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

[Wintermoot]

so whats forbidden? if it has to do with copyright infrigement the police cant proof I ahve downloaded anything besides nosing around in m PC is forbidden by law

 

[Disaster Button]

Is the UK affected by this, and is there any way to stop it?

 

[Private Custard]

Wait a sec, how will they know what's already on your computer? Will they have to spot you downloading it, or are they filling a huge underground bunker with a shitload of hackers with gollum-like eyes and massively advanced brains?

 

[Liberaliter]

The worst thing is, people won't realise and people won't protest. We live in a fucked up passive age where the people are only bothered to act by signing petitions online (if that.)

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

VIVA LA RESISTANCE!
But only if it passes of course

 

[Seldon2639]

What exactly is it?

http://www.anti-acta.com/

http://www.ustr.gov/acta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

Your sites 1. Are propaganda without valid citations, 2. Demonstrate no factual basis for your claims, and 3. Present nothing inherently objectionable about the ACTA except nebulous claims about the right to "privacy"

[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.

First: treaties in America must be passed by the senate, so... No. Second, there's no right to privacy on the internet. The ISPs will have the option of insulating themselves from liability for the copyright infringement of their customers by turning over the pertinent data. Here's the thing, the ISP owns any records of your internet use. You're using their private property.

To draw an analogy: if I go to my friend's house with a gun, and stash it under his bed, telling him I shot someone with it, he's not only free to go to the police with it, he's required to. It's called "accomplice after the fact". To reiterate: there's simply no goddamned right to "privacy" when you're doing business across private broadband lines.

Also, it would have a negative impact on free sites such as wikipedia or ED, if you will. Alos, the money that would go into paying this bill would be payed by your internet bill, meaning that there would be a severe price hike in the bills you pay for internet.

[Needs Citations]

There is more but I figure that you would get the most out of it if I left the links there. Plus, I'm lazy, and my fingers are tired so...typing is not really something that I want to overdo right now haha

Uh... Yeah. No. The cites you link to are insufficient to support the claims you make.

Personally I see this as an invasion of human rights, privacy, and free speech. At the same time, whenever I think of this, my thoughts wander towards George Orwell's book "1984" yet the "big brother" in my mind isn't the government, but the business's that already rule over our world and invariably make things worse so that they can become richer.

There's no right to privacy on the internet, nor a right to free speech, and what human right is infringed, precisely?

I grant no credence to your conspiracy theories and unfounded claims.

 

[Shale_Dirk]

so whats forbidden? if it has to do with copyright infrigement the police cant proof I ahve downloaded anything besides nosing around in m PC is forbidden by law

That's the issue of this whole treaty. It gives them unwarranted access to your computer at all times. It's flagrantly against the 4th Amendment, and is why it should be defeated, but if it passes they can look at your computer whenever they want.

 

[PessimistOwl]

To those of you that are thinking (or posting) that all of us here are overreacting, let me just say that I figured that something like this would happen. I'm going to just go "on the record" here and say that I encourage everyone that has not heard of this yet to google it or something. Do some research on it before you get really scared of it. Anyway, just wanted to go out on a limb there and state that.....

 

[sheic99]

What exactly is it?

http://www.anti-acta.com/

http://www.ustr.gov/acta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

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.

Also, it would have a negative impact on free sites such as wikipedia or ED, if you will. Alos, the money that would go into paying this bill would be payed by your internet bill, meaning that there would be a severe price hike in the bills you pay for internet.

There is more but I figure that you would get the most out of it if I left the links there. Plus, I'm lazy, and my fingers are tired so...typing is not really something that I want to overdo right now haha

The only thing that is being changed about privacy is that ISPs are no longer allowed to say no to a federal investigator. There never was privacy on the internet.

 

[Frequen-Z]

Stop trying to incite fear. Don't even pretend to act like that isn't what you're doing, either.

You're trying to make it sound like if I so much as search for an image that happens to have been copyrighted, guys in black suits are gonna come and lock me into a fucking hole for the rest of my life.

Tone your god damn posts down. You're overreacting.

