United states to close Youtube
- Thread starter DCFowl
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would like to apologise for the extremely poor quality of my original posts. It was late and I was in a big hurry
Here is a link to the actual leak
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/11/actadoc1.pdf
This is where I found the leak
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/acta/
This is where I first heard about this
http://www.thedailyswarm.com/headlines/leaked-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-threatens-destroy-internet-we-know-it-buh-bye-youtube-flickr-blogger-et-al/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/policy-laundering/
But it means that it will affect all of the USs trading partners, I.E. EVERYONE
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/fo/intellect_property.aspx
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2008/08/20/231915/uk-in-talks-over-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement.htm
http://www.trademinister.gov.au/releases/2008/sc_012.html
As a short list of governments actively pushing this through
United States, Mexico, the European Union, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, UK, Australia.
Any one who thinks that they cant do this has forgotten the United states patriot act
The copy right issues aside this goes to a much deeper issue of censorship and the presumption of innocents.
The agreement will mean that any organization can claim copy right infringement and YouTube will have to take it down. Any negative press coverage any negative Video Blogging, that person/ organization can claim copyright and have the video taken down. The poster has to fight a court battle to have the video back. This is directly opposed to the presumption of innocents that you have to prove that someone has broken the law before taking punitive action.
There is also the problem that large entertainment companies ( Vi@com) will make bad faith claims. They will claim that they own video knowing that they dont because the individual does not have the resources to sue.
To all those saying that this isnt going to happen well that is just not the point. They are writing the document knowing that it will be watered down, but the end result is still going to more internet censorship. If the government were to draft a law saying that you could be held indefinitely without charge, it is no victory for the law to be watered down to being held for seven days without charge because it is still a successful attack on our rights
To those that dislike the current YouTube, no one is stopping you from starting a new site that demands a minimum quality of work but that is exactly what this legislation would stop you from doing, allowing you freedom of creativity on the web.
I really Dont want this to happen, anyone can disprove any of the sources I sighted, find any proof Im wrong let us know so that I can stop worrying, please
DCFOWL
Youre right again Im sorryNannernade said:
Here is a link to the actual leak
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/11/actadoc1.pdf
This is where I found the leak
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/acta/
This is where I first heard about this
http://www.thedailyswarm.com/headlines/leaked-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-threatens-destroy-internet-we-know-it-buh-bye-youtube-flickr-blogger-et-al/
shewolf51 said:
Yes this will affect YOU, this is an international trade agreement, thats going to be crucial to sneaking it past congressFolkLikePanda said:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/policy-laundering/
But it means that it will affect all of the USs trading partners, I.E. EVERYONE
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/fo/intellect_property.aspx
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2008/08/20/231915/uk-in-talks-over-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement.htm
http://www.trademinister.gov.au/releases/2008/sc_012.html
As a short list of governments actively pushing this through
United States, Mexico, the European Union, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, UK, Australia.
Any one who thinks that they cant do this has forgotten the United states patriot act
That is the point, it isnt just YouTube it is any file sharing site, the term they use is internet service provider(ISP).Obrien Xp said:
The copy right issues aside this goes to a much deeper issue of censorship and the presumption of innocents.
The agreement will mean that any organization can claim copy right infringement and YouTube will have to take it down. Any negative press coverage any negative Video Blogging, that person/ organization can claim copyright and have the video taken down. The poster has to fight a court battle to have the video back. This is directly opposed to the presumption of innocents that you have to prove that someone has broken the law before taking punitive action.
There is also the problem that large entertainment companies ( Vi@com) will make bad faith claims. They will claim that they own video knowing that they dont because the individual does not have the resources to sue.
To all those saying that this isnt going to happen well that is just not the point. They are writing the document knowing that it will be watered down, but the end result is still going to more internet censorship. If the government were to draft a law saying that you could be held indefinitely without charge, it is no victory for the law to be watered down to being held for seven days without charge because it is still a successful attack on our rights
To those that dislike the current YouTube, no one is stopping you from starting a new site that demands a minimum quality of work but that is exactly what this legislation would stop you from doing, allowing you freedom of creativity on the web.
I really Dont want this to happen, anyone can disprove any of the sources I sighted, find any proof Im wrong let us know so that I can stop worrying, please
DCFOWL
To all those saying that this isnt going to happen well that is just not the point. They are writing the document that they know will be watered down, but the end result is still going to be more internet censorship. If the government were to draft a law saying that you could be held indefinitely without charge, it is no victory for the law to be watered down to being held for seven days without charge because it is still a successful attack on our rights
This kinda inhabits the same column of thought as the whole "ISPs will make you pay for websites like channels on a TV by 2008" thing i read in 2006.. It's a wild fantasy that has had the "Broken Telephone" effect, being mirrored from blog to blog, warped ever-so-little along the way until it reaches here.
I'm sure the bill may be real on some level, but there is NO way it could ever be put into effective practice in anything short of a Dictatorship.
I'm sure the bill may be real on some level, but there is NO way it could ever be put into effective practice in anything short of a Dictatorship.
I find myself again disappointed by the English language, it's inability to provide a sufficient enough well-known vocabulary to express the level of whathefuckery I've found here.
But there is one word though that, whilst it covers it only loosely, still applies...
Wow.
But there is one word though that, whilst it covers it only loosely, still applies...
Wow.