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

[ecoho]

i can see the US leaveing the UN over this cause any person in the govrnment who signs this is commiting political suicide and would most likely be phisicaly removed from office. It will never pass without US aproval so no worries guys and girls

ACTA has nothing to do with the UN.

And I'll bet whatever you want that the president and a majority of Congress support it, along with most of the corporate news media.

lol we have elections comming up man trust me if they find out itll cost them votes or get them outright ousted theyll run away from this saying WE DONT SUPORT IT. also if it is a treaty then it does in fact involve the UN.

 

[oranger]

I think I'm gonna make a new thread about wtf are we gonna do after acta

 

[Drexlor]

¡Viva la revolucion!

 

[MisterShine]

... it will take someone with a nice big lawyer to get these things overturned in the event they pass through congress, and he will have to be a better lawyer than the once the whole industry can throw...

Actually all we need is one federal judge to say it is unconstitutional [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html], or one bill passed by congress saying that the damn thing is null and void, and it all goes away. If this bill is as intrusive as the site in OP claimed it is, getting congressmen on board shouldn't be that hard to have it overturned, their constituents would scream bloody murder.

It's not exactly "asking nicely" for ISPs to check what people are downloading.

I apologize, I just meant that as an example of what the delegates might be discussing, that was just the first thing that popped in my head.

Also, it's not really a good idea to wait for it to pass and then try and go change it again later. Things like that are ridiculously hard to undo even if a large group of people want it to be (see Patriot Act).

It is in fact not difficult to have things like this undone. Read more about the Patriot Act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

That mentions at least 4 or 5 clauses of the Patriot act that were declared unconstitutional and thus struck down. Sadly there's no section on ALL the ones that were cut down, but still you get my point. Anything of this treaty that is unconstitutional will meet the same fate. Judges answer to no one but impeachment. And congress doesn't get to impeach people without some serious questions asked about why.


Don't get me wrong you two, I'm worried about this developing treaty myself, and the wikileaks does not read well, plus I'm glad that so many people are actually getting worked up about what's going on in the world. I just want everyone to realize that this isn't the endgame for liberty or anything, our founding fathers put many, MANY systems in place to keep us free and safe, even from ourselves.

Shit, did you know we're allowed to overthrow and replace our own government? And it's legal? Crazy shit.

 

[JWW]

I hate it that people are saying that it's a failure of capitalism, when in fact ACTA is a regulation that I, as a proponent of the free market and the free marketplace of ideas, am opposed to.

 

[Aesir23]

I'm assuming Canada is involved in this as well. I hope someone steps up to oppose it.

 

[ShoopDaToaster]

This is actually passing?
AND TOMORROW?
If so,
OH

SHIT

 

[Vox Caster T2]

Hmmm, while this is pretty dishearting news for the United States of America, I'd like to help clarify a number of things for Canadian Escapists.

While the ACTA and its advocates would like to advertise that the ACTA is a unified motion, it is not. Canada has respectfully agreed since 2007 to listen to the treaty proposal and take part in the negoiations in developing an agreement. Canada had not signed on to the treaty in its more draconian forms because it infringes on a number of major sovereignty points. While the ACTA would like to be a 'carte blanch' blanket when it comes to being an IP avenue of attack, compromising a foreign nation's sovereignty is a really big issue for the rest of the world.

Anyways, Canada, since the beginning has pressed for the entire event to be transparent to the public and have public input in the treaty's development. In so, the Canadian government has been able to get a release of the proposed ACTA treaty in an explained form.

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/fo/intellect_property.aspx

For those of you that just want a summary on some of the more important parts.

"ACTA will not interfere with a signatory's ability to respect fundamental rights and liberties. ACTA will be consistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and the Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. The ACTA negotiators reiterated that ACTA will not hinder the cross-border transit of legitimate generic medicines, and reaffirmed that patents will not be covered in the Section on Border Measures. ACTA will not oblige border authorities to search travelers' baggage or their personal electronic devices for infringing materials."

DEPT. of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Government of Canada

Selective important stuff in more detail.

[General Obligations[5]]

2. In respect of civil remedies and criminal penalties for enforcement of intellectual property rights, each Party shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement and the remedies or penalties ordered.

Section 1: Civil Enforcement

[1. ]In civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of [copyright or related rights and trademarks] [intellectual property rights], each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority [subject to any statutory limitations under its domestic law] to issue [against the infringer an injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the violation] an order to a party to desist from an infringement, including an order to prevent infringing goods from entering into the channels of commerce [and to prevent their exportation].[7]

[2. The Parties [may] shall also ensure that right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against [infringing] intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right.[8]][9]

-----

Basically the above places that the ACTA may grant angered IP holders the right to file a stop order, however if domestic law absolves the accused then the case against the accused will be pulled.

As for Canadian ISP legal options on disclosure.

Article 2.13: Disclosure of Information
Without prejudice to a Party's laws pertaining to the privacy or confidentiality of information:

(a) Each Party may authorize its competent authorities to provide right holders with information about specific shipments of goods, including the description and quantity, to assist in the detection of infringing goods

(b) Each Party may authorize its competent authorities to provide right holders with information about goods including, but not limited to, the description and quantity of the goods and the name and address of the consignor, importer, exporter or consignee, and, if known, the country of origin and name and address of the manufacturer of the goods to assist in the determination under Article 2.10 of whether goods infringe rights covered by this Section

*****************

While the two clauses above maybe a bit rough, note the *May* attached right after the Each Party portion. So the ACTA does not allow IP right holders to force disclosure on foreign companies. If it did, foreign companies should rightly be afraid of potential abuses and industrial data mining.

