. When I was 5, I had an amega 500.
It is just a scare tatic that will drive file sharing deeper underground.
Remember the whole outcry with VHS. Illegally copying VHS funded the IRS, now illegally downloading stuff funds terrorism. Go figure.
(I have actually never downloaded anything online, but only because my computer is a little old and a downloaded virus would kill it.)
The really funny thing is though, that the people who do it will be adults, and the younger generations are far more tech-savvy than us older generations will ever be. They have 5 year olds on PCs. When I was 5, I had an amega 500.
It is just a scare tatic that will drive file sharing deeper underground.
Remember the whole outcry with VHS. Illegally copying VHS funded the IRS, now illegally downloading stuff funds terrorism. Go figure.
(I have actually never downloaded anything online, but only because my computer is a little old and a downloaded virus would kill it.)
