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

[InnerRebellion]

It's all bullshit, but would make a great "April Fool's!" from the government.

 

[Brotherofwill]

-It passes, Time warner/aol/disney becomes the only corporation capable of offering anything resembling internet access, only to their websites, as ACTA makes it illegal for anyone (including ISPs) to copy anything they do not own or have rights to. Since you cannot view anything without downloading (copying) it, the internet as it exists right now becomes illegal.

They've tried this before. You might not remember the whole net neutrality business.

Like I said, the biggest problem is the treaty seems reasonable to one without computer knowledge.

How exactly would that work? That's absurd. The millions upon millions of companies that are making a living with the internet will all quietly go down? Bullshit.

I haven't heard of the previous try altough I'm curious to see why it didn't work. Probably for the same reason this won't work.

 

[tomtom94]

Copyright law has its ups and downs.

Actually current copyright law pretty is pretty much only "downs." I dunno how we managed to fuck that one up so badly. I think it happened right around the time when copyright holders decided they were above the law and the courts agreed with them.

Well, the good side is the occasional time it helps out someone who got their stuff ripped off by Hollywood and wants royalties.
But yeah, right now it's kinda suckish.

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.

And then the government can arrest them for tax evasion and people who weren't born with business suits on can start making all the decisions. Everyone wins! So why shouldn't the republicans vote no on ACTA again?

Ah, difference between tax evasion (just not paying) and tax avoidance (claiming residency of Cayman Islands to avoid paying). The former is illegal, the latter is legal. Stupidly.
And predictably, the latter is what they all do.
(It's why I'm beginning to advocate a universal tax of 1% on everything)

 

[Canid117]

Copyright law has its ups and downs.

Actually current copyright law pretty is pretty much only "downs." I dunno how we managed to fuck that one up so badly. I think it happened right around the time when copyright holders decided they were above the law and the courts agreed with them.

Well, the good side is the occasional time it helps out someone who got their stuff ripped off by Hollywood and wants royalties.
But yeah, right now it's kinda suckish.

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.

And then the government can arrest them for tax evasion and people who weren't born with business suits on can start making all the decisions. Everyone wins! So why shouldn't the republicans vote no on ACTA again?

Ah, difference between tax evasion (just not paying) and tax avoidance (claiming residency of Cayman Islands to avoid paying). The former is illegal, the latter is legal. Stupidly.
And predictably, the latter is what they all do.
(It's why I'm beginning to advocate a universal tax of 1% on everything)

Then the government can say "Fuck Hollywood" and not enforce any film copyrights until they agree to start paying again.

 

[theSovietConnection]

Another thought: If a lot of people do protest against this like I'm sure everyone here is hoping, how well do you think a huge group of people crying "revolution" will maybe convince governments otherwise?

How many people will compare this to a communism? After all, we compared something as trivial as healthcare to a communist society. I'm sure, this, considering how completely controlling this is, will inspire many people with thoughts that all around the world, governments are adopting communist policies. If people were to do that, then there would be a huge outcry for revolution, this may, in turn, cause governments to stop taking bribes and start thinking for themselves....just a hopeful thought.

p.s: pardon any spelling errors, my hands are freezing and that is impeding my typing ability. brrrrrrr

This is actually the exact opposite of true Communism. What you're referring to is Stalinism, which in itself is not Communism at all, but is, as defined, a " bureaucratised degenerated workers' state ? that is, a non-capitalist state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, although not owning the means of production and not constituting a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class", which is the exact opposite of what Communism seeks. Under Communism, a treaty/bill/law such as this would have no need to be implemented, as property and means of production are communally owned.

 

[Voodoomancer]

*read*
*read*
*read*
...
...
..the...
...FUCK!?...

"Oh, hey, we decided to abolish privacy, suckers"

I can see government buildings getting molotov'd if this crap is passed...

[sub][sub]Disclaimer: I am not threatening to actually set fire to anything, and have no such intentions. Please don't break down my doors and arrest me, future big-brother government.[/sub][/sub]

 

[Zer_]

We're worried because of the worst possible outcome of the situation. Heck if I was to say "Someone is going to ram an aircraft into the World Trade Center" two weeks before the attack, would you believe me?

Preparing for the worst is the least we can do.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

This is one of those things that I just can't see actually happening.

Touch wood.


But if it does I will personally go around to everyone responsible for allowing this in the UK's houses and bulldoze their bedroom walls and replace them with glass, just to see how they like it.

