Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anti-Counterfeiting Deal Aims For Global DMCA

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the by-whose-authority dept.

Privacy 380

An anonymous reader writes "Negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement continue on Wednesday as the US, Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, and a handful of other countries secretly negotiate a copyright treaty that includes statutory damages, new search and seizure power, and anti-camcording rules. Now the substance of the Internet chapter has leaked, with information that the proposed chapter would create a 'Global DMCA' with anti-circumvention rules, liability for ISPs, and the possibility of three-strikes and you're out requirements."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Americans (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967132)

This is your fault.

Re:Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967158)

It's more the fault of our elected officials who appointed the people who draft these agreements without oversight.

Re:Americans (4, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967166)

It's more the fault of those who elect the lousy officials over and over.

Re:Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967186)

It's more the fault of those who elect the lousy officials over and over.

Right... Americans

Re:Americans (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967212)

This thread is eating itself.

Re:Americans (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967846)

At least Russia, China and India are missing from the list. They alone consist over half of the population on earth. How do they plan to enforce "Global DMCA" if they are missing? (along with many smaller countries)

Re:Americans (4, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967486)

Yeah, right! Like the rest of the world is voting out their corrupt politicians...

Re:Americans (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967704)

as the US, Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, and a handful of other countries

At least we know the difference between continent and a country...

Re:Americans (1)

Chees0rz (1194661) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967886)

as the US, Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, and a handful of other countries

At least we know the difference between continent and a country...

as the US, Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, and a handful of other countries

At least you know the difference between continent and a country...

Re:Americans (4, Informative)

infinite9 (319274) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967776)

Yeah, right! Like the rest of the world is voting out their corrupt politicians...

... and replacing them with... that's right, other corrupt politicians.

I'm telling you... blood is the only thing that will stop this. It's the only thing that matters more to the politicians than money. Blood. As in guillotines. I'm generally against violence. So I won't be the one shooting. But it's the only thing that can work now... Goldman Sachs execs and senators hanging from street lights.

Re:Americans (1)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967830)

Right, because the general populace has no corruption in it.

Name one revolution that did not return the country to a corrupt form of government.

Re:Americans (1)

Chees0rz (1194661) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967906)

The Revolution of MiPants, 1969

Look it up, smart ass.

Re:Americans (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967870)

"It's a two party system, you have to vote for one of us!"

Re:Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967202)

The lousy officials elect themselves. They control the voting machines.

Re:Americans (5, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967228)

It's more the fault of the people for believing that their rights can be protected solely by the voting process. History has shown that belief to be ridiculous. The problem is that most people are completely convinced that they have no real option to change things outside of the voting process.

Re:Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967508)

and what, precisely would be the non-voting solution? Careful there, nut-job. What you're about to say will be recoded and might be treason.

Re:Americans (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967568)

Running for office yourself.

Re:Americans (1)

Lunoria (1496339) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967640)

If it only was that simple. I'd love to run for office here, but since I'm not a Canadian Conservative, the sheep won't vote for me.

Re:Americans (1)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967910)

You also need to be:

1. White.
2. Male.
3. Wealthy.
4. A lawyer or successful businessman, preferably both.
5. At least 50+ for any significant office.
6. Already in politics for at least 20 years for any significant office.
7. Part of a family that is already well connected to the conservative wealthy elite and politics.

Let's all just get in our magic time machines and do all those things so we can be allowed actually enact political change. The other option is killing people, but I'm pretty sure you won't get millions of lazy and comfortable people to get behind that idea either.

Re:Americans (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967540)

I wrote this a dozen times on /. and all I have got was negative moderation ("Troll", etc.)

Re:Americans (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967246)

It's more the fault of those who elect the lousy officials over and over.

You make it sound like it would be so easy to fix this problem.

In most elections, the options have been carefully filtered before the people ever get to vote. So, the people get to pick one lousy official or the other.

The governments serve the interests of the rich and try to make it appear like they serve the interests of the majority. This artificial scarcity on intellectual property is something very greatly desired by all the rich people in the world, so, this event is not at all surprising.

Expect things to continue to get worse. The rich have no incentive to relent.

Re:Americans (1)

thehostiles (1659283) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967396)

what? GLOBAL?