Guys in black suits won't come to your house. What they will do instead is use an intricate system. 3 strikes of having copyrighted material saved on your computer and you're banned from the internet.

This isn't overreaction at all. To give the government so much power is absolutely insane.

Gee, I guess if I was to search pretty much anything on Google images, thumbnails of copyrighted images would get saved to my cache, and that'd be my 3 strikes right there, no?

Unenforceable.

 

[Wintermoot]

so whats forbidden? if it has to do with copyright infrigement the police cant proof I ahve downloaded anything besides nosing around in m PC is forbidden by law

That's the issue of this whole treaty. It gives them unwarranted access to your computer at all times. It's flagrantly against the 4th Amendment, and is why it should be defeated, but if it passes they can look at your computer whenever they want.

I forgot too ad that I live outside the US (Western Europe,Holland) but I torrent/download allot of stuff from the US is this going to affect me? also I feel sorry for the pirates who are going to get into trouble by this

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Unfortunately, from what I've read of this, it's 'above' all laws of all nations, and bypasses any human rights, or privacy protections in law you may have, they can just screw anyone they like for any reason.

I suggest we just all team up and in threes, accuse every politician and every CEO of every entertainment company of copyright infringement and get them all banned from the net for life


Seriously tho, how many people who 'pirate' also buy shedloads of music, movies and games?

Where do they buy their stuff? Yes, online.

Medals all round for bringing a law that will lock most of your customers out of the very stores they need to visit to buy your stuff.

oh also, if you've ever watched a youtube clip from a band or a movie or TV, that ends up in your temp files folder on your computer, therefore you're duplicating copyrighted materials and its jail for you!

I may be exaggerating but the fact is, it's WAY too open ended, with too many loopholes open to screw anyone they like for pretty much any reason. They may as well have passed a law that says 'if we don't like your face we have the right to fine you', it would have been more honest.

 

[Shale_Dirk]

Stop trying to incite fear. Don't even pretend to act like that isn't what you're doing, either.

You're trying to make it sound like if I so much as search for an image that happens to have been copyrighted, guys in black suits are gonna come and lock me into a fucking hole for the rest of my life.

Tone your god damn posts down. You're overreacting.

Guys in black suits won't come to your house. What they will do instead is use an intricate system. 3 strikes of having copyrighted material saved on your computer and you're banned from the internet.

This isn't overreaction at all. To give the government so much power is absolutely insane.

Gee, I guess if I was to search pretty much anything on Google images, thumbnails of copyrighted images would get saved to my cache, and that'd be my 3 strikes right there, no?

Unenforceable.

Unenforceable on a universal scale, yes. Regardless, the government would make "example cases" out of people, either at random, or from a list of known pirates. Denying that the government would abuse the power given to them by this treaty is silly, especially considering how much this is being pushed under the carpet.

 

[PessimistOwl]

What exactly is it?

http://www.anti-acta.com/

http://www.ustr.gov/acta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

Your sites 1. Are propaganda without valid citations, 2. Demonstrate no factual basis for your claims, and 3. Present nothing inherently objectionable about the ACTA except nebulous claims about the right to "privacy"

[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.

First: treaties in America must be passed by the senate, so... No. Second, there's no right to privacy on the internet. The ISPs will have the option of insulating themselves from liability for the copyright infringement of their customers by turning over the pertinent data. Here's the thing, the ISP owns any records of your internet use. You're using their private property.

To draw an analogy: if I go to my friend's house with a gun, and stash it under his bed, telling him I shot someone with it, he's not only free to go to the police with it, he's required to. It's called "accomplice after the fact". To reiterate: there's simply no goddamned right to "privacy" when you're doing business across private broadband lines.

Also, it would have a negative impact on free sites such as wikipedia or ED, if you will. Alos, the money that would go into paying this bill would be payed by your internet bill, meaning that there would be a severe price hike in the bills you pay for internet.

[Needs Citations]

There is more but I figure that you would get the most out of it if I left the links there. Plus, I'm lazy, and my fingers are tired so...typing is not really something that I want to overdo right now haha

Uh... Yeah. No. The cites you link to are insufficient to support the claims you make.

