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

[Cowabungaa]

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.

How much more likely.

 

[Seldon2639]

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.]

I know the legal terminology and construction is confusing, so I'll try to break it down.

If an ISP is given notice of an infringing activity, they have to disable access to the material, and take it down if possible. If they do so, they are immune from liability. But that's no different from current domestic laws. If you report to blogspot (or whatever) that they have illegal material up, they generally take it down. What the ACTA does is get the ISPs in the game.

Actually, I hadn't seen this part, but it's better than I expected:

"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"

The ACTA isn't that bad, if you don't immediately buy into the nerd rage.

 

[Seldon2639]

Well, besides for the fact that downloading anything for free, copyrighted or not, is going to be illegal. That includes Steam betas and demos, people giving out their music and even simple free art.

Upon what section of the ACTA do you base that? It's based on violation of copyright and intellectual property rights. If a beta or demo or freeware exists, it is a subordination of the copyright, and a willing waiver of it. You're misrepresenting it.

 

[fix-the-spade]

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

It's the Republican Party's baby, they want it to go through.

In practice, I think this will fall into the 'unenforcable laws' category of dumb legislation. At least in Europe.

 

[The Last Nomad]

I would have broken the law anyway, so this does not bother me. But o another level it annoys me greatly.

 

[Seldon2639]

Actually, it changes more than that. It will be illegal to download anything for free, even free programs. Linux download? Illegal. Firefox download? Illegal. Google Chrome Download? Illegal. Free music on Newgrounds? Illegal. Free demos from Steam? Illegal. Free Betas from Steam? Illegal.

Stop saying that, god damn it. It's a lie.

The ACTA is referring to copyright and IP violations. Downloading Linux, firefox, et al are completely insulated because those groups have willingly waived their copyrights for freeware and free music, and free demos, and betas. The ACTA and the provisions therein refer to violation of intellectual property and copyright (or suspicions therein), which cannot exist if the holder of the copyright has waived it.

 

[ANImaniac89]

I wonder if they will go looking for past infractions, or if when it starts (if it does) from that point on is when we're screwed.

Strange thing is right now I'm in the middle of reading 1984

 

[NoseDigger]

Most people will never know. Besides, people don't protest anymore, they'll just riot.

Hopefully to Atari Teenage Riot. I'd love to see that happen.

Also, can anyone tell me if it will affect Belgium? Or does it include the whole EU?

 

[Shale_Dirk]

I know the legal terminology and construction is confusing, so I'll try to break it down.

If an ISP is given notice of an infringing activity, they have to disable access to the material, and take it down if possible. If they do so, they are immune from liability. But that's no different from current domestic laws. If you report to blogspot (or whatever) that they have illegal material up, they generally take it down. What the ACTA does is get the ISPs in the game.

Actually, I hadn't seen this part, but it's better than I expected:

"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"

The ACTA isn't that bad, if you don't immediately buy into the nerd rage.

In regards to:

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.

 

[British-Hobo]

I'm doubting this is going to pass, but I'll leave all that to the people here who actually understand all this, rather than making ignorant claims based on stuff what I've read here.

But I did see someone see /b/'s 'declared war' on this whole thing, and /b/ becoming the saviour of everyone in this would be singularly the most awesome thing that could EVER happen.

 

[Blind Sight]

Even if this does pass, it's very possible that its application will ultimately doom it, depending on what scale they're going for. If they're only going after pirates who download ALOT (seriously, I know a guy who downloads like 80 GB a week) and specific illegal content online then it'll probably stay intact, but if they try to seriously apply the whole damn thing, including that bit about copyrighted pictures, it'll collapse in a week. Why? Because EVERYONE and their grandmother has some kind of copyrighted data on their computers by the logic of this treaty. Either public opinon will completely kill it, or the resources needed to maintain it will just be too much. In some ways, ACTA could be a good thing, it could show how impossible it is to maintain high-scale copyright protection on the internet. Of course, that's wishful thinking, but still, this treaty doesn't have a chance in hell.

 

[Jakeli]

it won't be signed until late september and the odds of it passing are SO small. Microscopically small. Why? Because it effects too many people. It's just idiotic so it won't get out.

that good citizen is exactly why it WILL pass.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

huh.

oddly enough this reminds me of the movie equilibrium...

but regardless, i can see WHY it might be used..but i think there are much much more cons to it than pros, and they seriously can have no clue as to how many people this will effect in the most craziest ways in which this could screw over millions of peopl without them even realizing it.

 

[ecoho]

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

 

[Seldon2639]

I know the legal terminology and construction is confusing, so I'll try to break it down.

If an ISP is given notice of an infringing activity, they have to disable access to the material, and take it down if possible. If they do so, they are immune from liability. But that's no different from current domestic laws. If you report to blogspot (or whatever) that they have illegal material up, they generally take it down. What the ACTA does is get the ISPs in the game.

Actually, I hadn't seen this part, but it's better than I expected:

"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"

The ACTA isn't that bad, if you don't immediately buy into the nerd rage.

In regards to:

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.

It's not referring to local storage on an individual machine, but to storage on a server, or anywhere which can be accessed remotely. I now understand what the confusion is. So, if you're using your individual computer as a storage for remote downloading of illegal materials, that'd be bad. But, that also wouldn't require the ISP to scan your machine. All it'd be is the copyright holder saying "this movie is being downloaded from this ISP number", and the ISP saying "yep, we'll cut off access to it, if they don't respond in a legally sufficient manner to claim it was a mistake or misidentification".

Now, before anyone starts the derp derp about "well, that means you're guilty until proven innocent", this is different. It's a bifurcated issue:

1. Does the ISP shut down access to the material?
2. Do you suffer criminal or civil penalties?

The former is based on the copyright holder saying "you did it", and in order to prevent the ISP from shutting you down, you say "no I didn't". The question of civil or criminal penalties is completely different, and would still be based on the rules of evidence and procedure.

By the by, legally sufficient response is as simple as a signed statement asserting that it isn't you.

 

[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.

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

Big companies pay individuals to convince the politicians to pass the legislation they want. The politicians have a choice.

 

[Shale_Dirk]

In regards to:

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.

It's not referring to local storage on an individual machine, but to storage on a server, or anywhere which can be accessed remotely.

This point is open to interpretation. However, I agree with the rest of your comment.