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

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Welcome to a new low for capitalism, everyone.

I swear, if I go to jail for my daily internet usage, I will never, ever back up capitalism again.

Anyone else notice how that bills that are good for humanity, universal healthcare, are hard to pass but treaties that guarantee profit for big business get written up immediately?

Put your hands up if you will move to Antarctica with me and make a new country!

[sub][sub][sub][sub]I hate ACTA with a passion.[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Seldon2639]

You are basically being a dick to people because they aren't lawyers. This shit is scary to people who don't understand it. People who lack the natural/trained ability to read complex legal documents are not idiots, yet you've labelled them as conspiracy theorists and consequently talk to them like as such.

In my defense, this topic has been bugging me all day. I think there's a difference between ignorance, and willful incorrectness. If someone just said "I don't get it", it's different than the people saying "I know what it means" and being simply wrong vis-a-vis statutory, constitutional, and common law.

I'm sorry if I'm reading you wrong but alot of your comments have seemed needlessly condescending. Talking down to people is a definite way to have people rebuke your points, even if they are correct.

Yeah. I tried the respectful tact, but the responses I got to my legitimate responses were somewhere between "I'm gonna ignore you" and "no, you're wrong, neener neener"

OT:Seeing that European politicians have decided that it is a bit "seen kyle?" then there must have been atleast some cause for alarm, I'm sure alot of those people are lawyers too.

Perhaps, but they're also answerable to political pressure. I think politicians overreact to the same extent regular people do.

Suspicion surrounding ACTA is only natural considering the image, the public have rightly formed, of modern politics. I also think it's healthy. Despite this sentiment I also recognise the danger of overreaction.

That's a fine point. And if the discussion were "okay, let's break down what this means", I'd be fine with it. But that's not what this has been. People without a working knowledge of the law are claiming to know what this says, and that bothers me on both a personal and ethical level.

Misinterpretation, through lack of education/natural affinity for law, is unavoidable.

Misinterpretation, yes. Misrepresentation, no. One can be ignorant and admit it, or ignorant and claim to be knowledgeable. The former I respect, the latter I detest.

Maybe they should teach Law to schoolkids. Would be far more useful than French.

You're singing my tune.

Until someone can come up with a sustainable alternative to the monetary system we will always suffer from the greed and corruption inherent to wealth itself. (yeah like thats going to happen anyway)

Very true. Even then, though.

 

[Radelaide]

Gosh I hate these threads. It's like swine flu: it's a lot less than people make it out to be. Trust me people, if this shit was coming into effect, there would be a lot more talk of it on public mediums. The government would warn you before they tried to fuck you over.

 

[Seldon2639]

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.

You're distinguishing between "ex parte" in terms of the ACTA from how it exists in all of American jurisprudence (you know that the fifth amendment is the one that protects us from unreasonable searches and seizure, yes?). An "ex parte search" is substantively no different from a "warrant". Or, to put it another way, obtaining a warrant is usually (if not exclusively) ex parte. The prosecutor goes to the judge, and is not required to include counsel for the suspect they wish to search, that's "ex parte". In point of fact, that's all "ex parte" means.

In terms of obtaining evidence, it's what distinguishes a criminal investigation (see also "ex officio ability to bring suit independent of the whims of the victim") from a civil suit. In a civil suit, you must bring a motion to compel, which can be challenged by opposing counsel (and only after you file suit). A warrant can be obtained prior to booking or indictment, and is done by the prosecutor going to the judge "ex parte" and requesting one. I know that's repetitive, but it bears repeating.

I get not knowing criminal procedure, but have you never seen an episode of law and order?

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.

Shale, we talked about this.

First, that section is referring to how an ISP can be immunized from the illegal activity occurring on their bandwidth; they're going to do the minimum necessary. Second, "storage" if interpreted as "searching private hard drives" would violate the fourth amendment (or be trespass on chattel, if we want to stick to civil); so the courts will never actually interpret it that way (they have to interpret a statute in such a way as to make it constitutional).

This is not the backlog of downloads. And, even if they could, why the hell would they want to? The ISP wants to remain immune from suit, they don't have any interest in investigating their users except insofar as not doing so would make them liable. And, if you look, the immunity cannot be conditioned "on the online service provider's monitoring its services or affirmatively seeking facts indicating that infringing activity is occurring".

I'm literally begging you to stop misrepresenting that section.

 

[Shale_Dirk]

The government would warn you before they tried to fuck you over.

Most incorrect comment of this entire thread.

 

[Seldon2639]

Welcome to a new low for capitalism, everyone.

I swear, if I go to jail for my daily internet usage, I will never, ever back up capitalism again.

Anyone else notice how that bills that are good for humanity, universal healthcare, are hard to pass but treaties that guarantee profit for big business get written up immediately?

Put your hands up if you will move to Antarctica with me and make a new country!

