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

[Pillypill]

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

If you're talking about the US republicans they definatly would, all conservative parties would, this is exactly "their bag".

OT: This won't stick in the UK, i doubt it will stick in Canada either, both seem to have favoured liberal stand points in the recent past.

 

[Seldon2639]

-snip-

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

Read it, digested it, have no problem with it. If you can point to the passages you find offensive, I'm happy to discuss them with you.

 

[The Rockerfly]

Yeah this will not happen; for one thing there is no way for them to check every machine on the planet. It's unrealistic and a complete scare factor for them to even imply that they could

The next reason is that the internet would become almost useless. The massive amount of people who would be breaking the law would be insane, most people wouldn't even be aware that they have broken it or are breaking the law (for example using copyrighted images). China would almost be entirely banned, 90% of every other country with internet connections would also be banned. The internet would be usable by 10% of people who already use it and every other industry as a result would take a massive blow due to a lack of users and the difficulty of getting anything copyrighted approved.

It would expectantly make a few million for the entertainment industry but would lose billions for every other industry. That few extra million for no pirates is also unrealistic because pirated sales do not equal actual sales. If I were to pirate something, chances are I would not buy it normally because I have enough disposable income to buy it so I don't really want it badly enough to justify spending. Therefore I not being able to pirate it does not mean I will purchase a copy of that entertainment medium

The fourth reason is that it would be breaking human rights. Anyone who breaks the law is legally allowed to a fair trial so having the 3 strike system and banning from the internet would not require a trial to ban them.

My final reason is that the amount of backlash from the public, political parties, other countries and groups. It would cause riots in the streets and massive amounts of backlash, the governments would have hundreds of thousands of unhappy voters which will see them being thrown out of office faster than light. That?s just the political backlash, let?s not ignores the rioting and protests which would cause damage to the country as well

So unless they want to make a few more pounds through no more pirates they will break human rights, massively damage the weak economy and receive massive backlash through a system that will not work then I say go for it. I await the obliteration of that law and the company if this passes

 

[PessimistOwl]

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

Sounds both kinky(?) and fun, I'm in!!!! >:O

 

[JuryNelson]

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

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

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.

The truth is way more terrifying. ISP's don't even need proof that you have copyrighted material on your computer. All they need is to point the finger 3 times and you're out. This treaty also gives governments the ability to search your hard drive at any time without the need of a warrant. If police officers show up in the middle of the night asking you to give them your hard drive for it to be searched you'd be breaking the law by not letting them in.

 

[Sir_Tor]

There is a chance that this could pass but I doubt it because some of the people inforcing these laws might find important information like credit card numbers, and use your information for different perposes. Identity theft would Skyrocket and there would be thousands upon thousands of people losing all there money, plus protests of epic proportions. It would mean the end of the internet, even if you use software that you didnt create or own[ probably includes explorer, firefox, google chrome] it will be illegal

You are allowed to use explorer, firefox and google chrome they are free already. Microsoft, Mozilla and Google WANTS you to use their browsers so it's not piracy in any way.

 

[RandyPants]

Fuck, Australia's part of it too? And here I thought we were chill chaps ...
I've got tons of pirated shows and movies ... And even if youtube and stuff is affected, it's gonna cause a major crash in the Internet.
Like someone else already said, half the reason we use the Internet is for file sharing.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

-snip-

Greetings hip detractor. ACTA operates on a accusation basis.

Which means they don't need to prove anything to ban anyone from the internet. They don't need probable cause. Since the wording is so... sickening, all they have to do is know that all computer techology "transfers" files by copying and recording, thus, everyone who's ever touched a computer with internet access is in violation at least three times.

How many times have you loaded the escapist's logo today?

You are allowed to use explorer, firefox and google chrome they are free already. Microsoft, Mozilla and Google WANTS you to use their browsers so it's not piracy in any way.

yes, but ACTA would mean it is illegal to actually view anything with any of those browsers unless you own the copyright. As you have to copy anything you wish to view on the internet in order to view it on your computer.

 

[tomtom94]

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

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Probably not. I think it means the big companies paying the politicians to get the legislation they want.
What does it actually mean?

 

[eggy32]

OK, I've been reading up on ACTA and I'm still not sure I understand.
Who gets unlimited access to my hard drive?
What exactly counts as being illegal?
Could someone please just give me a concise run down of why I should be worried about this?

 

[Alandoril]

The open-ended nature is designed so that they can charge you with pretty much whatever they like, whenever they like. The internet is the biggest communications method to have ever existed in human history. The point of this treaty is to control and regulate international communication, probably with a sideline intention of preventing "terrorism" and other "crimes" that threaten whatever is being defined as national security on any given day.

 

[Seldon2639]

The truth is way more terrifying. ISP's don't even need proof that you have copyrighted material on your computer. All they need is to point the finger 3 times and you're out. This treaty also gives governments the ability to search your hard drive at any time without the need of a warrant. If police officers show up in the middle of the night asking you to give them your hard drive for it to be searched you'd be breaking the law by not letting them in.