Re:Americans (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967678)

Oh yea, well I don't believe that first of all I don't think that in the rise of the nation. There has been anyone who is more qualified for this position than michael bloomberg. I mean the guy is probably the richest man in new york. That qualifies him as smart because is well known that not smart people can be rich and this is the whole point of electing him for a new term. I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky. I believe that I believe and noone can tell me otherwise I beliveve I believe. Praise the lord. Amen!!! He is mighty!! he is great!! look how fast am I typing.

Re:Americans (2, Insightful)

Imrik (148191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967706)

In order for us to not elect lousy officials there have to be non-lousy officials to elect.

Re:Americans (0, Troll)

kick6 (1081615) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967196)

This is your fault.

Our fault!? The rest of the world cheered when Obama was elected proclaiming that America had "finally done something right." This is as much everyone else's fault as it is America's. See what happens when you believe warm-fuzzy liberal propaganda!? They go and take your internet away!

Re:Americans (4, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967358)

Our fault!? The rest of the world cheered when Obama was elected proclaiming that America had "finally done something right." This is as much everyone else's fault as it is America's. See what happens when you believe political propaganda!? They go and take your internet away!

Fixed that for ya.

Politicians are politicians. Which party doesn't matter.

Re:Americans (2, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967576)

Time to start a non-political-party party!

Re:Americans (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967828)

Time to start a non-political-party party!

Anarchist?

Then again, where would they meet and if they form a party, wouldn't that make them un-anarchist?

I give up.

Re:Americans (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967844)

Time to start a non-political-party party!

How about the Straight Talking American Government (STAG) Party or the Transcendent Ombudsmen for Government Accountability (TOGA) Party?

Re:Americans (5, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967244)

Especially you Canadians and Peruvians! Oh wait, you meant US citizens didn't you? Never mind than.

Re:Americans (5, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967282)

I'd blame the nepotism that puts media bigwigs into continual favorable positions (here's looking at you RIAA lawyers who got into the DOJ).

Because sovereign nations mean nothing (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967134)

It's such a great idea for each country to give up it's sovereignty for copyright infringmement.

See ya, free Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967156)

It's been nice knowing you.

Re:See ya, free Internet (4, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967182)

See ya, unencrypted Internet, good riddance.

Re:See ya, free Internet (3, Insightful)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967270)

What are these Intranets you speak of? I hand deliver 80GB+ of iPod movies and TV Shows right to my friend's cubes on flash, hard drive, or burnt DVD files. Sneakernet, get to know it. Encode once, share many. RIAA/MPAA? Never heard of them. Do they make any good movies or TV Shows? HA!

Re:See ya, free Internet (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967386)

Hahahaha. Do you seriously think that the corporations will let that happen? Watch for a new section banning "unlicensed" use of encryption software to be added to the treaty.

Hey media companies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967178)

GFY

Meh, Not the problem. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967184)

Really, with the rampant image theft, reposting of clips from the early 90's as 'new' on just about every video site and the plethora of copycat sites I can see a need for this. If anything it only brings the Internet under the rule of law and in line with most other social mediums.

However, I still feel that 75 years is way too long of a copyright term. Why not bitch about the actual problem instead of crying like children when an era of lawlessness comes to an end?

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967222)

Eat my goatse'd [goatse.fr] penis!

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (2, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967266)

Because perhaps the "laws" that are bringing an end to the lawless period only represent the views of a very small and select group and are almost entirely out of phase with the established but non-codified norms?

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967300)

So, are you saying if I went to a library and copied text and images from a random assortment of books and made a book from it, and called it my own, I should get nailed with something like the DMCA? That is completely ridiculous. It IS my own creation, and there are ALREADY laws saying I can't claim the actual text/images themselves as my own. How is a web page any different?

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (3, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967340)

If anything it only brings the Internet under the rule of law and in line with most other social mediums.

And, you know, this could alleviate a lot of the "bring iTunes/Amazon MP3/Hulu to the rest of the world" complaints we get so frequently on Slashdot. Hell, I'd like to see Spotify in the US myself [t3.com] . But all too often you see labels balk at foreign markets and a lot of time (though not always) they cite lack of copyright control and enforcement in these countries.

