by tomorrow, mostly all of you will be breaking the law.
- Thread starter PessimistOwl
- Start date
Recommended Videos
For anyone who wants to do something but is lazy, I found an easy form letter that you can fill out.
Easy senator letter [https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=383]
It's an easy letter to fill out that will email your senators (who have to vote to ratify any treaty) about your concerns with ACTA. It literally takes less than two minutes to fill out.
Easy senator letter [https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=383]
It's an easy letter to fill out that will email your senators (who have to vote to ratify any treaty) about your concerns with ACTA. It literally takes less than two minutes to fill out.
SimuLord said:
I hope that someone else has pointed out that you don't have to have been doing anything wrong. There needs be no evidence - they can literally barge into your home and browse your computer and MP3 player, no charges, no nothing. The opportunity for abuse of this power is unimaginable.
The non-conterfeit goods part of the ACTA makes me think of old people how are unfimiliar with the internat and getting stuck on phishing sites, and clicking on fake ads.
The anti-piracy part reminds me of an interview that Alternitive Press did with the band Fear Before (look it up if you want):
FB talks about how hard it is for them to get money, because they are largely unknown, but they are more conserned about people hear their music then they are with getting payed. They say that they don't care how people hear their music, just as long as people hear it, by whatever means. However Metallica (this contrast is even made in the interview), one of the biggest bands ever, calls for a crackdown on internet piracy.
Its big buisenesses and people miss led by scare tatics that call for the crackdown
The anti-piracy part reminds me of an interview that Alternitive Press did with the band Fear Before (look it up if you want):
FB talks about how hard it is for them to get money, because they are largely unknown, but they are more conserned about people hear their music then they are with getting payed. They say that they don't care how people hear their music, just as long as people hear it, by whatever means. However Metallica (this contrast is even made in the interview), one of the biggest bands ever, calls for a crackdown on internet piracy.
Its big buisenesses and people miss led by scare tatics that call for the crackdown
Assuming you live in America, (I apologize, I didn't check your profile) I can put this fear to rest.Wicky_42 said:
from wikipedia, on US Treaty law:
Therefore, this provision of ACTA would be illegal without the repeal of at least two articles of the bill of rights that I can think of.Wikipedia said:
Hmm... looking at every fucking other treaty in the history ofthe world, i'd like to see this one, out of the many that have come before, actually freakin' enforced. Yeah... well... coem to think of it... MONEY is connected to this one so... maybe it will be.
Fuck. Why can't people getting genocided hurt lobbyists in their wallet?
I kind of feel sorry for companies dealing in intellectual properties, but then I see their prices on their products and I gag a little in my mouth and continue the download.
Seriously... A 40 dollar book with no option to get it more cheaply digitally. Fuck Wizards of the Coast.
Fuck. Why can't people getting genocided hurt lobbyists in their wallet?
I kind of feel sorry for companies dealing in intellectual properties, but then I see their prices on their products and I gag a little in my mouth and continue the download.
Seriously... A 40 dollar book with no option to get it more cheaply digitally. Fuck Wizards of the Coast.
The thing that has been bothering me while reading this thread is why would ISP companies want to give out this information in the first place? Surely banning people would only reduce their revenue. That's not to mention the fact that it is totally unenforceable. There are over 1 billion people on the Internet, and a hell of a lot of these people have done something which is technically illegal.
There is also the fact that this act would make the Internet incredibly unstable. Due to the loss of streaming sites, sharing sites etc, there will be a huge loss in Internet activity surely? This in turn will lead to Internet companies to lose a lot of money, perhaps even fold completely. Yeah, that's a great thing to do considering the state of the economy.
So like, could someone explain this to me? How is this even being considered.
There is also the fact that this act would make the Internet incredibly unstable. Due to the loss of streaming sites, sharing sites etc, there will be a huge loss in Internet activity surely? This in turn will lead to Internet companies to lose a lot of money, perhaps even fold completely. Yeah, that's a great thing to do considering the state of the economy.
So like, could someone explain this to me? How is this even being considered.
Why is there no discussion of sides and motives here? Most of the laws addressed in this treaty already exist in some form but despite a few high profile moves by aggrieved companies and law enforcement most people get away with it. So in the battle between those who profit from legitimate sales and use versus those who use without legal right the people losing money have a lot more at stake. They want their money and unless there is money to be made, they probably won't do it. There will be no squads of jack booted thugs kicking down your door to see if the picture on your desk top was legally obtained but if your ISP doesn't like you for your high use, they have an avenue to get rid of you. Anonymous should worry, they only remain anonymous because their ISPs allow it. If that changes, this treaty means they can be cut off from the internet and charged on only the flimsiest of excuses. When large sums of money are involved, as with the illegal exchange of copyrighted materials over the internet, laws are often changed to favor money.
