ACTA Passed, we failed.

[Pebkio]

Yeah, ACTA is not that bad, just an agreement on how the world would view protecting hardware and software use. It allows that any law passed by any country who signed to be enforced by any other country who also signed... also how those laws should be handled. It makes bills we might pass later even more dangerous, like the Stop Child Pornography Online Act.

But you know what, people should stop profiting from piracy. How messed-up is that? How far entrenched are we in the belief in capitalism:

"Oh, you stole copywrited material, and I have copywrited material that could be stolen, but you get a lot of visits... here, have some of my money so I can advertise to your pirates. I'm sure they won't just pirate me..."

 

[Andy Szidon]

If you don't know how bad ACTA is, you may want to do some research.

I predict that the more people that still need to sign it, the more likely the said person is to be assassinated or lynched by an angry mob.

 

[TorqueConverter]

Obama proves irreversibly and forever that he is a real piece of shit who just doesn't give a fuck and has SIGNED ACTA: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/us-signs-international-anti-piracy-accord.ars

This just in, Syzygy23 proves irreversibly and forever that hyperbole is the only way to go, right away, about everything, forever.

Yes, assuredly, Obama signing a bill you don't agree with (or, possibly, understand) is proof that he is subhuman filth. There is no middle ground. He did something you (possibly) disagree with, therefore he does not give a fuck and is a real piece of shit.

Assuredly.

(you don't actually know what ACTA is or does, do you)

Obama signed into law the NDAA bill so he's definitely a piece of shit, also he's a POLITICIAN which is just a synonym for piece of shit. If you think he's you new best friend ever and that you need to rush to his add whenever he's criticized, wake up! the romance is over, he's just another pig in the white house. Democrats, republicans, both are just turds in a quickly flushing bole. Calling them a piece of shit isn't so much an insult as it is a sad fact.

Because hyperbole is the only way to discuss politics. Seriously, zero middle ground, it is absolutely necessary to leap straight to 'he is a piece of shit' every single time.

Oh and should anyone attempting to be a voice of reason dare to sound like they might possibly be defending said pieces of shit, the only logical response is to mock them.

Because reason is for suckers, I always say.

Nah, you're right. Wild, virulent hyperbole is the only way to go.

(Do I need to point out that you've misspelled words like 'aid', 'bowl' and 'your'? And that doing so sort of makes me take your wild hyperbole even less seriously? I don't really need to say that, right? That would just be tacky of me. Yeah.)

Ouch, someone really hates the word hyperbole, or loves it? Either way talking about my poor spelling cut me deep (Way to go straight for the throat "Mr. Voice of Reason"). I actually wasn't even mocking you in my last comment, I was simply disagreeing with you. Also, to imply that I think "reason is for suckers" because of the one comment I have made to you on the internet seems a little unreasonable, where is the "middle ground" you spoke of?

Now, In regards to my atrocious spelling habits lets conduct an experiment.

A. 2+2=4
B. two plus two equals four
C. tu plas tu ekwals four

Now although the spelling in sentence C is very poor(far worse in fact than my spelling errors)and is different than both A and B it's obvious correctness isn't negated by this fact. It is I think a type of shallowness and blind arrogance to completely disregard a statements meaning in light of its appearance. Readability I think is the single factor of any importance in regards to spelling, and although my spelling and grammar are far from perfect I believe it's still readable and doesn't warrant insult.

IT'S NOT A BILL.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WILL YOU ALL PLEASE STOP CALLING IT A BILL.

A wise man one said: The internet makes you stupid.

Crawl out of the basement everypony and go outside and make some friends already. Engage these new friends in important topics of the day and save the internet for the only thing it has ever been good at, hilarious shit posts.

Yeah, nevermind the rapid expansion of international culture, rapid spread of the awareness of worldwide news and the incredible contribution to the arts that come with borderless spread of information, music, video and multimedia. And the huge boon of jobs in the creative industries. Or the amazing independent studios and projects that have cropped up only because information can be spread from country to country as easily as from mouth to mouth. The internet's just for lolcats and dumb people! It hasn't improved anybody's lives significantly at all! Radio and television too. What trite. We should all live in the forest and sing camp songs passed down through generations and consist off of mushrooms we pick ourselves and live life free of responsibility and connections to the world. Sounds good!

Yes and more yes. Lets not forget the amazing arrow the knee jokes, world wide furry awareness, pokemon fan fiction and the ability to beat off to porn within the comfort of our own homes. I mean that last one alone was simply earth shattering. I can protest all sorts of strange things I don't understand and couldn't be bothered with in real life. Sorry, I mean IRL. All thanks to the internet. + 1 internet praising meme to you!

