Perhaps you've heard recently of a little thing called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - but probably not, since it's been intentionally kept out of public view. In theory, it isn't a bad idea - it's designed to help fight piracy and protect the IP rights of companies. The issues it creates, however, are massive.
The first issue that I have with it is the fact that there is no transparency in this treaty - all of the details of it are being hammered out behind closed doors. They don't want the public to know about it, in short - and several FOIA reports have been denied, (1) with President Obama declaring the item a "national security" issue to keep it away from your eyes. (2)
Of course, this would be understandable - they don't want to give pirates time to find away around this treaty - but the leaks that have come out of it are startling. For example, all customs officials would be able to search your laptops and MP3 players for anything that can be considered copyrighted material, and confiscate said item if they find anything that could be considered copyrighted material. The issue being that you have no way of proving that the copy of that David Bowie song on your MP3 player is licensed to you. (3) Now, this is technically already on the books - this would simply increase the pressure to, as one person put it, "make the public pay for what is essentially a civil matter". [1] ACTA member countries will be required to provide for third-party (Internet Intermediary) liability. This means ISPs will face heightened liability for websites that even link to allegedly infringing content. Websites would have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. (4) The issue in this regard is that instead of employing hundreds lawyers to enforce such guidelines, ISP's may simply block access to content such as: YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, Myspace, and any site where there is a POTENTIAL for there to be copyrighted material uploaded (or downloaded).
This is only the tip of the mountainous iceberg that is the ACTA - we must stand and fight it, or we will lose the series of tubes we have come to know and love.
[1] U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, CBP DIRECTIVE NO. 3340-049
I only download the things that I have already bought but lost. Like when I wanted to play StarCraft again for example. Sadly I actually had to pay to get Medieval Total War back but I got it's expansion with it so it wasn't that bad.
I miss the good old days when you could play computer games without the disks. I remember in elementary school they always made us put the disk in for a game that I never had to use after it was installed at home. They literally could have bought one copy and put it on all the computers. And things like Blizzard used to be nice to you by allowing spawn disks on StarCraft so that you could play on lan with your friends who didn't have it. Medieval Total War didn't need the disk but as soon as they put out the expansion it did. Then they try to tell you you aren't allowed to trade games or music as if it isn't your property once you buy it. I am not saying to make copies, but once you have the disk you can do whatever the hell you want to to it.
President Obama declaring the item a "national security" issue to keep it away from your eyes. (2) Of course, this would be understandable - they don't want to give pirates time to find away around this treaty - but the leaks that have come out of it are startling. For example, all customs officials would be able to search your laptops and MP3 players for anything that can be considered copyrighted material, and confiscate said item if they find anything that could be considered copyrighted material. The issue being that you have no way of proving that the copy of that David Bowie song on your MP3 player is licensed to you. (3) Now, this is technically already on the books - this would simply increase the pressure to, as one person put it, "make the public pay for what is essentially a civil matter".
Socialism is the concept of public ownership of the means of production to distribute resources equally. What does this have anything to do with Socialism?
What does this have anything to do with Socialism?
exactly.
Saying we should be able to illegally download material is exactly the same as saying we should be able to walk into a store, fill our pockets with whatever we can, and leave without ever paying for it.
I don't care if some amazingly rich uptight artist is having half their profits stolen because of the Internet and they're still amazingly rich and uptight, and I'd rather that I be able to download whatever I want, but it's still illegal.
You wanna take my MP3 player away, you're gonna go through a wall of lead first.
But seriously, this is bull shit to an extreme. I've always been for anti piracy laws, but this is going WAY to far. That also means AG will be facing some problems of its own, as well as the vast majority of gaming and personal entertainment websites.
My opinion: Fight this with all of our might, and I can see this getting violent with some people.
Also, HOW IN THE BLOODY FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY?!?!?! One more reason for people to not like the government and Obama -.-
It's extreme, but if the cops thought you were stealing items from a store and keeping them in your home, they'd get a search warrant. This is the same thing, except illegal downloads have been made very commonplace in teenagers' minds so it seems like some huge deal.
They aren't going to go searching through every mp3 player though. That would take too much time and money and the funding would never pass through Senate+House.
It's extreme, but if the cops thought you were stealing items from a store and keeping them in your home, they'd get a search warrant. This is the same thing, except illegal downloads have been made very commonplace in teenagers' minds so it seems like some huge deal.
I'm not a thief, pirate or any of the like, and that still seems over board. I have no problem with anti-piracy laws, but blocking 70% of the internet including the majority of our most loved sites is going extremely overboard. Multimillion dollar companies that have been around for over a decade will go completely under because of this.
It does seem overboard. Yet, stealing is stealing whether or not it's intended.
Multimillion dollar companies that have been around for over a decade will go completely under because of this.
where did you get that? You can only enforce laws that have already been established, so as long as they don't break the law in the future they're fine. "Websites would have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material." If they do that, they're not going under. and most already keep somewhat of an eye on that already anyways, they'd just have to increase their force.
where did you get that? You can only enforce laws that have already been established, so as long as they don't break the law in the future they're fine. "Websites would have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material." If they do that, they're not going under. and most already keep somewhat of an eye on that already anyways, they'd just have to increase their force.
But some of these companies completely revolve around people that use them, not just what they create. Newgrounds is a great example; they will need to adopt dozens of policies and delete thousands of items of content to conform with the laws.
That also means a flop for dozens of forums out there as well.
It does seem overboard. Yet, stealing is stealing whether or not it's intended.
It's not stealing if it's unintended. That's something completely different.
The fact of the matter is that I'm not opposed to the idea of anti-piracy legislation if performed correctly (U.S. Copyright law is so convoluted that the only way to fight it is with blatant disregard for it...). However, I think that this is one step closer to destroying the only truly free place: The Internet. Websites will be forced to hire crack teams of hundreds of lawyers to monitor everything that is uploaded or shut down. There is no middle ground here. Also, from what I understand, 3 accusations towards you - accusations, not convictions - of copyright infringement, and you are barred from all ISPs in countries that sign this treaty.
But some of these companies completely revolve around people that use them, not just what they create. Newgrounds is a great example; they will need to adopt dozens of policies and delete thousands of items of content to conform with the laws.
I have seen nothing through the reports of this that suggest that uncopyrighted material needs to be controlled -- this deals only with copyrighted material.
I see nothing wrong with not allowing people who are not owners of copyrights to upload copyrighted material -- it's up to the owners of the copyright to decide whether or not it should be shared. There won't be a ban of sites in which there is a potential for such a thing to happen, because that's 95% of the sites (that matter)on the Internet.
Also, how does it affect forums? (and forums only?)
the only truly free place: The Internet
but is it really meant to be free? Imagine the scenario of unclaimed territory, say during Western Expansion. Not everyone in the unclaimed territory voted to become a part of the US, many probably making the same claim as you -- that their land was the only true free place, yet we don't look back on those lands becoming US territory as a failure. Simply put, just because something is unregulated now never means it should always be unregulated.
Websites will be forced to hire crack teams of hundreds of lawyers to monitor everything that is uploaded or shut down.
No need to over-exaggerate. Some people will need to be hired for large websites (ie: social networking, popular game sites) because programs wouldn't work, but not lawyers. There are people who do copyright-related work who never come close to being lawyers (I know two examples m'self).
