This is the kind of apathy and ignorance that will let something as atrocious as this treaty pass and be enforced.SimuLord said:Love the foil-hat crowd, really. Since I don't pirate, file-share, or use P2P networks (except for their lawfully intended purpose, ie Skype), I'm not so worried about the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Conference or ACTA bringing Hulkamania down on me.
Ehh, not really. That's more saying "if you illegally obtain a copyrighted or IP protected work, even if you don't resell it, it's illegal", which is part of extant copyright protections.NameIsRobertPaulson said:How about Section 3: Legal Framework, allowing for "Administrative sanctions for infringements without private financial gain" I.E. if you so much as look at a copyrighted image you can get in trouble.
Which is the same of any criminal offense (which the ACTA would make copyright infringement). The State is always the named party in criminal prosecutions, even if the victim chooses not to pursue action.NameIsRobertPaulson said:Or allowing Ex Officio Authority (Can act without civil action by the companies).
Ehh... Not without proving it in a court of law. That's what you're forgetting, mate. They're not being given the right to do any of this willy-nilly. All this is is an extension of existing policing abilities to stop piracy and copyright infringement.NameIsRobertPaulson said:Or Destruction of all property that contains copyrighted products (For looking at an unliceneced google image, they can break your computer)
Any of that sound fine to you?
Take a look at the enforcement section. Read it carefully. Specifically the bit about ex parte search authority granted, as well as ex officio authority. That means that whether the IP owner lodges complaint or not, they have the right to search you and your property for any violations of copyright law. What's more, they have not only full right but a legal obligation to hand over all of your personal information to the IP owner if they believe such a violation is found.Seldon2639 said:I read the proposal on Wikileaks (linked above), and found nothing in it which gives that authority either to ISPs or to the police. Seizure of a piece of property without cause or warrant would be unconstitutional, but there's nothing in anything which has been released or leaked which included that provision.
Can you give me citation?
A good thought. Except there's this little provision in here... Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 2.2, part 3.SimuLord said:Love the foil-hat crowd, really. Since I don't pirate, file-share, or use P2P networks (except for their lawfully intended purpose, ie Skype), I'm not so worried about the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Conference or ACTA bringing Hulkamania down on me.
You example with Brazil is terrible. The problem there with violating IPR laws is that if everyone else does it as well you remove any incentive to do it in the first place. Developing drugs takes a LOT of money and the intellectual property laws are the only things that provide a way for them to make their money back. You take that away and developing any new drugs becomes impossible because there will never be any way for to recoup the money spent developing them.Nailz said:snip
why look towards others? speak out against this yourself inform pepole, send a letter to fox news... lets be honest here, some pepole on fox are a little bit annoying and tedious and not the brightest bulbs (here is looking at you Hannity, you give libertarians a bad name :| ) but they would get up in arms about this as they should!Skullkid4187 said:Where is the Republican party on this there is no way in hell they would let it pass
What are you talking about? They love big business and will do anything to stroke their dicks. They would be in full support of this crap.Skullkid4187 said:Where is the Republican party on this there is no way in hell they would let it pass
My sentiments exactly.Blatherscythe said:It's been an honor posting here with you all.Irridium said:Well, in case the worst happens, I just want to let you all know that I love all of you.
why do you say that when you must've commited some sort of piracy yourself?Nerdfury said:lol, stopping the theft of people's hard-created works, an "invasion of human rights, privacy, and free speech"?
God, you people are stupid.
uhh, you must've have commited some piracy at one point. don't don't think you are safe. your gonna allow the dickheads ACTA invade your privacy?SimuLord said:Love the foil-hat crowd, really. Since I don't pirate, file-share, or use P2P networks (except for their lawfully intended purpose, ie Skype), I'm not so worried about the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Conference or ACTA bringing Hulkamania down on me.
There IS an online petition...WITH A PITIFUL SIX THOUSAND VOTES! COME ON PEOPLE GET WITH THE FREAKIN PROGRAM HERE!Legendeer said:I would sign an online petition, but i guess thats illegal too now.....
He had legal access since late 2001. It's called the Patriot Act, and it makes the ACTA look Peewee's Playhouse in comparison when it comes to violating the Constitution.Gyrefalcon said:Um, Bush was demanding to be given access to everyone's private information when he was in office.