Again, the ACTA by its nature infringes on a number sovereignty issues, so if Canada signs in, the treaty is still going to have a number of its teeth removed.

 

[Eggsnham]

I'm moving to the Moon. Fuck that.

Room for two? I'll bring the bacon!
...since you know...the moon is made of cheese and all...

Yeah, bring all the bacon you want. Try not to eat too much moon cheese though, we still need to live on that place.

 

[ANImaniac89]

First, tomorrow is the start of nothing if you do download crap thing without paying your where already breaking the law.

Second, the ATCA meetings are set to finalize sometime in September

Third, ATCA isn't about criminalizing downloads, Its about giving the governments of the world the unholy power to void everyone civil liberty so they can keep sucking the dicks of the greedy cooperations that are butthurt over the internet.

Forth, your going about this all wrong, starting random scare attacks on forums are not the way to prevent this, come on I'd expect this shit from 4chan

 

[BonsaiK]

So I have heard about this in the past, yet never really cared enough to do some research on it. I'm speaking of ACTA or the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement.

So I finally did some research on it, it's estimated that the agreement will be completed by September 2010, or anytime after tomorrow.

Thoughts?

Meh. Most people reading this have been breaking the law anyway. Maybe the chances of you getting busted goes up a bit, but I wouldn't be too concerned. Not even the US has enough prisons to house all of you.

 

[StBishop]

Links? Info? I have no idea what you're talking about, only that it seems to have something to do with file sharing?

I do apologize, I just posted a message fixing that.

You really won't get too much information on it persay, but that is because shady business like this always goes on under closed doors.

Yeah, and there's not a hell of a lot of room to manouver underneath those closed doors.

I personally prefer to do my shadey deals behind closed doors but that's just me.

OT: I don't like it. I've told my MP. What more can I do. Is there an online petition somewhere?

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

A misconceived notion that heavy handed tactics are the only way to combat the symptoms of the declared problem. I think there is a modicum of intentional overkill, with the knowledge that the backlash will result in revision.

 

[Blatherscythe]

Well, in case the worst happens, I just want to let you all know that I love all of you.

It's been an honor posting here with you all.

My sentiments exactly.

32 minutes to zero hour here now. May this unconstitution treaty on a piece of paper burn, death to ACTA, may any corporation supporting this fall and may every politition supporting this lose their jobs. This SHALL NOT PASS! *que Lord of the Rings scene with Gandelf in the mines of Moria*

Here's some epic theme music for this time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi8vJ_lMxQI&feature=related

 

[Vox Caster T2]

I'm assuming Canada is involved in this as well. I hope someone steps up to oppose it.

Canada is listening to the talks and are part of the negoiations, but isn't gung-ho for the treaty unless treaty wording is changed, so that the ACTA can not force US law on Canadian law. Basically sovereignty issues, so negioations have so far have steered the treaty so it can not force Canadians and Canadian Corporations to be pushed around by American business policies on domestic soil.

 

[00slash00]

theres only one reason this effects me: my job requires me to use auto CAD, and theres no way in hell im paying the $1,000 that it costs

 

[Wardnath]

I buy all my games anyway, so I'm not worried about that.

That said, I don't have a debit card, so I can't really buy all the music that I love, since most of it is overseas. So I'm kinda screwed in that aspect.

In any case, this should be interesting.

 

[Sach]

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?

Maybe if there was some conceivable reason for them to do so.
Some stranger could walk up to me in the street and punch me in the face, its yet to happen however.
And I'm sure you're thinking "but if they did that they'd be charged for assault" and you're right, just like these companies and the governments would find themselves in deep shit if they overstepped the line between piracy prevention and general dumbassery.

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).

That's great, now if only publicity was directly proportionate to money they'd be set I'm sure. Here's how it really works.

P1: Hey I downloaded this awesome song, have a listen.
P2: Hey that's awesome, I'll go buy their album.
P3: Hey that's awesome, I have no money so I'll download it.
P4: Hey that's awesome, I'm a lazy douche can you copy it for me.
P5: Hey that's awesome, but I feel that I'm entitled to digital goods for free because its not "real".
P6: Hey that's awesome, give me a copy and I'll burn a bunch of CDs and sell them for $2 each.
P7: Hey that song is crap, but I'll download it anyway because its not worth spending money on.

Better to have 1/7 of a few million sales than 7/7 of a few hundred...

 

[Shale_Dirk]

I'm gonna go ahead and bump this up from the depths of the thread.

In regards to:

an online service provider adopting and reasonably implementing a policy[58] to address
the unauthorized storage or transmission of materials protected by copyright or related
rights [ except that no Party may condition the limitations in subparagraph (a) on the
online service provider?s monitoring its services or affirmatively seeking facts
indicating that infringing activity is occurring]

Although ISP's don't have to have sufficient monitoring, they can likely be bought out by the MPAA and other relevant parties to have such. That means that ISP's are 'suggested' to have equipment that checks your computer for illegal content. If they so happen to have this monitoring equipment, they are legally required to provide your information to the government if requested.

ISP's will have the permission to scan your computer for copyright infringement. This isn't just about what you download after September. This is your entire backlog of downloads.