by tomorrow, mostly all of you will be breaking the law.

[QuantumT]

snip

Ok let me simplify things for you. Lets say you spent a billion dollars developing effective solar cells and after years of work, finally had a marketable product. Upon your release of your product, you are selling it at a price much higher than the manufacturing cost (because you're a billion dollars in the whole). Then some other person comes along, copies your product, and starts selling it at a much lower price "for the benefit of the world." You lose any method to recoup your development costs, and as such, go out of business.

The problem extends further than just you however. Other potential inventors, upon seeing your years of hard work and massive amount of money lead to nothing, decide "What's the point?"

In so doing, you've effectively stifled innovation because you've removed any incentive.

The fact that pharmaceutical companies make massive amounts of money is irrelevant. They own the rights to the drugs and when you remove those, they lose the ability to recoup their loses in research, which amount to ~$8 billion per year. It's not for you to decide how they sell their product.

(On a side note, although your figure is true, it is incredibly misleading. Much more important to quote is it's profit margin, which is much smaller at $8 billion.)

 

[coolman9899]

hopefully harper doesnt go DURP HURP LETS JOIN THIS TERRIBLE FUCKING TREATY THAT DOES NOTHING

also Id like to add that whoever made this treaty is PANTS ON RETARTED


oh yes I brought zp into this lol XD



EDIT: aww shit I hit the quote button instead of the edit button fucking shit

 

[Seldon2639]

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.

Immunity, basically. If they withhold the information they can be considered either complicit (from a torts perspective) or even criminal accomplices after the fact to the crimes at hand. So... Yeah. They give up the info because they'd want to protect themselves from liability.

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.

That's not a real argument about this, though. Whether copyrights should be enforced or not doesn't depend on the state of the economy, and the fact that illegal activities prop up some part of the economy doesn't justify the activities themselves.

So like, could someone explain this to me? How is this even being considered.

See above

I forgot about this. Basically, they are OUTLAWING GIVING YOUR OWN CREATIONS AWAY FOR FREE

Basically, HG131 is LYING THROUGH HIS GOD-DAMNED TEETH ABOUT THIS

Man, either respond to my earlier post, or please stop making the same factually incorrect claims, okay? You're simply wrong about what an ex parte search is, and what ex officio power represents. Please, for the love of Christ, look up what the terms mean in Black's Law Dictionary. I can lend you a copy if you'd like.

Here:

"ex parte" means "for the benefit of one party". It refers to situations in which a judge will rule without the full representation of all parties... Kind of like how a judge in an investigation gives warrants without the representation of the suspect. Funny how that works.

"ex officio" refers to "powers granted by the office", and basically means powers which a person possesses (while not specifically enumerated) by their office. Prosecutors have ex officio power to bring suit on behalf of victims, even without the victim's approval. Funny how that works.

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.

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.

OI!

I'm going to keep saying this until someone understands. That's precisely what they cannot do. Look up the definition of an "ex parte search". It doesn't mean "at a whim", "ex parte" is not Latin for "whenever we feel like it". It's the same thing as a fucking warrant, so they'd need to persuade a judge that it would be constitutional for them to search, and if their warrant wasn't constitutional, their search would be throw out of court, and any knowledge they obtained would be fruit of the poisonous tree. Stop making shit up about this. I've been trying to get HG131 to understand, and it's not working.

 

[Seldon2639]

Ok im confused, so they can search my computer (via internet?) or is this after they have probable cause to search your house/person the scan check your hard drive,phone, etc?

It's beyond probable cause (that's if the police want to search you of their own volition) an ex parte search is even more stringent. They need a warrant from a judge to search any of your property.

The ISPs can keep track of your internet use, and of websites and downloads, but it (by which I mean the actual lines) is their private property, so that's their right.

 

[Lord_Panzer]

So, we're either going to:

a.) See no difference,
b.) Wake up one day and discover The Internet isn't where we left it,
c.) Need moar prisons,
d.) Any combination of the above.

Fun!

 

[procyonlotor]

Personally I see this as an invasion of human rights, privacy, and free speech.

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.

No, this bill is not in violation of your human rights. On the contrary, laws such as this exist to protect human rights - assuming Intelectual 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.

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.

So that gives the powers that be the right to search my computer in the hope that I might be harboring illegal software?

How is that any different than the police arbitrarily searching your house for contraband?

Go back to your den, corporate infidel.

 

[QuantumT]

Just because this suggests that they can nab you for viewing a webpage, does not mean they will.

The fact that they can doesn't bother you even slightly?

