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

[Hap2]

This lack of competition leads to a decrease in quality of goods and services. It also means they can charge what they please.

Bull, your so-called abundance of competition in the current capitalist economy has managed to produce electronics and inferior consumer products that are more often than not, designed to fail, in order for people to continously buy and replace them, allowing them to jack up the price and create a false 'demand'. It has also led to the loss of local jobs through the use of cheap outsourcing. The Xbox 360, mp3 players, cars (VW's made in Mexico with faulty electronics?) are examples of all of these issues etc.

The food people can find in the super market is often of poor nutritional quality due to mass production (again, thanks to capitalism), with immense amounts of high fructose corn syrup and sodium additives, that are the root causes behind obesity and high blood pressure on this continent. Not to forget the devastation wrought by poor and inefficient agricultural methods on our planet, with nutritionally dead.

The oil spill damage in the gulf stands as a monument to capitalism's destructive efforts, forgoing safety and active recommendations to stop for just one more shiny dollar's worth of oil.

Capitalism in the 20th century may have encouraged a healthy enough economy due mostly to the wars of stupidity that helped fund it. But right now in the 21st century it is leading the way in damaging the planet, driving the human species into a ditch that will take over a century to get out of and repair. It segregates people into inequality and stagnates human ability and technological prowess, because of some half-bald magpies in suits that believe that their personal status and a bunch of green cotton toilet paper is more important than their own species and their one and only existing home.

I have no love for communism, but capitalism is just as bad if not worse.

 

[QuantumT]

One thing I would like to point out is that this isn't the first or even the second time the music industry has claimed some new technology would ruin it. It happened first about 80 years ago when radio first came out.

That's right, what is now the single most powerful promotional tool the music industry possesses they once claimed was going to bring down the entire music industry.

The second time it happened was when home cassettes gain popularity about 25 years ago. Guess what, they survived that too.

Now, this doesn't justify piracy, but it does show that the music industry has basically no idea what is actually good for it (examples of success due to internet piracy are Radiohead and Dispatch).

 

[jpoon]

Like I give a care about breaking a law that is complete bullshit. Corporations and the government(s) they control can fucking suck it, hard!

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

This lack of competition leads to a decrease in quality of goods and services. It also means they can charge what they please.

Bull, your so-called abundance of competition in the current capitalist economy has managed to produce electronics and inferior consumer products that are more often than not, designed to fail, in order for people to continously buy and replace them, allowing them to jack up the price and create a false 'demand'. It has also led to the loss of local jobs through the use of cheap outsourcing. The Xbox 360, mp3 players, cars (VW's made in Mexico with faulty electronics?) are examples of all of these issues etc.

The food people can find in the super market is often of poor nutritional quality due to mass production (again, thanks to capitalism), with immense amounts of high fructose corn syrup and sodium additives, that are the root causes behind obesity and high blood pressure on this continent. Not to forget the devastation wrought by poor and inefficient agricultural methods on our planet, with nutritionally dead.

The oil spill damage in the gulf stands as a monument to capitalism's destructive efforts, forgoing safety and active recommendations to stop for just one more shiny dollar's worth of oil.

Capitalism in the 20th century may have encouraged a healthy enough economy due mostly to the wars of stupidity that helped fund it. But right now in the 21st century it is leading the way in damaging the planet, driving the human species into a ditch that will take over a century to get out of and repair. It segregates people into inequality and stagnates human ability and technological prowess, because of some half-bald magpies in suits that believe that their personal status and a bunch of green cotton toilet paper is more important than their own species and their one and only existing home.

I have no love for communism, but capitalism is just as bad if not worse.

Seen Colapse of Gaming consoles about what over competition does. I never said Captialism is good I just what it promotes and its advantages. Communism is not an economic system it is a dictatorship government that pretend to be Solicialist. As such they take the guts of Centrally Planned Economy/Socialism and use that as the Economic base. It is not bull either. When you run a business you choose to compete on one front out of 2. Price or Quality. If you choose to buy things that compete on price like Inferior Products(Tesco brand anything or other supermaket brands) then yes quality will be inferior. Quality in the case I meant was the overall quality of the good compared to price and the price of the xbox or Tesco brand things for what they do is good value. Well maybe not the xbox but the Tesco stuff is.