So, yeah, it's horrible that we're getting ACTA/DMCA the world over but at the end of the day, the countries participating in this may actually think that they are doing something good for their constituents as consumers. And you know, they might be right. For people living outside the United States, would you put up with stricter DMCA-like rules if it meant massively more purchasing options for you? I can't say I would opt for this (as I'm living in the US) but I imagine if I were living in Korea I would support this if it meant I could purchase Amazon MP3s instead of relying on less than reputable sites for acquiring music.

While this global system for enforcing copyright may be initially overly harsh, I think we have to recognize copyright law enforcement in other countries needs to be increased before publishers, labels and film studios become comfortable with digital mediums as an equal and fair distribution method the world over.

To reiterate, I don't agree with some of these laws they are discussing. I hope that's why they're holding the discussions. But do not overlook the benefits and fail to weigh them against the costs as you consider this discussion.

However, I still feel that 75 years is way too long of a copyright term.

Emphatically agreed. While I'm being overly optimistic, hopefully the global community can influence the US positively in this respect.

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (4, Funny)

carrier lost (222597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967456)

And, you know, this could alleviate a lot of the "bring iTunes/Amazon MP3/Hulu to the rest of the world ... hopefully the global community can influence the US positively in this respect.

That has to be the longest "I welcome our new robot overlords" speech I've ever read.

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (4, Insightful)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967498)

But do not overlook the benefits and fail to weigh them against the costs as you consider this discussion.

You do realize that this essentially allows corporations to write law. This is some real scary shit, and I'm amazed that it finds cheerleaders among ordinary people.

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967924)

Corporations do make laws. All shit you buy is connected to an agreement between you and the seller. That stuff is legal. And though you may not be the one who put it on the internet, the original owner broke an agreement between him and the seller of his cd/dvd/software/etcetera. Therefore he broke the law.
If you buy a PC and you agree that if it brakes down you can get it repaired for free, and they do not want to repair it for you, you'll be mad because they promised something else.
When you buy a cd/dvd you promise not to make a copy, it is part of the agreement. Than, when you do copy it, you brake that agreement and therefore are eligable for the damage. Like with the PC. Don't like it, don't buy it. Do not just pick out the part of the agreement you like and forget the rest. Companies cannot do that, so you cannot do that eighter.

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (4, Insightful)

Publikwerks (885730) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967644)

The problem is that all of the media industries concerns are being met, yet consumers are ill represented, which only guarantees we will not abide by their treaty. What about protections for fair use? Or protection against drm locking legitimate customers out? Or how about portability of our files between devices? We, the consumer, are far ahead of and laws they can legislate. We can break DRM, we can file-share, we can encrypt. They can try and stop us with these three strikes laws and whatnot, but I'll just run down to the library and read a nice book while I download the newest movie. I sure as hell can cover my tracks better than they can uncover. Respect is a two way street. If they want us to respect their IP, they need to respect us as their consumers.

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (5, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967674)

And, you know, this could alleviate a lot of the "bring iTunes/Amazon MP3/Hulu to the rest of the world" complaints we get so frequently on Slashdot. But all too often you see labels balk at foreign markets and a lot of time (though not always) they cite lack of copyright control and enforcement in these countries.

You are confused. The reason streaming services aren't globally available has nada to do with lax copyright controls and everything to with licensing rights. The system was created decades ago when information flow across borders was 100% physical and thus cumbersome. The copyright cartels exploited that fact by partitioning each country into its own licensing region and then created a market to buy and sell international distribution rights. In many cases there were no buyers for distribution rights in certain countries for reasons like the asking price being too high. The only people who felt inconvenienced by this arrangement were aficionados of foreign culture and ex-pats, everybody else didn't even know what they were missing.

The internet changed the awareness of the people so that today a hell of a lot more people are aware of what they are missing. The copyright cartels have not kept up with the increased demand, instead resting on the easy money of their monopolies, and the market for international distribution rights has not significantly changed. Stronger copyright controls won't enable increased foreign distribution, if anything it will just reinforce the status quo.

In contrast, piracy has actually provoked studios into more rapid foreign distribution - it is now common place for official DVDs of Hollywood productions to be released in countries like Russia, India and China day and date with theatrical release in the west - one recent example is District 9. [cnn.com]

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967810)

Furthermore, once a product is available online around the world, the owner is going to have a hard job explaining why those in the US and Europe have to pay 1000% more than those in China and Africa, while still locking the West out of these significantly cheaper markets.