Ya know what I really hate? Asians. I mean, sure, Asians have been responsible for many of the largest technological advancements in the past 40 years, including all those lil toys that make sites like this possible. But, they also had panties in vending machines, invented tentacle hentai, and helped spread communism. So because of those things they've done, all their good things are null and void.

Don't even get me started on white people.

Damn white people and their my little pony, Mossy Oak camouflage and cargo shorts.

 

[w00tage]

Well, even if you grant that all that is true, the real issue is whether copyright law is good in the first place. Making something bad universal for the sake of consistency is not improving the situation.

Umm... yes. Copyright law (for individuals) is good. Very good. As someone who creates my own material, I like actually owning my IP. It's where my income comes from. So I can afford to eat 'n shit.

Copyright for corporations might not be so hot, but that's something we'll have to deal with, and when they lash out as with SOPA and PIPA, we slap them back down. International copyright law is great. Mostly. By breaking down borders it means that the few people who don't already abide to trade laws (mostly places like China and Korea), it simply means they have an obligation to do something about infingements. That's a good thing.

Sorry, but I can't accept that at face value. Please explain how copyright law has a direct impact on your ability to create and sell what you've created, and how you make more this way than by open fixed or range-of-rate licensing.

From all that I see (and I work in IP too, patents n'stuff), our existing IP laws only feed a massive base of parasitic middlemen that use that money to pass ever more restrictive IP laws "for our protection", but which really guarantee them more business. IMO, the servants have completely taken over this process and are wagging you, me and everyone else for their benefit.

 

[stutheninja]

Obama proves irreversibly and forever that he is a real piece of shit

Yea, i stopped reading there, Here is what im going to say, Let it go, our three months late to the party, and the fact that you are trying to get people on your side by going with the common "Obama is crap" Thing, only means you are grasping at straws here.

well he did sign NDAA... so say goodbye to your Habeas Corpus

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Well, even if you grant that all that is true, the real issue is whether copyright law is good in the first place. Making something bad universal for the sake of consistency is not improving the situation.

Umm... yes. Copyright law (for individuals) is good. Very good. As someone who creates my own material, I like actually owning my IP. It's where my income comes from. So I can afford to eat 'n shit.

Copyright for corporations might not be so hot, but that's something we'll have to deal with, and when they lash out as with SOPA and PIPA, we slap them back down. International copyright law is great. Mostly. By breaking down borders it means that the few people who don't already abide to trade laws (mostly places like China and Korea), it simply means they have an obligation to do something about infingements. That's a good thing.

Sorry, but I can't accept that at face value. Please explain how copyright law has a direct impact on your ability to create and sell what you've created, and how you make more this way than by open fixed or range-of-rate licensing.

From all that I see (and I work in IP too, patents n'stuff), our existing IP laws only feed a massive base of parasitic middlemen that use that money to pass ever more restrictive IP laws "for our protection", but which really guarantee them more business. IMO, the servants have completely taken over this process and are wagging you, me and everyone else for their benefit.

I'm going to assume you know how international copyright works. When I create a work, it's copyrighted. It's my work. I can sell that work without fear that someone else will sell the same thing as their own. If I wasn't the sole owner, everyone would just sell the same thing over and over and over. Or, god forbid, give it away for free. Without copyright, I'd get no compensation for loss of work over people stealing it. Without copyright, I'd get no compensation for people playing my music over the radio. Without copyright, I'd lose revenue, and I'd give up, and go for another job where I get paid for my work. I'd wager many people would, and our culture would fall into a sort of black hole.

IP laws, I find stupid, though. That someone can take something that isn't theirs and license it? Yeah, that sucks. Copyright for the individual who created the work, and for them to give away their work as they desire - great. Copyright that corporations can buy and trade? No thanks. Jimquisition did a bit on this the other week, I believe; he more or less summed up my opinion perfectly, except perhaps in more of a brash way. So, go watch that, I guess. His "Why Piracy is Something, Part One" or whatever. I'm bored now. Typing is hard. I'm tired. Do with my opinion what you wish, I guess.

 

[Lopende Paddo]

people should learn to read entire threads before they post, because spewing crap is what hitler would do...

 

[Samgasm]

ACTA doesn't seem as bad as it has been made out to be, it appears as though if we don't want laws concerning restriction of the internet to be passed it's going to be more a case of dealing with specific legislators on a country to country level.
That being said after all the noise made about SOPA, PIPA, ACTA etc, I really hope the entertainment industry will make some changes to become more relevant in the way they operate.
This made some sense to me:
http://imgur.com/gallery/cilLg

 

[w00tage]

Well, even if you grant that all that is true, the real issue is whether copyright law is good in the first place. Making something bad universal for the sake of consistency is not improving the situation.