A consumer buying a below par product is not a fault of Capitalism but a fault of the consumer themselves for doing enough research prior to purchase. The thing in Mexico is a byproduct of Capitalism as all they care about is money I never said once that they gave two fucks about you or anything else for that matter except money. As I also said I do not like or prefer Capitalism if it were up to me every economy would be a mixed economy.

 

[mogamer]

The purpose of this is primarily to help curb copyright and patent infringement in countries where pirating is rampant and relatively unregulated, like China, Russia, and India.

Yet none of these countries have been mentioned as joining the treaty. So how will it be enforceable then? I highly doubt that the US, EU and the rest will ban products from those nations (especially China) as punishment for copyright violations. So these countries will do the same thing they're doing now. Take the easy way out by enforcing the laws this treaty will force nations to adopt upon their own citizens.

 

[Jonabob87]

Seriously, everyone talking about being arrested for using Firefox or for viewing YouTube...you're an idiot.

 

[Shale_Dirk]

snip

Human rights are not taken into account. This is a trade agreement, it's above that.

In regards to rioting and protesting. People are scarred. We no longer posses the same spirit our ancestors did. We've been domesticated. If riots do break out they will be isolated pockets since no one will be willing to put their lives on the line. All people want to do is live and they don't care who controls them. The current government will easily put down those riots and eventually end up instating martial law which is just a step away from totalitarianism.


We cannot stop this unless we riot and unfortunately we won't riot enough to actually overturn the government. Like I've said before, we are domesticated animals.

Can someone cite me where this violates a right we actually have (rather than imagine) or how "human rights" are offended by anything they propose? Unless "complete autonomy from consequences or oversight of our behavior" is a human right, I believe you have no leg to stand on.

4th amendment.

Not to get into a political debate here (since it would be me and about three other people against everyone else lol), but if the treaty is passed and signed then an ISP giving out your browser history wouldn't be a violation of the 4th Amendment, because the ISP owns your records of using it's service. Even if they read on here where people say they have torrented games and movies, it would be legal for them to come and seize your computer because it wouldn't be viewed an unreasonable search and seizure.

See:

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.

Again, I am in agreement that the current version of the document will not pass, simply because of wording, and because of a few sections that violate common rights. However, if this version doesn't pass, eventually there will be a version that passes that is worded more carefully to gain the same effect.

EDIT: But you are correct, traffic monitoring is not violating the 4th. It's the permission to look through your computer that is the issue.

 

[newwiseman]

With every new media governments have struggled with the creation and modification of copyright law.

When records started being manufactured the sheet music printers called foul for not getting a cut of the action for owning the copyright to printing the words on paper.

When radio came out the record industry wanted money for the music even if it came in another format.

Tape decks, beta max, vhs, mp3, cd, dvd, blu-ray, the internet.

Every time technology advances there is a long cold blooded struggle to protect the interests of the businesses involved usually at the loss of the greater public in general.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Seriously, everyone talking about being arrested for using Firefox or for viewing YouTube...you're an idiot.

Read the treaty. Combined with how infromation technology has to work (you HAVE to copy/download anything and everything you wish to view) and the wording saying even downloading an image as an actionable offense, thats what its saying.

It would abolish the current structure of the internet.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Bull, your so-called abundance of competition in the current capitalist economy has managed to produce electronics and inferior consumer products that are more often than not, designed to fail, in order for people to continously buy and replace them, allowing them to jack up the price and create a false 'demand'. It has also led to the loss of local jobs through the use of cheap outsourcing. The Xbox 360, mp3 players, cars (VW's made in Mexico with faulty electronics?) are examples of all of these issues etc.

Indeed, a presence of over-abundant competition does not ensure that the resources will be used effectively.

However, I would like to point out that it's because of that staggering economic growth following WW2, that we have the population (and naturally, increased demand) of today.
The quality of life jumped, and because so many died in a conflict there was more resources left over for the only major countries that weren't effectively bankrupt (Germany) or in ruins (most of Europe and northern Africa).

In short: The winners really won out, and the losers really lost.
It's not an uncommon occurrence in history.

We're still feeling the effects of that today in the US. In order to provide for a much larger consumer base, we extended our market to the world. In doing so, we discovered cheaper sources of labor (and acceptable substitutes for production) that could provide ludicrous jumps in profit at the expense of quality.