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967768)

And, you know, this could alleviate a lot of the "bring iTunes/Amazon MP3/Hulu to the rest of the world" complaints we get so frequently on Slashdot.

No, it won't. Global draconian copyright laws will allow them to do MORE of that sort of thing, not less. Piracy is not the reason those things aren't available to the rest of the world (or at least Europe). They simply feel (probably accurately) that they can make more money by distributing separately in each region.

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967848)

I would completely give up the ability to consume non-public domain/CC/GPL content, both pirated and legitimate, if it meant getting rid of these laws. Now if we can get more people to take a stand for longer than the commercial breaks in American Idol, we might actually have a chance.

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967920)

...would you put up with stricter DMCA-like rules if it meant massively more purchasing options for you?...I would support this if it meant I could purchase Amazon MP3s instead of relying on less than reputable sites for acquiring music.

That's a horrible attitude. "Give me convenience, or give me death", right? Let's do anything to assure that Disney might leave a few extra crumbs? Screw that.

To answer your question, no. Not just no, but HELL NO! We shouldn't do business with thieves for such brief, temporary gratification. Make it more permanent, and I'll reconsider

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (5, Insightful)

kbsoftware (1000159) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967372)

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to how the DMCA has been used in the U.S., rarely has it been used to stop actual theft, more used to control. You know those science fiction books and how they paint the future as being very dim, well that future is already happening and this would give it a real big push. Personally as a Canadian if the PC government signs this in anyway then good luck on them ever being re-elected again.

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967526)

Glad to see someone else has faith in not only the US's flawless criminal justice system, but the criminal justice systems of all nations.

Re:Meh, Not the problem. (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967720)

The thing is, we're moving beyond a lot of the old ways of doing things where proprietors of information held tightly. We need loose enforcement of existing laws until we can get them repealed.

butchery (5, Insightful)

xeno (2667) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967224)

Why is it that if I butcher a human being, it's possible to get out of prison in a few years if I show that it was done in a mad emotional state or attributable to some psychosis driving me to attack, but if I butcher a book for a page or a CD for a song in a mad emotional state or neurotic urge to share, I'm likely to be fined into bankruptcy, and potentially imprisoned for *longer* than if I'd attacked a person?

Oh. Money. That's why.

Silly me.

Re:butchery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967286)

You only killed that guy once, logic says you're not going to continue killing him after he's dead. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that file-sharing is wrong since you can share the same song over and over! It's like raping your music! Or something like that... :p

also have to be made law? (5, Interesting)

BigHungryJoe (737554) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967236)

wouldn't any signed treaty also have to be made law in each respective country?

I've never understood how countries can be bound by a treaty through ratification (Kyoto protocol?) without it going through a country's law-making body...

Re:also have to be made law? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967320)

Yes, it would.

It won't become law until the relevant legislative body approves it. In the United States, that would be congress. However, it has unconstitutional parts, so anyone in congress who would vote for it would be in violation of the constitution. So it will never become law.

Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT act was also unconstitutional, as courts have ruled, but it still passed the vote. So my point is completely invalid, because congress ignores the constitution.

Re:also have to be made law? (3, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967388)

It would still have to be voted on by the Senate. And since both parties are owned by big media, guess what?

Re:also have to be made law? (2, Informative)

andymadigan (792996) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967434)

In the United States, in order to ratify a treaty it must be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate. We're not bound by treaties which we have not ratified.

Wikipedia:
In the US, treaty ratification must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to rally enough political support for international treaties.

Of course, the President can sign a treaty, and follow it through government policies and executive order, without the treaty being ratified, but that gives it no inherent weight in law.

The treaty which ended World War I was hotly debated in the senate, and in fact we did not ratify the treaty as presented.

when the Senate does ratify a treaty.... (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967590)

It's a good thing the Senate needs to vote on these things, too, because when the Senate does ratify a treaty, its legal weight is second only to the Constitution itself.

This is also why giving Presidents "fast-track" treaty negotiation votes is a Big Deal.

Re:also have to be made law? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967464)

You would think so but remember that the US government as well as many other governments have grown beyond being bound by their original restrictions... That and I doubt the copyright lobby would fail to get their own legislation passed.

Approved by the Senate in the US (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967562)

So it does go through the legislature.

