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!

ACTA Internet Chapter Leaked — Bad For Everyone

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the crony-governmnetism dept.

Government 410

roju writes "Cory Doctorow is reporting on a leaked copy of the 'internet enforcement' portion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. He describes it as reading like a 'DMCA-plus' with provisions for third-party liability, digital locks, and 'a duty to technology firms to shut down infringement where they have "actual knowledge" that such is taking place.' For example, this could mean legal responsibility shifting to Apple for customers copying mp3s onto their iPods." Adds an anonymous reader, "Michael Geist points out that the leaks demonstrate that ACTA would create a Global DMCA and move toward a three-strikes-and-you're-out system. While the US has claimed that ACTA won't establish a mandatory three strikes system, it specifically uses three-strikes as its model."

cancel ×

410 comments

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

This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31222878)

This is a much bigger threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could be.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism. (4, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31222926)

Indeed. Surely some people must be thinking it's getting to close to time to create some drones of our own to take out the corporatocracy. Not me of course, but "some people".

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism. (3, Interesting)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31222986)

Too late already done. [hackaday.com]

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223312)

Friend, it ain't done until corporations are no longer entities with rights superior to those of human citizens. And it probably will take a real, old-fashioned insurgency such as our forefathers performed.

--
Remember, it's not terrorism if it's by the people, of the people, for the people!

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism. (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223034)

This is a much bigger threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could be.

I wish I could attribute the saying, but here is how I've heard it said: If your law requires a police state to enforce, then your law is a bad law.

The very fact that these meetings were held in secret was a dead giveaway that nothing in our interests is going on in there.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223466)

I just watched Touch of Evil, the Orson Welles film where Charleton Heston plays a Mexican drug enforcement type cop. Great movie.

You reminded me of one of Heston's lines, which struck me as profound:

"A policeman's job is only easy in a police state."

(If the reader finds no profundity in this then biteadick. It's Orson Welles and Heston and I'm anonymous.)

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism. (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223308)

But it's far less personally dangerous. Most people are not killed by the *AA nor by DMCA or ACTA. People ARE killed by terrorists (and war, etc). Thus it is most definitely a more personally dangerous threat.

And most people care more immediately about their personal welfare than their freedom, if it comes down to it.... I think.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism. (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223408)

Got any figures on how many people are killed by terrorists in the US? According to this [firedoglake.com] the total was sixteen in 2009. Don't know about you, but I feel pretty safe from terrorism here in the U.S..

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism. (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223458)

Then be glad you live in the US which has a very strong and active military, still.

Other countries are significantly less fortunate.

I didn't say terrorism was a huge threat; but at the very least, the perceived physical threat of terrorism is significantly greater than the perceived physical threat of the RIAA.

Also, it would be interesting to know not just successful "terrorism" - however the statistician defines it - but the ones that were caught, as well. Those contribute to the perception.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism. (2, Insightful)

haruharaharu (443975) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223516)

I don't live in darfur, so I'm not concerned about being killed. As it stands, in the rich world, you stand a better chance of getting killed by traffic or the cops than terrorists, and by a wide margin.

meanwhile rapists go free as do murderers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223412)

is it revolution time yet?

any of these mpa seem like economic terrorists yet?

do you all realize what happens when they enact and were all forced to comply and hte net affectively goes completely dark

do you realize you will be come a facist slave as hitler would have wanted?

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism. (2, Interesting)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223488)

There's a difference between this ACTA treaty and terrorism? They both aim to control and / or destroy economic activity, and keep control of it in the hands of the few.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism. (1)

leadacid (1750220) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223518)

Is there any provision in American law that allows the government to sign secret treaties? I understand that they aren't expressly authorized to give up the authority given them by the people to another government, and that only a madman would think they could place their citizens under the control of a government they didn't elect, and thus that this is logically wrong, but is there even a spurious justification for it? How can you possibly have justice when your government is negotiating treaties you aren't allowed to see? How can the machinery of justice function when you can't know the laws? How can a person know what actions are forbidden, how can a lawyer defend them, how can people know which rights they no longer have, how can the police know who to imprison? Does any of this make any sense either from the viewpoint of a human being living in a society made for human beings, or from the point of view of a single cog in a machine that can't be understood and can't possibly function?

they can't sign away the bill of rights and they c (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223712)

they can't sign away the bill of rights and they can make laws that take away due process and the 1st.

so if any one / web site get's kicked off then sue and say they are taking the 1st away.

Fat, Dumb and Happy (2, Insightful)

issaqua (1693060) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223626)

Most are either too affluent (or is it effluent?), or too desperate, to care about these things.

The narcissistic direction that western culture has taken - "I'm alright Jack, sucks to be you" - magnifies this issue. Without concern for the common (greater) good, I think we will ultimately consume ourselves.

-I.

Pure evil. (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31222890)

What's good for the *AA is good for us, right?

Not sure it's even good for them. (5, Interesting)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223564)

Here is the letter I sent via regulations.gov:

BTW, here was my comment submitted to the USTR regarding the treaty.