In the market's new lust for continued growth and profits, the competition has now gone from creating quality products to finding ways to undercut their competitors' price. Once that growth plateaus (and inevitably starts to fail) they will instead rely on advertising to trick consumers into buying their product/service. And when THAT fails, in some industries, they will attempt to make their products/service absolutely proprietary (a growing trend in the video gaming market, with certain game companies only wanting you to play on their servers, and then charge you money for it).

Even taken in this broad sort of view, capitalism-centric economics prove to be wildly complicated and interconnected. Even so, it's relatively easy to see how we got here; it's whether we choose to let it get out of control that matters now.

Today, I personally see capitalism shifting from being a method to support society to being the force that will ultimately smother it.

 

[newwiseman]

Seriously, everyone talking about being arrested for using Firefox or for viewing YouTube...you're an idiot.

Read the treaty. Combined with how infromation technology has to work (you HAVE to copy/download anything and everything you wish to view) and the wording saying even downloading an image as an actionable offense, thats what its saying.

It would abolish the current structure of the internet.

And that is the crux of the issue, the law is being thought up and shaped by people who don't understand the technology, their only interest is in protecting their copyrights without having to waist their own money in civil courts.

 

[ScorpSt]

Basically it's a new treaty (note: it's actually a treaty, meaning that it automatically passes any kind of legal action required to sign it in a law) that allows companies to monitor what you do on the internet, and gives them a lot more power to check to see if you are doing "suspicious" activities on the net. This would give them the power to invade whatever privacy you have and pretty much arrest you for no just reason.

Little late to the party, but I just had to point something out here. At least in the US, it does not automatically do anything. It still has to be passed by Congress and signed by the President, and even if it does pass, It can still be challenged in Federal Court.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Where is the Republican party on this there is no way in hell they would let it pass

Don't you see? The political parties have no choice. It's called lobbying.

If the parties don't try and stop file-sharing, then Hollywood will stop giving them what little money they pay in tax anyway.

I think Robin Williams has the best idea: all politicians need to start wearing patches all over their suits like (Nascar drivers) illustrating exactly what industries they owe favors to.

When it comes to payola, both parties are greedy pigs.

 

[Chewster]

I think it is absurd and desperate in that order. I also think it will fall flat and will likely lead to, if enforced vigorously, a complete reshaping of the Internet if need be. Computer culture is, and has always been, steeped in the idea of information being free, and I don't see that ideal changing any time soon. The infrastructure on the Internet won't allow for it and most programmers and hackers are clever enough to circumvent most DRM controls. Masks will be made and pirates will continue to pirate in more elaborate and clever ways.

In the end, this will most certainly harms these companies more then some restructuring and adaptation will. It is inevitable, in my opinion.

 

[TheScottishFella]

I have to admit what the government has been doing all over the world has become a bit frightening but we are the people don't we have the final say?

P.S I have mixed emotions on ACTA

 

[oktalist]

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.

Okay, but who knows about ACTA except for a few internet nerds like ourselves? What happens when the news media fails to adequately cover it? It'll come into force gradually and the average person won't notice the problems until it's already so entrenched in the world that it's too late to reverse.

In a two-party system where both parties support ACTA, your choices are limited. And when the government of the United States really wants to do something, it can be relied upon to spin it in such a way as to get the majority of the electorate behind it.

And no, not all treaties involve the UN. Like this one doesn't, for example. It would be better if it did, because at least then we would have public records of all the meetings and negotiations.

 

[superbatranger]

I have to admit what the government has been doing all over the world has become a bit frightening but we are the people don't we have the final say?

P.S I have mixed emotions on ACTA

Welcome to the real world. Sometimes, shit's not fair.

What I don't understand is the way they're going at this. Surely there must be another way to combat the problems brought on by piracy and copyright infringement.

 

[ckam]

...? Well, shit.

 

[oktalist]

With U.S. involvement in this treaty, the only thing I can say is this- is our government even trying to appear Democratic anymore? Is it even trying to hide the anti-citizen, pro-elite, excessively Authoritarian stance it has adopted?

It's nothing new.

"The man who is possessed of wealth... cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time... when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small... will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government... They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body."

- James Madison, 1787