Re:also have to be made law? (2, Informative)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967746)

I think you've got the cart before the horse... An Ambassador has almost no decisionmaking authority. He/she represents his/her country in negotiations and serves as a proxy.

Ratification always goes through a country's law-making body. The Ambassador is given the document, which he then forwards to (in the case of the US) Congress, who ratifies or rejects the document like any other law, then gets the President to sign it (or not).

Of course, the negotiations to get to a version that every signatory can agree on can get far more complex, but the Ambassador cannot unilaterally accept or reject anything. They can negotiate, but they must go back to the Congress for approval. In some cases, Congress gives them parameters within which approval is pretty much guaranteed on a particular subject, but the Ambassador is only trying to get the "best deal" within the stated parameters.

The US, by the way, is not a part of the Kyoto Protocol, and we're not because the Protocol as agreed on by the signatories could not get through the US Congress at the time, and the rest of the signatories would not accept the changes that the US wanted.

The eco-political takeover of Earth continues. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967264)

I can't be the only one who opines this.

As far as Hollywood goes (4, Interesting)

al0ha (1262684) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967276)

their complaints against filesharing eroding their bottom line basically amounts to a coverup for what is the real problem, a crappy business model.

The brainiacs that run the movie houses continually fork over huge amounts of cash to persons who had one hit that made money, and who continually bomb after that.

In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded? In what business school would they teach this sort of practice?

Re:As far as Hollywood goes (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967630)

Although they do indeed have a crappy business model, they can't really think that a "pirate" download results in a lost sale. The reason they want to kill p2p is the indies, who rely on it. It isn't Metallica they don't want you to hear, it's the indies who can't get on the radio. After all, I'm not likely to buy your CD or book if I've never heard of it.

It's not about obsolete business practices, it's about abusive business practices.

In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?

Banking and insurance? You have heard about bailout money going to bonuses for the very people who drove their businesses to the ground, haven't you?

Re:As far as Hollywood goes (3, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967650)

In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?

Well, in the US, most recently: banking and auto making. Elsewhere I haven't kept up with, so I can't answer for other countries.

In what business school would they teach this sort of practice?

The same schools that apparently taught many US politicians/senators and are currently trying to put many other "businesses" under the government... because if there's anywhere that bureaucracy is not tolerated, where failure is not rewarded, where money is not wasted, where decisions are based on the good of the customer, and where underperforming employees are fired, it's a government! ... yes, you do sense sarcasm (I hope).

Seriously. If people really believe that a money/greed/capitalist based system functions worse than a system where those same people are in charge, only no longer can go bankrupt until the entire country is bankrupt, they have a serious worldview problem. Somehow, people in government are automatically more efficient and less greedy than anyone else...

At least private businesses have to rely - presumably - on their product to make money. They can't just tax their non-customers.

It's interesting that those same Hollywood people tend to adhere to liberal ideologies.

didn't 3-strikes get striked out in... (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967278)

didn't 3-strikes get striked out in France or something (I just remember it was some country in Europe and it got a "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag here on slashdot).

I wonder how this will fair with Finland, where Internet access (1Mbit/s now, 100Mbit/s by 2015) is a legal right.

Re:didn't 3-strikes get striked out in... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967330)

simple, it doesn't.

People just get the "oh, you signed this, you're constrained by it" irregardless of if it's legal, enforceable, or logical. Remember the berne convention?

Re:didn't 3-strikes get striked out in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967716)

Irregardless [wikipedia.org] , I don't think that word means what you think it means.

To remove the double negative, you are saying:

People just get the "oh, you signed this, you're constrained by it" with regard to it's legal, enforceable, or logical.

In retrospect, I believe you were wishing to emphasise that they are acting without regard or regardless. If that was not a mistake, and you willfully used that word, I have to disagree with your assessment of it being legal, enforceable, or logical.

Grammar Nazi strikes Re:didn't 3-strikes get strik (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967842)

People just get the "oh, you signed this, you're constrained by it" irregardless of if it's legal, enforceable, or logical.

Irregardless, I don't think that word means what you think it means....

People just get the "oh, you signed this, you're constrained by it" with regard to it's legal, enforceable, or logical.

-1 ungrammatical. Sorry, if that were what he meant, he would have said "its," not "it's."