RE: 2010 Special 301 Review
Docket Number USTR-2010-0003

Jennifer Choe Groves
Senior Director for Intellectual Property and
Innovation and Chair of the Special 301 Committee
Office of the United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20508
Filed electronically via Regulations.gov

Dear Ms. Groves:

I am a software engineer and developer here in the US. I own copyrights to a number of software programs and published papers, some jointly with corporations or other natural persons. I have also authored two ebooks which are distributed online and one printed book which is available through major retailers. Software I produce is distributed world-wide.

I am deeply concerned about the rush towards greater liability for neutral service providers where copyright infringement is alleged. Holders of copyrights (including myself) should not be able to make end-runs around our traditional system of legal protections by threatening third parties into shutting off services which may be vital for conducting lawful business. This is especially dangerous where very fact-centric elements of copyright and trademark infringement accusations may need to be adjudicated by courts. These cases can occur where questions of fair use or derivation occur.

Thus I am concerned that the rush towards greater protection and greater third party liability will become a sword of Damocles hanging not only over the head of the average citizen but most especially over the head of the copyright holder. After all, if a set of mere accusations is enough to insist that material be taken down or internet access denied, then those who produce copyright-worthy materials will be the most exposed.

Instead, balance is needed, and consumer protections must be a major part of the equation. These consumer protections don't just protect consumers against rights-holders. They protect rights holders against unfair competition, and they protect innovators against entrenched market interests.

Instead of dictating how foreign countries should make laws ensuring elements well outside the traditional boundaries of copyright law (circumvention device control, etc), we should instead be interested in looking at ways to make claims more easily adjudicated when they come up. The emphasis on third-party liability is a major step backwards.

Please reconsider.

Sincerely,
Chris Travers

Tyranny vs Liberty (5, Interesting)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 4 years ago | (#31222904)

A Man much wiser than me once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

Which is true today?

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (1)

Mad Leper (670146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223018)

An equally wise American once said "..and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

The tyranny you speak of is really the tyranny of the public and those who seek to destroy the foundations of government are in fact engaged in a war against their fellow Americans.

But I would assume fair-weather Libertarians would find this quite reasonable, every man for himself after all...

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (4, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223064)

An equally wise American once said "..and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

And? One would have to be a deity of disingenuous rhetoric to make a case that there is anything "by" or "for the people" about the contemporary government system. It's been gamed, expertly so, and the only ones who could fix it are those who benefit from it.

You'd better start to love it, because ACTA and more like it are going to happen, and there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it.

Cue naive, high-school idealists who blame the voters and/or claim that voting could stop it.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223452)

An equally wise American once said "..and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Don't forget that "equally wise American" said that while in the process of denying just such a government to more than 6 million people, killing more than a quarter-million of them in the process. I don't agree with slavery, but that still was an extremely hypocritical statement for Lincoln to have made, particularly in light of the fact that he, by his own admission, was far more interested in keeping the South from establishing their own government (i.e. of their people, by their people, etc.) than any high-minded concern for the slaves, as evidenced in part by his support of the Corwin Amendment and stated willingness to let slavery continue where it already existed.

While he had made public statements before indicating he believed that the slaves should be free men, his beliefs obviously weren't strong enough to keep him from letting them stay put for as long as there was a political benefit to be had, and his actions only changed after the war started and he didn't have to worry about the political fallout anymore. Typical politician, whose father-in-law was even a slave owner.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223546)

That might sound nice in theory but the US has not been 'of the people, by the people, for the people' for quite some time. Witness the overwhelming opposition to the $700B+ TARP package and the fact that the politicians passed this 'welfare for embezzling thieving billionaire frauds' bill regardless.

Who do you think really dictates the whims of government? Can you compete against corporate interests that levy bribes (aka quid pro quo 'campaign donations' ) for senators that likely constitute vastly more dollars than you will ever earn in your lifetime?

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223082)

why don't we just campaign not to support companies that this benefits!

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (4, Insightful)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223130)

Which is true today?

People can't be scared of things they aren't aware of. Most people aren't aware of much the government is doing these days.
Governments passing laws to control people so much seems to indicate that the government is scared of the people and is trying to regain control.
Oddly enough it seems we are in the situation of government fearing the people more that the people fearing the government. So that means... We have Liberty?

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223266)

I think it's more a case of the government being afraid that the people might realise what they're up to and so is trying a pre-emptive strike. It gives "the people" too much credit to claim that they're clued up enough to actually frighten the government; the ludicrous state of US politics should show you that (by which I mean the Democrats being in-fighting pussies incapable of pushing through any legislation even with a super-majority and the Republicans having whipped their supporters into such an anti-Obama frenzy with meaningless buzzwords that they're now incapable of agreeing with him even when it means getting what they want for fear of alienating their own supporters).

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (3, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223310)

So that means... We have Liberty?

If ACTA is anything to go by, it appears there are those who feel we do have [too much] liberty.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (2, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223144)

I fear the government. That much I know to be true.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (1)

advertisehere (1384731) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223164)

Can't both be true?

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (2, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223348)

Actually tyrants fear the people more than democrats. In a democracy, those in power mainly fear to get voted out of office. Tyrants fear to be forcefully removed, with high probability of being killed, and an assured uncomfortable life if he survives the revolution.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223256)

The much wiser man was a complete moron then.

