I never really saw the point of objecting to this. If you've done nothing wrong, then don't worry about it. Even if they went into your house. If they didn't take any of my things and just looked on my computer (Didn't delete any files) I wouldn't care.ctrl-alt-postal said:Basically, the US has proposed, as an international framework, this ACTA.
It is not as simple as just youtube.
It allows ex parte investigations of computer/property to investigate copywrite infringement (you are not required to even know if they have entered your computer, and possibly house, in regard to infringement investigations).
It assumes any encrypted packet is a possible infringement, and ISP's will be forced to snoop every packet to avoid possible liability.
It allows for the ACTA appointed bodies to prosecute copywrite/intellectual property infringements without the CW/IP holder filing a complaint or even aware of such infringement.
The fact that all the individuals involved in the drafting and voting in of this agreement were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement should tell you all you need to know about their intentions. This could have a profound influence of the use of "fair use" in relation to distribution of information through social networking and independent media organizations.
Just a side note, how many here realize that the EU (one of their internal bodies) tried to patent the idea of the progress bar so as to sue, on behalf of certain OS makers, any open-source project using one?
^^^ What he said. And if by chance it's true...Hah, good luck getting that even debated anywhere in congress.Amnestic said:Fark hasn't picked up on this yet - I highly doubt you're ahead of them.
I call shenanigans.
If they enter your house without warrant or notice, have they not already taken your right to privacy?? Or presumption of innocence and right to rebuttal?Mrsnugglesworth said:But if they start taking my shit, I will be riotting in front of the White House, PRONTO!
The problem is virtually no one is actually breaking the rules.HUBILUB said:Meh, youtube is horrible anyway. Sure, it will be hard to find clips you'd like to watch online, but you can find other ways without having to deal with the worst managed community ever. Although it is a real shame for the people that don't break copyright rules and just try to share their own videos with the community. Youtube is a good starting point if you want to get famous.
Well, it was only one link. And it did lead somewhere.historybuff said:I call bullshit.
Your links lead to nothing.
Yeah, for instance they completely screwed Thatguywiththeglasses over even though he was protected by law. Luckily he has his own site. The same may not apply to others trying to get out of the "internet-ghetto" as I call it. Like me for instance...Treblaine said:The problem is virtually no one is actually breaking the rules.HUBILUB said:Meh, youtube is horrible anyway. Sure, it will be hard to find clips you'd like to watch online, but you can find other ways without having to deal with the worst managed community ever. Although it is a real shame for the people that don't break copyright rules and just try to share their own videos with the community. Youtube is a good starting point if you want to get famous.
Like if someone uses a sound clip from a song or movie in a sort video they make, even if they don't profit off it at all, they are accused of "copyright infringement" even though they are well within their rights of fair use.
And parodies are extremely well protected, this is merely a massive case of FRAUD as copyright owners ABUSE the wording of the DMCA.
Trust me, this won't just crush youtube, this will crush whatever tries to replace youtube, this is TERRIBLE and will affect everyone.