"It's" (which he used correctly, but you didn't) is short for "it is". What he meant was: "you're constrained by it regardless of whether it's legal, enforceable, or logical."

Re:didn't 3-strikes get striked out in... (2, Interesting)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967898)

You'd be AMAZED at how far you could over-subscribe data connections if there were no multi-media files flying around. Funnel the music & video thru "approved" delivery channels and edge cache them at the mega-ISPs and you'll find that the rest of the Internet hums along nicely at 20-50:1 oversubscribed endpoints.

Look at hard drive usage. Take your average PC, remove any music, video and installed games and they'll probably have less than 2 Gb of total data. Probably FAR less. The same thing goes for network bandwidth. Get rid of a lot of the media flying around and EVERYONE can have a 100 Mbps link. Mostly because no one ever honestly USES a 100 Mbps link for more than a few seconds of burst.

Yes, there are exceptions. Think of the Bell Curve model. The vast bulk are in the middle, not on the far ends.

http://classes.kumc.edu/sah/resources/sensory_processing/learning_opportunities/sensory_profile/bell_curve.htm [kumc.edu]

One world government power. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967280)

fuck these people

I Wonder... (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967310)

I wonder how much the RIAA/MPAA and their international brethren had to pay to buy that many countries... I mean, seriously - not a single one of the delegates sitting at the tables is willing to speak up and point out how these concepts are not good for the populace of their country? You know, the people our politicians supposedly represent.

I am so utterly sick and tired of politicians turning their backs on the people they represent and bending low before corporate interests. It's even worse, as a Canadian, when I see my government bend over and take it for FOREIGN corporate interests. Were it at least for the betterment of Canadian corporations, I'd at least be able to justify it as "they're doing what they can to keep our businesses profitable" but when they sell out the people of my country so some corporation in another country can pad their bottom line, it simply infuriates me.

I keep holding out hope that somebody will eventually develop some morals and put a stop to this madness but I know that the money has spoken and thus change is coming.

Re:I Wonder... (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967506)

They may not have had to buy any of these politicians to get this passed. I mean, the way most politicians talk about "stimulating the economy" through spending you wouldn't think it'd take much to convince them that protecting copyright with an Iron fist would be a good thing... sigh...

Re:I Wonder... (2, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967736)

I am so utterly sick and tired of politicians turning their backs on the people they represent and bending low before corporate interests.

In the US the corporate interests ARE the ones they represent. Money talks. Usually the candidate with the most campaign fundage wins. The political hacks know which side of the bread is buttered.

There are fewer than 12 million people in Illinois, and only those over 18 who are not felons can vote for Senator Durbin when he runs for re-elction. But there are over three hundred million people who can legally send him a campaign contribution.

Corporations can't vote, but they don't need to. ADM's and BP's and Sony's billions of world trade dollars trumps my one measly Illinois vote.

The best part? (3, Insightful)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967362)

Here in Canada we recently finished a national copyright consultation. I can't wait to see how our government fucks this one up.

Re:The best part? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967808)

Probably with a framework.

Secret meetings. (5, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967378)

These meetings are held in secret. Now, one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war, in case possible plans fell into enemy hands. But this isn't war against nations.

This is subjugation of the citizens. These meetings are secret simply so the populace don't find out what's being planned--for the same reason the American South made teaching slaves how to read illegal--the information is too much of a threat to let out. The whole myth of government for the people, by the people, is just that, a myth, a cultural fable told to instill flag-waving patriotism in the citizenry. Nothing shuts up dissent faster than "my country, love it or leave it" and the nationalistic fervor that accompanies it.

PEOPLE DO NOT REALLY CONTROL THEIR GOVERNMENTS, AND THE STRUCTURE OF LARGE-SCALE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS NATURALLY LENDS ITSELF TO OLIGARCHY. Democracy is like communism--SUPPOSEDLY "good in theory" but it doesn't actually work. Whenever someone says "we just need more education!" or some other reform, they are trying to save democracy and insist it can run as planned just like the communists that claim that widespread communism can exist without degenerating into USSR-style totalitarianism. The only difference is is communism is generally someone else's myth and not your own, so you can't see it.

What works? Nothing works. You're on your own, buddy, you're gonna have boots stomping you no matter what. Such is life...