On another note, in the case of music piracy, there are plenty of examples of artists actually benefit from their music being publicly available, like Radiohead and Dispatch (which is probably why artists aren't usually the ones filing lawsuits).

 

[Seldon2639]

So that gives the powers that be the right to search my computer in the hope that I might be harboring illegal software?

How is that any different than the police arbitrarily searching your house for contraband?

Go back to your den, corporate infidel.

Quoted from above:

"OI!

I'm going to keep saying this until someone understands. That's precisely what they cannot do. Look up the definition of an "ex parte search". It doesn't mean "at a whim", "ex parte" is not Latin for "whenever we feel like it". It's the same thing as a fucking warrant, so they'd need to persuade a judge that it would be constitutional for them to search, and if their warrant wasn't constitutional, their search would be throw out of court, and any knowledge they obtained would be fruit of the poisonous tree."

You're simply incorrect.

 

[SodaDew]

Ok im confused, so they can search my computer (via internet?) or is this after they have probable cause to search your house/person the scan check your hard drive,phone, etc?

It's beyond probable cause (that's if the police want to search you of their own volition) an ex parte search is even more stringent. They need a warrant from a judge to search any of your property.

The ISPs can keep track of your internet use, and of websites and downloads, but it (by which I mean the actual lines) is their private property, so that's their right.

I guess I should delete any 'unauthorized files' I may have acquired right?

 

[Seldon2639]

Just because this suggests that they can nab you for viewing a webpage, does not mean they will.

The fact that they can doesn't bother you even slightly?

On another note, in the case of music piracy, there are plenty of examples of artists actually benefit from their music being publicly available, like Radiohead and Dispatch (which is probably why artists aren't usually the ones filing lawsuits).

This is, at least, a different argument. The problem is that music is not produced solely by the artists. They do not own the recording studios, the manufacturers, they do not have the resources to actually produce their own music (by and large). The bigger issue, though, is investment. Record labels put a huge amount of money into promoting and producing these artists. They just want an ROI.

Don't forget that Radiohead wouldn't be Radiohead without EMI's investments.

 

[procyonlotor]

So that gives the powers that be the right to search my computer in the hope that I might be harboring illegal software?

How is that any different than the police arbitrarily searching your house for contraband?

Go back to your den, corporate infidel.

Quoted from above:

"OI!

I'm going to keep saying this until someone understands. That's precisely what they cannot do. Look up the definition of an "ex parte search". It doesn't mean "at a whim", "ex parte" is not Latin for "whenever we feel like it". It's the same thing as a fucking warrant, so they'd need to persuade a judge that it would be constitutional for them to search, and if their warrant wasn't constitutional, their search would be throw out of court, and any knowledge they obtained would be fruit of the poisonous tree."

You're simply incorrect.

I stand corrected, sir.

 

[geldonyetich]

So that gives the powers that be the right to search my computer in the hope that I might be harboring illegal software?

How is that any different than the police arbitrarily searching your house for contraband?

Go back to your den, corporate infidel.

That I pointed out that this issue has nothing to do with human rights, privacy, or freedom of speech sure has nothing to do with what you wrote. You might want to be a bit more careful in your quoting, because it seems like you didn't read a thing I wrote.

To answer your first question, suspicion you have committed a crime followed by the issuing of a search warrant gives the powers that be the right to search your computer in hope it might be harboring illegal software.

To answer your second question, searching people's houses for contraband already happens, All the time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure]. Say, for example, the cops have suspicion to believe there's drugs in your house. If they secure adequate evidence to get a warrant issued, they can not only raid your house [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_raid], they can knock giant holes in your walls looking for your stash. What stops this from being arbitrarily done is that they need to secure that warrant, and this entails convincing their authorities there's adequate proof that a crime is being done there.

In the case of software piracy, what might happen is that they have performed an investigation on your ISP, found lots of logs that suggested you spent a lot of time connected to known piracy sites, then used that information to secure a warrant, then raided your house. Fortunately for you, there's only so many law enforcement professionals to go around, and when millions of people are pirating it's kind of unlikely they're going to narrow it down to you. Instead, they tend to go after bigger fish, like the people who actually perform the distribution of pirated software. This law may seek to change that but, at the end of the day, there's still only so many law enforcement officers.

This isn't me being a corporate infidel, this is you having a great ignorance of the way the law works. If you don't like it, go speak to your congressman. Or maybe you live in the Middle East or something. You did call me an "infidel," after all. Maybe the laws are different there. Funny if you've more rights to conduct yourself without being raided there than here in the supposed, "Land of the Free."

