Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

[Lullabye]

Well, I understand that taking something of someone else's without asking is inherently wrong, and I acknowledge that I'm a bad person for doing it. But then, I don't really care. To put it into gaming terms, I suppose my stance on pirating would be lawful neutral. I want to listen to songs, and I do so legally when I can. If I can't, well, that's what limewire is for.

 

[Gindil]

Piracy is not theft, period.

Now your opinion is valid, however it is a little confusing.

Theft is essentially taking something from someone without their permission

A company is selling an item of clothing. If you take the item without paying, you are taking it from them without their permission. This is shoplifting. Shoplifting is widely considered to be theft.

Someone is selling a game. If you take the item without paying, you are taking it from them without their permission. This is...wait this can't be theft, surely?

Nope [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)]. Entitlement does not = theft. Doesn't work in book sales. Doesn't work with used car sales.

So in effect, the ISPs become underpaid police men of copyright content. With no compensation, I wonder how that's going to work [http://www.zeropaid.com/news/90536/french-isps-and-french-government-locking-horns-over-hadopi-costs/]

ACTA is not supposed to "work" at all. ACTA is designed to give ISPs defacto rights to filter, block, and/or redirect any traffic they want. All in the name of protecting the rights of copyright holders.

Which in practice will mean, "you need to pay us to transfer data through our internet."

Time Warner, in particular, has been pushing for this ever since they started buying up broadband ISPs and cable providers.

By that same token, they lose their section 230 Harbor which is set up to protect them from that. They either act as the neutral party or they decide to discriminate and face the consequences. That's going to be interesting for the courts.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

By that same token, they lose their section 230 Harbor which is set up to protect them from that. They either act as the neutral party or they decide to discriminate and face the consequences. That's going to be interesting for the courts.

I'm not seeing much of a conflict there. "They'll lose something they don't want, which, from their perspective, is causing them to lose massive amounts of money."

Coaxial telcom is a sinking ship, only partially maintaining thanks to various geographical areas where they've been given a complete, government mandated monopoly on service. The goal of ACTA to give coaxial telecommunications companies a new law to exploit to get ahead of their competition. Time Warner, comcast, cox, and the rest of them have likely prepared to shut down all external interactions the instant they're allowed to. Time Warner, in particular, likely has briefs already written to sue every competing ISP for gross piracy related copyright infringements.

The goal is to create a loophole coaxial telcom can pass through the shut behind them. They have no interest in any of the immunities granted by section 230, as they have no interest in providing a service where they're relevant.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Piracy is not theft, period.

Now your opinion is valid, however it is a little confusing.

Theft is essentially taking something from someone without their permission

A company is selling an item of clothing. If you take the item without paying, you are taking it from them without their permission. This is shoplifting. Shoplifting is widely considered to be theft.

Someone is selling a game. If you take the item without paying, you are taking it from them without their permission. This is...wait this can't be theft, surely?

We already have a term for legaly infringing on companies intellectual property rights it's called copywright infringement, not theft thats a different termanology with different legal persecutions.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

No piracy is COPYING, not "theft".

"Theft" implies that an actual object has been removed from it's owner without the owners consent...

 

[gl1koz3]

But... don't we have enough songs already? What possible progress can be made in this field anymore?

Find another job. As if we're all special and it always works out for all of us.

What utopia in minds there. Certainly not Earth's.

 

[Gindil]

By that same token, they lose their section 230 Harbor which is set up to protect them from that. They either act as the neutral party or they decide to discriminate and face the consequences. That's going to be interesting for the courts.

I'm not seeing much of a conflict there. "They'll lose something they don't want, which, from their perspective, is causing them to lose massive amounts of money."

Coaxial telcom is a sinking ship, only partially maintaining thanks to various geographical areas where they've been given a complete, government mandated monopoly on service. The goal of ACTA to give coaxial telecommunications companies a new law to exploit to get ahead of their competition. Time Warner, comcast, cox, and the rest of them have likely prepared to shut down all external interactions the instant they're allowed to. Time Warner, in particular, likely has briefs already written to sue every competing ISP for gross piracy related copyright infringements.

The goal is to create a loophole coaxial telcom can pass through the shut behind them. They have no interest in any of the immunities granted by section 230, as they have no interest in providing a service where they're relevant.

How is it going to help them get ahead of their competition when they can be sued for what they censor? The Section 230 harbors allow them to remain protected from lawsuits, so long as they don't censor the web. More or less, the entertainment industry, not the ISPs look to gain from the ACTA. It effectively removes these very harbors for Youtube, which would have made the recent decision quite interesting.

Also, it's akin to this [http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/isps-want-have-their-first-amendment-cake-and] legislation that they want passed. Let's also not forget all of the subpoenas this may unleash for copyright infringement. Even before the ACTA has been unleashed, we have good [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/03152710320.shtml] ideas of what this may do.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

More or less, the entertainment industry, not the ISPs look to gain from the ACTA.

Just what, exactly, do you think Time Warner is?

Because from where I'm sitting, its an utterly massive media conglomerate that owns multiple record labels, print publications, more than half the cable television channels, and is a film studio. The crappy broadband ISP that does nothing but lose money is the absolute least of the properties.

They're also the single largest contributor to ACTA grease.

ACTA gives them the right to unceremoniously bitchslap all of their telecom competition while granting them full control over "their" internet. Internet decency is simply in their way. What they want is to provide a service akin to microsoft's LIVE. A tightly controlled walled garden that has zero resemblance to what the internet currently looks like. Thus zero relevance to anything in the internet decency act.

Not to mention, if law changes, they can't be held libel for actions committed prior to that change.

Not to imply they're the only ones hoping and praying ACTA is ratified.

 

[Gindil]

And true to form, the ACTA has been leaked. Read here [http://euwiki.org/ACTA/WashingtonDC_aug25] or summarized version Here [http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5285/125/]

-snip

It doesn't look like we're really disagreeing that the ACTA is going to screw us all.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Here's a thought on the ACTA, assuming it passes, and millions of people all over the world get thrown in jail over it, or are sued beyond financial recovery, doesn't that mean that nintendo or who the fuck ever just made sure that their next game has millions less potential buyers? I mean if they are arguing over potential purchases then wouldn't putting me in jail prevent me from buying any new game? So wouldn't that mean that nintendo is actually stealing money from itself and it's competitors? It's stupid.

Oh don't worry about going to jail. Since ACTA makes it an act of copyright infringement to even view a webpage through an ISP that doesn't own or have distribution rights to whatever content you're loading (meaning your ISP is violating the escapist's copyrights every time you load a page), it'd be "irresponsible" to throw that many people in jail, but not correct "the cause."

The only people who will go to jail will be people who are, currently, not violating any laws.