No it's not terrible, Brazil has combated HIV/aids and pushed back against IPOs in an incredibly effective manner. Brazil got Roche and Merck to agree to reduce the prices of five drugs by 40-65%, in the same instance I cited. The majority of drugs have disgusting mark ups and are unaffordable to people who need them. The pharma industry is is in no way endangered by this, that you think so simply shows you lack the context to form any rational opinion and are instead reacting with your gut. Pfizer had 43363000000$ of sales in 2008 alone. The biggest enemy of research in medicine is in fact the medicinal industry complex, palliative care makes for bigger profits than actually healing anybody. The validity of these arguments isn't up for debate, if you have any basis of knowledge of these industries historically they have done some of the most atrocious and disgusting acts of crime against humanity. For example withholding aids meds to developing nations in order to raise the price through scarcity. The pharma industry doesn't need your ignorant and gregarious defense.QuantumT said:
I've always found it mighty self-serving of the average pirate to whip out such important things as human rights, privacy, and free speech as their shield when what they really want is just the ability to get intellectual property for free without anyone stopping them.PessimistOwl said:
No, this bill is not in violation of your human rights. On the contrary, laws such as this exist to protect human rights - assuming Intellectual Property producers are human. "Human rights" does not mean "I got the right to do anything I want as a human" so much as a more basic "I got the right to live and without being tortured," which is a really nice right to have when you compare it to countries which do not have such rights and enjoy routinely raping and pillaging helpless villages for political reasons.
No, this bill is not a violation of your privacy. If you get caught committing any crime, you don't get to suddenly claim, "but I was in the sanctity of my home office when I did it so you're violating my privacy therefore I can commit that crime without fear of being prosecuted." Yeah, right. If that were the cause, we'd have an awfully hard time enforcing a wide variety of criminal operations: counterfeiting, drug labs, familial abuse, ect. At most, you might be able to argue that having your ISP divulge all your piracy doings to an enforcement agency without your knowledge is a form of entrapment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment], but that probably wouldn't imply, as entrapment suggests they pushed you into committing the crime in order to prosecute you, and piracy is you committing a crime you would have committed anyway on your own accord. I'm pretty sure if they took out a search warrant [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant] against your ISP, you don't need to be informed, because what you're actually doing is being done on the public Internet.
No, this bill does not violate your constitutionally granted (in most first world countries) concept of freedom of speech, which is primarily centered on the idea that you can't be persecuted for speaking your mind. You're probably confusing this with freedom of information, the idea that information should be available at no cost, which is not legally granted and (as pertains to software) is more of an open-source geek's pipe dream and not a legally-granted right at all. "Fair use" gets the closest, but piracy is considered "unfair use," the main overriding violation of fair use laws.
In any case, I don't believe piracy has ever been legal, rather the problem was that it's very difficult to enforce against something that's so prevalent and digital besides. If this bill passes, it's supposed to strengthen IP holder's abilities to work with local authorities to get this done. However, whether or not that materializes as they planned is yet to be determined.
Meh, I don't really care. If they want to take me to jail for something as trivial as that, then whatever.
And after they have finished throwing me and my friends in jail, they can throw themselves in jail because they're probably just as guilty.
And after they have finished throwing me and my friends in jail, they can throw themselves in jail because they're probably just as guilty.
Many times this.SimuLord said:
Just because this suggests that they can nab you for viewing a webpage, does not mean they will. They have no reason to, its made to prevent piracy, the only people who should be fearing it are those who deliberately pirate material.
As has been stated, they could try and stop people from viewing Youtube and Google images, but they won't, because they value their power, their money and their lives. Taking the internet away from law abiding citizens will do nobody any favours, simply create a mass of hatred for the agreement leading to its downfall and thus preventing them from using it to punish and prevent piracy.
Bullshit.zala-taichou said:
When pirates pay for what they use (ignoring the fact that they would no longer be pirates) then you can claim they contribute as much as others. Until then they're just scum with a misguided sense of entitlement to every piece of digital media they can get their greedy mitts on.
For a given definition of "right to search" I guess. If they can get enough evidence to justify an ex parte search (it doesn't mean "just up and search", it's the same standards as a god damned warrant), they can search... Which is done in any criminal offense. The ex officio part is to give the authority to prosecutors and the new regulatory agency to act against perpetrators independently (it's the same authority a DA has, since he brings suit on behalf of the "people" not the specific victim).TheMaddestHatter said:
"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."
Not quite. It'd be a separate process, since if they found a violation you'd be up on criminal charges. That would *also* likely demonstrate civil liability, but that's true of any criminal charges which have concurrent civil liability.
So, the point is this:
I'm fine with the police having the same powers to enforce copyright and intellectual property rights as they have to enforce laws against burglary, given that they're under the same geis and the same restrictions. Any ex parte search can be excluded if it's performed unjustly, and any evidence they find would be fruit of the poisonous tree.