It's also wrong to say that only "corporate infidels" are on board with the idea of better intellectual property enforcement. Indies get pirated as much, or more, than the most DRM-happy corporate software producer. Statistics have shown this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/7225-Experienced-Points-Piracy-Numbers]. So any IP producer who expects to get paid for their work is likely to agree with the ends, if not the means.

 

[DazBurger]

If you're that worried, encrypt your hard drive something crazy. Or emigrate.

Emigrate? So I guess this wont effect people outside the statesP

 

[Seldon2639]

I guess I should delete any 'unauthorized files' I may have acquired right?

Depends on how careful you want to be. Since the ISPs haven't been monitoring until now, and it hasn't been a criminal offense (no ex post facto, mates), you're probably fine. But, as a lawyer, I would be remiss not to let you know that it's the safest thing to do. On a going forward basis, though, just don't do anything illegal on the interwebs.

The biggest thing I want to try to fight is (a) the impression that it gives the police power for random searches (it does not) and (b) the "hurr, derp, derp" about the idea that it would prevent a copyright holder from waiving his rights to distribute his work (it also doesn't). If I give up my right to a protection under the law, the police won't prosecute for it.

Kind of like how the police will investigate,,and prosecutors prosecute, rape, but not consensual sex.

 

[Nailz]

snip

Ok let me simplify things for you.

You provide one hypothetical situation, it does not make it at all representative of the picture. Here's the real situation.

In 1990, a year when more than 10,000 new cases were reported the World Bank estimated that Brazil would have 1,200,000 in infections by 2000. However, by 2002, there were fewer than 600,000 estimated infections, less than half the prediction after taking the action I mentioned. If you don't think that is positive, I can't do anything for you because you're hopelessly delusional.

Your hypothetical situation would be nice, however the fact is the pharma industry has already created a situation which stifles innovation and has very little incentive to inventors. Your hypothetical point is nice in theory but completely irrelevant to the reality of the situation, on so many levels.

The fact that people are dying is very relevant. They own the rights to their lives and when you remove that, they lose the ability to recoup their loses due to exploitation and meddling of interest groups whose only interest is profit. Its not for you to tell people they have no right to life and that you own the property of an idea that could save them which they are not allowed to use because you say so.

edit: and here's another hypothetical situation for you. Let's say we just drop all notions of intellectual property. It's suddenly not here. Do you think suddenly innovation lags behind? No, in fact there is much more motivation to stay ahead of the curve, instead of resting on your laurels. Intellectual property arrests and vitiates progress.

 

[Seldon2639]

I stand corrected, sir.

Sorry if that sounded a little harsh. This thread has kind of been pissing me off all day.

 

[acturisme]

Ahhh. Lobyists. The fourth branch of American government.

 

[Zer_]

So that gives the powers that be the right to search my computer in the hope that I might be harboring illegal software?

How is that any different than the police arbitrarily searching your house for contraband?

Go back to your den, corporate infidel.

Quoted from above:

"OI!

I'm going to keep saying this until someone understands. That's precisely what they cannot do. Look up the definition of an "ex parte search". It doesn't mean "at a whim", "ex parte" is not Latin for "whenever we feel like it". It's the same thing as a fucking warrant, so they'd need to persuade a judge that it would be constitutional for them to search, and if their warrant wasn't constitutional, their search would be throw out of court, and any knowledge they obtained would be fruit of the poisonous tree."

You're simply incorrect.

Wrong

Ex parte refers to those proceedings where one of the parties has not received notice and, therefore, is neither present nor represented.

When referring to American law

"In the United States, the availability of ex parte orders or decrees from both federal and state courts is sharply limited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which provide that a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process of law. In practice this has been interpreted to require adequate notice of the request for judicial relief and an opportunity to be heard concerning the merits of such relief. A court order issued on the basis of an ex parte proceeding, therefore, will necessarily be temporary and interim in nature, and the person(s) affected by the order must be given an opportunity to contest the appropriateness of the order before it can be made permanent."

To clarify, normally those who enforce the law must get a warrant to search anything. A warrant normally requires probably cause, ACTA will only require a corporation to point its finger, therein lies the major issue.

 

[Polaris19]

Beginning t wonder if its time for us to all go to DC, point at the constitution and say "read this" to every last politician.

 

[Harn]

Beginning t wonder if its time for us to all go to DC, point at the constitution and say "read this" to every last politician.

I'm kind of surprised you lot haven't done that already.

Anyhow, all this reminds me of a quote I read once:

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin

Spoiler: And this video cause I think it fits the mood here rather well...