Re:Secret meetings. (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967632)

So you're suggesting that instead of democratically electing leaders ourselves, we should relinquish our vote and permanently turn over decision making to some else? How do you propose we chose these new leaders? Lottery? Divine right? Arm wrestling?

And if you so much as hint that anarchy is the solution, I'm going to sue your ass for making me nearly choke to death laughing.

Re:Secret meetings. (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967894)

Is it really so hard to read the last sentence I wrote? You keep on looking for "better" or "best" solutions, when there isn't even anything resembling an ideal solution available.

As an individual, you have no recourse. You're at the mercy of the rest of the world. What you do with that knowledge is your business.

Re:Secret meetings. (2, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967922)

And, you haven't established that divine right or arm wrestling confers any less a moral or "justified" status (from an individual persective) than an election does. The majority could well elect another Stalin and it wouldn't mean jack shit over whether he's a justified ruler or not, because there's no such thing.

Re:Secret meetings. (3, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967734)

TL;DR:

It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

- Winston Churchill

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967384)

Good luck with that, I can't wait for the entire media industry to vanish.

three-strikes will need to have due process for it (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967410)

three-strikes will need to have due process for it to work in the us and many other places.

Return to sneakernet, eh? (3, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967418)

I guess this means a return to sneakernet [wikipedia.org] ? That might improve local communities, not a bad thing in itself...

Re:Return to sneakernet, eh? (2, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967538)

I guess this means a return to sneakernet? That might improve local communities, not a bad thing in itself...

Or, a move to darknets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_(file_sharing) [wikipedia.org]

Darknets, much like linux on the desktop, or linux in general, always bring out the extremists... "I know its not the same as the internet, but NO ONE will use a darknet unless its EXACTLY THE SAME as the internet" and so on.

Re:Return to sneakernet, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967548)

Personally I hope this will motivate me to get some more fresh air and waste less time with TV and Movies.

who cares? (2, Interesting)

boristdog (133725) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967428)

Every great new movement in any art (cinema, music, painting, etc.) is done by people who just do these things because they want to, not because they are looking for millions of dollars.

So the paid, restricted content will continue to suck donkey balls, as it has for years. And the next big thing will be given away or shared for free or for donations.

Sure, it will eventually be co-opted and sanitized by the corporate culture, but by then it will be time for the next new big thing.

So this is a good thing.

Re:who cares? (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967820)

Unless they also make non-commercial art illegal. Given all the crazy shit they tried so far, it wouldn't surprise me.

Open-source and unapproved software (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967458)

Kiss it goodbye.

This is so open to abuse (3, Interesting)

mrbill1234 (715607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967578)

Imagine some malware which randomly downloads a dozen copyright mp3's - instantly making millions of unsuspecting users instant criminals - potentially with a 3-strikes liability. Insane.

I find it difficult to believe... (5, Funny)

GuidoOfCanada (1670474) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967580)

that our elected officials would do something that isn't in the best interest of their citizens while handing over the keys to the castle to the corporations...

Re:I find it difficult to believe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967708)

Hello....your from which planet again? God i hope this was written for the 'Funny' mod.

Ahem... (2, Insightful)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967672)

Nothing prevents the next president from revoking\backing out of a treaty.

Noting prevents the next congressional session from re-writing\repealing\altering existing law.

Nothing prevents a SCOTUS member from being removed from their position via an impeachment. Their life time tenure is contingent on "good behavior" and as such any high crime should apply including Treason, Sedition, Perjury, etc.

Anyone could levy a charge that signing secret Treaties with foreign powers is Treason, but that is a long shot at best.

DMCA == liability for ISPs? (2, Insightful)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967724)

This doesn't match up. In effect, the DMCA showed ISPs a clear path how to avoid liability. This is what makes services with rampant infringement possible (like Youtube).

Only solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29967742)

... move to China.

Ratification. (1)

captnbmoore (911895) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967832)

This can be signed but until the U.S. Senate ratifies this it is not law. Also remember that no treaty can supercede our laws or Constitution. If the treaty is not in linewith our lsaws then it canot be placed in effect no matter how much the *iaa want's it to.

Yes! (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#29967862)

Fantastic news! In your face, terrorism! We just need a few more directives like this and the war on terror will be won!!!! (sarcasm-meter catches fire)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?