 

[tomtom94]

Ah, difference between tax evasion (just not paying) and tax avoidance (claiming residency of Cayman Islands to avoid paying). The former is illegal, the latter is legal. Stupidly.
And predictably, the latter is what they all do.
(It's why I'm beginning to advocate a universal tax of 1% on everything)

Then the government can say "Fuck Hollywood" and not enforce any film copyrights until they agree to start paying again.

1: Can you imagine the uproar?
2: While Hollywood may only pay a pittance of what it should pay, it still probably pays in six or seven figures.
Basically, Hollywood holds all the aces

 

[Shale_Dirk]

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/april/tradoc_146029.pdf

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.

Limiting the liability of ISPs for the illegal action of their customers is something you find violates either the constitution or "human rights"?

Ah, I misread part of that. My apologies. However, the relevant section is as follows:

when exercising the activities as stipulated in paragraph 3(a)(ii) and/or (iii) the online service providers act [takes appropriate measures] expeditiously, in accordance with applicable law , [such as those] to remove or disable access to infringing material or infringing activity upon obtaining actual knowledge of the infringement [or the fact that the information at the initial source has been removed or disabled.] [or having reasonable grounds to know that the infringement is occurring]]

Option 1
(b) condition the application of the provisions of subparagraph (a) on meeting the following
requirements:

(i) 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]; and
(ii) an online service provider expeditiously removing or disabling access to material or
[activity][alleged infringement], upon receipt [of legally sufficient notice of alleged
infringement,][of an order from a competent authority] and in the absence of a legally
sufficient response from the relevant subscriber of the online service provider indicating
that the notice was the result of mistake or misidentification.

except that the provisions of (ii) shall not be applied to the extent that the online service provider is acting solely as a conduit for transmissions through its system or network.]

 

[Cowabungaa]

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.

Soooo nothing's really changing?

I'll be frank with you, I got some songs and movies that I didn't gain...well, the regular way, but it ain't like I'm some big-time uploader or anything or rip all my games of the internet (my hobby is way too precious to me for that). So even with this agreement, pretty much nothing changes for me?

No, that's basically how it is. People you you are the problem, feeling like this won't be a problem.

While I'm unsure how bad it's going to be, it's pretty clear that after today we won't see flocks and flocks of agents swoop down on almost every home in the (developed) world. If only because there aren't enough officers for that.

 

[daftnoize]

Woo i'm safe don't live in America... Oh yeah uk DMC act. Bugger!

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Again, this is like trying to arrest everyone who ever posts on 4chan. All I have to say is this: Good luck ATCA, you're going to need it.

 

[Seldon2639]

Soooo nothing's really changing?

I'll be frank with you, I got some songs and movies that I didn't gain...well, the regular way, but it ain't like I'm some big-time uploader or anything or rip all my games of the internet (my hobby is way too precious to me for that). So even with this agreement, pretty much nothing changes for me?

Weeeellll... It does change.

It doesn't make what you do any more or less illegal, it just makes it more likely that you'll be caught.

 

[Frequen-Z]

Love the foil-hat crowd, really. Since I don't pirate, file-share, or use P2P networks (except for their lawfully intended purpose, ie Skype), I'm not so worried about the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Conference or ACTA bringing Hulkamania down on me.

Do you have a single copyrighted song, picture or video on your computer? Do you ever view videos on Youtube that have copyrighted music? If so, you'll be breaking the law. Still so sure it won't effect you?

I don't think this will pass. But if it does, there will be MASSIVE protest rallies in every capital city in the world with access to internet. We'd probably see one of the biggest protest movements since the civil rights and Hippie rallies, all calling for the demise of this treaty.

And what's to stop this from becoming bigger? Already this is violating many nations' civil rights, so what's to stop those enforcing ACTA from adding more amendments onto the treaty to give them more control over the web and public as a whole?

No there won't. It's all back room bullshit. Most people will never know. Besides, people don't protest anymore, they'll just riot.

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.

No, that's basically how it is. People you you are the problem, feeling like this won't be a problem.

Hahaha, if you say so chuck. You can go and board up your windows and start collecting tinned food for this 'cyberpunk dystopian future' you seem to believe in, and I'll keep browsing the web, kay?

'Cos you bet your bottom dollar, surfing the web after/if this gets signed is going to be indistinguishable from surfing the web now.

 

[Outright Villainy]

What... the fuck?
If it's as bad as people are making out to be, it'd essentially make the entire internet unsustainable.

...The fuck?

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

And people wonder why I don't like corporations.

 

[Kortney]

This fucking annoys me. There are people out their raping, killing, assaulting, kidnapping and counterfeiting but instead Police Officers will have to give up their good time to investigate internet piracy?

Ugh. Stupid, stupid.