Umm... yes. Copyright law (for individuals) is good. Very good. As someone who creates my own material, I like actually owning my IP. It's where my income comes from. So I can afford to eat 'n shit.

Copyright for corporations might not be so hot, but that's something we'll have to deal with, and when they lash out as with SOPA and PIPA, we slap them back down. International copyright law is great. Mostly. By breaking down borders it means that the few people who don't already abide to trade laws (mostly places like China and Korea), it simply means they have an obligation to do something about infingements. That's a good thing.

Sorry, but I can't accept that at face value. Please explain how copyright law has a direct impact on your ability to create and sell what you've created, and how you make more this way than by open fixed or range-of-rate licensing.

From all that I see (and I work in IP too, patents n'stuff), our existing IP laws only feed a massive base of parasitic middlemen that use that money to pass ever more restrictive IP laws "for our protection", but which really guarantee them more business. IMO, the servants have completely taken over this process and are wagging you, me and everyone else for their benefit.

I'm going to assume you know how international copyright works. When I create a work, it's copyrighted. It's my work. I can sell that work without fear that someone else will sell the same thing as their own. If I wasn't the sole owner, everyone would just sell the same thing over and over and over. Or, god forbid, give it away for free. Without copyright, I'd get no compensation for loss of work over people stealing it. Without copyright, I'd get no compensation for people playing my music over the radio. Without copyright, I'd lose revenue, and I'd give up, and go for another job where I get paid for my work. I'd wager many people would, and our culture would fall into a sort of black hole.

See, that's the part I can't accept. That's the same argument as used by the proponents of these bills, and frankly I see it as a big lie intended to keep lawyers billing forever. There's a growing body of evidence that indicates that any publicity, licensed or not, has a positive effect for the copyright owner, starting with that Japanese open manga convention (I forget the name, but most everything there is out-and-out plagarized, it's a huge deal, and the copyright owners just allow it as good publicity for their works.). I really see the burden of copyright ownership and maintenance as harmful to the growth of your works, because you can't get help publicizing it unless you do it the hardest possible way, which imposes the maximum burden on a startup.

Let's look at an alternative - suppose instead of "MINE MINE MINE YOU NEED A LAWYER AND MONEHZ UP FRONT TO LICENSE IT AND I NEED A LAWYER TOO" copyright law, every use of your material was under a mandatory license where you got a piece of the action automatically, and if you didn't, you could just file a claim in court for the revenue due you. A) your work is free to spread as far and wide as the potential audience, so it has the maximum impact possible B) everyone understands the deal and how easy it is for you to take action under the law, and C) there's no fear or legal costs for anyone working in good faith, they can just go to town making your work more famous.

How would your revenues look then, do you think?

 

[funguy2121]

Isn't ACTA a Treay started by the EU and not US Law.
Obama signing the treaty is a diplomatic formality, it is Congress that makes the derision to go for it or not, and even then its up to Congress to write the laws allowing the US to be compliant to ACTA or not.

If we (The US) back out now after signing the Treaty be nothing, how many treaties we broke in the past?

It can still be undermined, overturned and, if the Supreme Court steps in, declared unconstitutional and nullified. But why are you so upset over this when military personnel can now legally assassinate you?

You are misquoting and misinterpreting the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.
One is passed every year outlining the responsibilities and rights of National Security and the Department of Defense. It provides them with their yearly budget and allows out Department of Defense to legally carry out there job for the next year.

The whole arresting people and detainment without legal charges applies only to foreign nationals whose suspect of terrorism or spying outside of the 50 states of the US. Mainly applying to the prisoners were keeping in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, in Camp X-Ray.
As there detainment turned out to be grey area of legality where the US law in concern.

If you are an American citizen you have nothing to fear from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

Sigh. Do some reading. NDAA applies to citizens. They can legally murder citizens. All you have to do to qualify is to commit a "belligerent act" against America or one of her allies. That's it.

 

[samsonguy920]

He signed it, doesn't mean it passed.

Last I checked Obama over stepped his bounds when he did anyway, and has the senate pissed. Besides there is no way American companies would allow China free reign to police copy right laws.

As with Sopa, one the majority of the public gets wind of this the response will be to loud to ignore.

Far as I am concerned, treaties like these should require congress/parliament ratification. Doing an end-run like this, even if it was legal, is just asking for it to get taken to the Supreme Court to get thrown out.
And once it is, maybe the Copyright Gestapo can at least shut up for a generation. So teach your kids why it is good to stand against anything like this and how to do it. And no, Occupy Hollywood isn't the way to do it.