Personally I see this as an invasion of human rights, privacy, and free speech. At the same time, whenever I think of this, my thoughts wander towards George Orwell's book "1984" yet the "big brother" in my mind isn't the government, but the business's that already rule over our world and invariably make things worse so that they can become richer.

There's no right to privacy on the internet, nor a right to free speech, and what human right is infringed, precisely?

I grant no credence to your conspiracy theories and unfounded claims.

-sigh- yeah that's kind of the reason why I refrained from ranting on my first post, let alone, giving links. Merely because I knew that whatever I would say would be filled with "my take on the issue".

Refer to my most recent post where I said that I encourage any and all that don't know much or anything about this treaty to do some research on it and draw their own conclusions on it.

My apologies for the misunderstanding, I should have explained that earlier.

 

[HT_Black]

Look, it probably won't get passed. To make sure it doesn't, take part in some nonviolent protesting. If it does...well, I don't know.

[sub] But you can make napalm by dissolving styofoam in bleach and mustard gas by pissing in Clorox.[/sub]

 

[Irridium]

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

 

[Cynical skeptic]

-snip-

read the proposal for yourself [http://file.wikileaks.org/file/acta-proposal-2007.pdf]

 

[Calico93]

This is going to hit everyone with a computer and a net connection in the concerned countries. I'll eat my own face if they manage to properly enforce this.

Count me in on that!
Everyone who reads this should eat their own face if the ACTA is properly enforced

 

[Seldon2639]

Wait a sec, how will they know what's already on your computer? Will they have to spot you downloading it, or are they filling a huge underground bunker with a shitload of hackers with gollum-like eyes and massively advanced brains?

They won't. It'd either be based on records held by ISPs, or would be based on future activity. Actually hacking into your computer would be both trespass on chattel, and criminal. Though, if you were sued you'd have to turn over your hard drive as part of disclosures.

so whats forbidden? if it has to do with copyright infrigement the police cant proof I ahve downloaded anything besides nosing around in m PC is forbidden by law

1. It's possible, if you've gotten all your copyrighted materials through non-internet sources.

2. That said, if the police have probable cause that you do have illegal materials (of any kind) on your computer, they're likely to be able to get a warrant.

so whats forbidden? if it has to do with copyright infrigement the police cant proof I ahve downloaded anything besides nosing around in m PC is forbidden by law

That's the issue of this whole treaty. It gives them unwarranted access to your computer at all times. It's flagrantly against the 4th Amendment, and is why it should be defeated, but if it passes they can look at your computer whenever they want.

[Needs Citations]. Nothing in the actual material regarding the proposed treaty says they'd have the right to enter my computer, simply to ask the ISP to give them the record of my internet activity... Which is something the ISP itself owns, not you. Like I've said, your privacy extends to your computer in and of itself. The moment you browse the internet, the record and tracking of what you do on the private lines and servers of the ISP and hosts is nothing "private" to you. They can do whatever the hell they want with it, and (insofar as they can be made aware that you've committed or are suspected of committing a crime), they could be liable as both accessories to the crime, and for obstruction of justice.

God, I wish people would understand how privacy rights interact with the internet before commenting. Hell, I wish people would understand how the fourth amendment has been interpreted, too.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Gee, I guess if I was to search pretty much anything on Google images, thumbnails of copyrighted images would get saved to my cache, and that'd be my 3 strikes right there, no?

Unenforceable.

Actually, there is ONE way this could be enforced that everyone else seems to have forgotten. What if the most logical choice to uphold this treaty is to shut down ISP's? Think about it. EVERYONE that uses the internet has 3 strikes which means you'd have to ban anyone who has ever used the internet. You COULD do that OR you could just shut down ISP's. In my country, you don't pay for "internet access". What you do is pay for a television cable and the bonus for doing so is Internet and Phone access which means no one would be losing profit.

Even so, it doesn't have to be enforceable. The simple fact that they can do all the things listed in that treaty are enough reasons to start fighting against this.