I read the proposal on Wikileaks (linked above), and found nothing in it which gives that authority either to ISPs or to the police. Seizure of a piece of property without cause or warrant would be unconstitutional, but there's nothing in anything which has been released or leaked which included that provision.

Can you give me citation?

 

[PessimistOwl]

Yeah this will not happen; for one thing there is no way for them to check every machine on the planet. It's unrealistic and a complete scare factor for them to even imply that they could

The next reason is that the internet would become almost useless. The massive amount of people who would be breaking the law would be insane, most people wouldn't even be aware that they have broken it or are breaking the law (for example using copyrighted images). China would almost be entirely banned, 90% of every other country with internet connections would also be banned. The internet would be usable by 10% of people who already use it and every other industry as a result would take a massive blow due to a lack of users and the difficulty of getting anything copyrighted approved.

It would expectantly make a few million for the entertainment industry but would lose billions for every other industry. That few extra million for no pirates is also unrealistic because pirated sales do not equal actual sales. If I were to pirate something, chances are I would not buy it normally because I have enough disposable income to buy it so I don't really want it badly enough to justify spending. Therefore I not being able to pirate it does not mean I will purchase a copy of that entertainment medium

The fourth reason is that it would be breaking human rights. Anyone who breaks the law is legally allowed to a fair trial so having the 3 strike system and banning from the internet would not require a trial to ban them.

My final reason is that the amount of backlash from the public, political parties, other countries and groups. It would cause riots in the streets and massive amounts of backlash, the governments would have hundreds of thousands of unhappy voters which will see them being thrown out of office faster than light. That?s just the political backlash, let?s not ignores the rioting and protests which would cause damage to the country as well

So unless they want to make a few more pounds through no more pirates they will break human rights, massively damage the weak economy and receive massive backlash through a system that will not work then I say go for it. I await the obliteration of that law and the company if this passes

Let me point out that the entertainment industry doesn't care about human rights. Nor do the healthcare insurance companies give a rats ass if someone were to die because they couldn't pay insane prices for insurance. Nor could corporations care if you were to lose your job to some guy named jorge because he would work for lower wages, leaving you out on the street, without a job. Nor would these people care if every country in the world were to be overthrown, just as long as they have their money.


It's only going to be important to them when they realize that their money doesn't mean anything anymore. Then they'll care...but wait, then it'll be too late. See where I'm coming from here?

 

[Shale_Dirk]

nd) 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.

Well, aren't we smug.

http://file.wikileaks.org/file/acta-proposal-2007.pdf

Civil Enforcement:
-Authority to order ex parte searches and other preliminary measures

 

[thirdsonsaburo]

Oh joy, thought crimes. Gotta love America.

 

[2fish]

Yay More BS trying to break the internet!

Ok it is time, we need a manifesto, we will either break free of the corporations or we will take the internet with us! Arm the hamsters!

I love that all the bills to ?protect? us today all seem to have that fear attached to them, the sort of ?we don?t want to break your fingers but it is for the good of all? logic.

I think our leaders and their owners have no clue on how today?s world is working and that scares them. They cannot control it since it is changing so quickly. Thus we get these laws and such that sort of blanket everyone with a rule that no one can actually enforce.

If anyone needs me I will be carving out my own part of the webway to call home.

 

[Seldon2639]

OK, I've been reading up on ACTA and I'm still not sure I understand.
Who gets unlimited access to my hard drive?
What exactly counts as being illegal?
Could someone please just give me a concise run down of why I should be worried about this?

Sure.

No one gets unlimited access, (either the police, the regulatory agency the ACTA creates, or the copyright holders) can ask the ISPs for the record of your browsing habits, and use that as evidence in criminal or civil cases against you if they charge you with violation of intellectual property rights.

The same things are illegal under the ACTA as are illegal now. It's simply giving more power to enforce copyrights and intellectual property rights.

Short answer: you shouldn't be worried.

 

[Frequen-Z]

-snip-

Greetings hip detractor. ACTA operates on a accusation basis.

Which means they don't need to prove anything to ban anyone from the internet. They don't need probable cause. Since the wording is so... sickening, all they have to do is know that all computer techology "transfers" files by copying and recording, thus, everyone who's ever touched a computer with internet access is in violation at least three times.

How many times have you loaded the escapist's logo today?

You do your username a great injustice with these posts.

What do you think is more likely;-
- Treaty is passed, everyone who fits your criteria (practically everyone) is 'banned from the internet'.
- Treaty is passed, barely enforced, maybe one or two example casses
- Treaty is not passed
- Treaty is passed, but works differently to how you propose, and really doesn't make much of a different to us.

 

[The Procrastinated End]

It most likely won't be passed because I doubt the U.S. government wants to anger the majority of it's taxpayers and if it does get passed, we introduce that little rebellion clause of the Declaration of Independence.