[sub][sub][sub][sub]I hate ACTA with a passion.[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]

Unless your daily internet use includes downloading copyrighted materials, or those protected by intellectual property rights, in violation of said rights, you're in the clear. If you do... Yeah, maybe you should be punished for violating the rights of other people. Just a thought.

 

[Scarecrow]

Yep, and in preparation I have ripped all of my CDs onto my computer and loaded them onto my MP3 player. Besides, they're only fine tuning it. It won't come into practice for a while. Government laws never do. Except Marshall law. Man these sentences are so disjointed.

Calumon: ACTA? Sounds like someone trying to finish off a Pokemon move before coughing!

Red: Go Pikachu! Quick ACTA!

I'am sorry, but why do you always post for you and somone called 'Calumon'?

 

[Shale_Dirk]

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.

Shale, we talked about this.

First, that section is referring to how an ISP can be immunized from the illegal activity occurring on their bandwidth; they're going to do the minimum necessary. Second, "storage" if interpreted as "searching private hard drives" would violate the fourth amendment (or be trespass on chattel, if we want to stick to civil); so the courts will never actually interpret it that way (they have to interpret a statute in such a way as to make it constitutional).

Actually, that section is not the section that you are referring to. You are referring to:

Article 2.18, subsection 3, Option 2: (pg. 20)

[Each Party recognizes that some persons use the services of third parties, including online service providers, for engaging in intellectual property rights infringements.

(a) In this respect, each Party shall provide limitation on the [liability of] [ scope of civil remedies available against an] on-line service provider for infringing activities56 that occur by:

(iii) The storage of information provided by the recipient of the service or at the request of the recipient of the service.

Moreover, that is the entire reason that people are concerned in the first place! The passing of this agreement is an infringement upon the 4th amendment and therefore unconstitutional. Saying "well, it's not likely they will actually use this power" is not the same as them not having the right to do so.

I believe we are arguing the same point, but from different perspectives.

This is not the backlog of downloads. And, even if they could, why the hell would they want to? The ISP wants to remain immune from suit, they don't have any interest in investigating their users except insofar as not doing so would make them liable. And, if you look, the immunity cannot be conditioned "on the online service provider's monitoring its services or affirmatively seeking facts indicating that infringing activity is occurring".

I'm literally begging you to stop misrepresenting that section.

Immunity from suit, cash from corporations. Sounds like a good reason to start handing over data to the courts.

EDIT: ...and furthermore, to reinforce the point, search your computer.

 

[Radelaide]

The government would warn you before they tried to fuck you over.

Most incorrect comment of this entire thread.

You'd be surprised how much they actually do warn you, but no one pays attention until it's too late. Why do you think that the Great Australian Firewall got so much media attention in the last year or so. Because people didn't pay attention when the Labor party said, "Oh, we're also going to censor the internet"

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

The government would warn you before they tried to fuck you over.

Most incorrect comment of this entire thread.

Agreed. The Nazis and the Soviets totally warned everyone they would oppress about it before they did it.

It isn't in the states interests to warn you about ACTA as it isn't in the business's who bribe support the states leaders best interests.

[sub][sub]You have to admire someone's hopeless faith though, right? Yeah, I thought not.[/sub][/sub]

 

[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...

why doesnt the 'scapist ban these obviously pro-pirating people?

Actually, I'm not much of a pirate. Yes, I've torrented a time or two, but I by no means have TBs of illegal videos/music. And I'm willing to bet over half of the people on this forum reside in this grey area.

I'm just saying, the pirate has a point...

 

[Kurt Horsting]

So we will have to pay for things instead of copying their product at no cost, and without consent from the creators who put vasts time, effort, and capital in making a product that was intended to be sold in the first place? Wow, welcome to the Orwellian dystopia people. Shit is hitting the fan hard. The government now is going to create laws that should have been there in the first place to keep people from illegally distributing other peoples work, causing losses, raises prices, and hurts developing artists and companies. What a fucking shame. I though this was a free country up till now. Retards....

 

[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...

why doesnt the 'scapist ban these obviously pro-pirating people?

Actually, I'm not much of a pirate. Yes, I've torrented a time or two, but I by no means have TBs of illegal videos/music. And I'm willing to bet over half of the people on this forum reside in this grey area.

I'm just saying, the pirate has a point...

he openly admits to pirating and I bet nothing happens.

Why are you picking on me? Half the idiots on this post have ranted about the world coming to an end cuz they won't be able to steal stuff...

 

[Cobbs]

i love how fucked australia is if they pass it here. our constitutional rights dont appear to cover privacy or freedom of speech/infomation at all.
we have freedom of religion, interstate trade and the right to trial by jury for commonwealth offences...

 

[Scarecrow]

pay this no matter.

 

[Dango]

And then all of it will be legal again within a month, because the government will realize that this is stupid.

EDIT: Anyone else notice that lots of people are saying "the government" like they're referring to some all-powerful worldwide organization that controls the Earth?