When government fears the people there is a ineffectual weak populist government that fears making difficult decisions because people collectively are pretty damn stupid. Alas that isn't catchy and doesn't use a clever mechanic of opposites, but alas, reality can't always be handled in a pithy statement.

Government should respect the people, earn their trust, and work as their loyal servants. Neither side should fear the other.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (2)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223596)

That much wiser man was Thomas Jefferson. Care to revise your moron comment?

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (5, Funny)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223284)

A Man much wiser than me once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

  Which is true today?

Depends where you are. In Somalia, it would seem that the government (and everyone else) does indeed fear the people.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty (2, Insightful)

ipquickly (1562169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223416)

A Man much wiser than me once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

There should be neither.

The government should be the people.
Right now the government is more the corporations than the people.

Until we start electing people who grew up downloading music, or those in power will have lawyers bills because their kids were charged with downloading music, I doubt much will change.

Where's the Obama transparency? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31222908)

I guess the transparency on this project, although inherited from the previous secretive administration, went the same way as the CSPAN broadcasts of the health care debate.

Mining the DMCA safe harbor (3, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31222914)

Sounds more like "DMCA-minus" than "DMCA-plus", with mines being planted in the DMCA safe harbor.

Why isn't China a Partner? (5, Interesting)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31222928)

Seriously. You want all the world to abide by an anti-piracy measure and don't include the biggest pirate on the planet?

Re:Why isn't China a Partner? (3, Informative)

Gorkamecha (948294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223024)

Wait, I thought Canadians were the biggest pirates on the planet? (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117939142.html?categoryid=19&cs=1&nid=2570)

Re:Why isn't China a Partner? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223066)

They don't play baseball?

Re:Why isn't China a Partner? (1)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223102)

China doesn't seem to be a big player in software or IP in general..at least from what I've seen, I could be wrong. I wouldn't get in on a treaty that doesn't benefit me in the same way it benefits everybody else, which, to me, it seems like China would be getting the raw end of the deal I'd think they'd be entirely rational to ignore the ACTA treaty stuff...whatever it is anyway. That being said, I think countries who bind themselves up in these deals while HUGE countries like China sit it out are really just shooting themselves in the foot. Agreeing with the OP.

Re:Why isn't China a Partner? (1)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223198)

By big player I mean currently and internationally. China most definitely has potential to be as big or bigger than any other player in anything in the world wrt "Intellectual Property"

Re:Why isn't China a Partner? (4, Informative)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223354)

Because the Chinese don't think Europe and the Anglo-Americans run the world. Seriously, whenever you hear the word "global" or "international" that really means Europe (Specifically the EU leaders), the Anglo Countries (spearheaded by British and American think tanks), any third world countries they can bribe or intimidate into going along with them and NOT China or Russia (and occasionally Brazil and India will opt out too).

This is absurd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31222932)

No proposed law should ever be 'secrete'. That this is bad for everyone is the only reason i can think of why they would try to keep it secrete until it is passed.
It will not help anyone, even the organization that would like to see it (RIAA) enforced. But of course all the negative effect will only be used as a reason for more absurd laws.

As a whole, does anybody really think the DMCA was beneficial to the economy?

Re:This is absurd (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223070)

As a whole, does anybody really think the DMCA was beneficial to the economy?

It was incredibly good for the economy, if by "economy" you mean "campaign funds."

Re:This is absurd (4, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223578)

It's a matter of national security. As the American manufacturing sector withers away and we become a service economy, our creative content* will remain our largest export, and we have to protect our country's cash cows. I'm not joking.

* Of course, I don't agree with bullshit like ACTA and the DMCA. The content providers haven't produced anything worth a shit in decades so the best solution to this is not to buy their shit and instead donate that money to the EFF and The Pirate bay.

Re:This is absurd (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223410)

Secret, not secrete. Secrete has a totally different word use.

Great... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31222948)

Once ACTA gets implemented (which it no doubt will worldwide), it won't be long before the three strikes provisions are not only used to eliminate people Sony, EMI and Universal don't like, but those the government doesn't like as well. You'd better hope that you vote for the "right party" in the next election, or you may find you can't access the net one day...

Re:Great... (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223190)

silly goose... which one is the right party? they're both the same and they are a front for the enemy of the people.

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223252)

silly goose... which one is the right party?

http://www.gp.org/index.php [gp.org]

Re:Great... (2, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223544)

http://www.gp.org/index.php

Well look at that... I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004..

He was right back then... and no one believed him and now look at us dick deep in the shit he predicted and NO ONE STILL GIVES A DAMN TO VOTE for a 3rd party. The dems have adopted his issues yet do nothing about them.

Ralph was right... and Everyone of you should look into him seriously if he runs again.

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223704)

When Nader claimed in 2004 that there was absolutely no difference between John Kerry and George W. Bush, it does not mean "Ralph was right", it means Ralph was a flipping loon. The single most prominent leader of the anti-war movement, and George W. Bush. A senator with a solid liberal record, and George W. Bush. Absolutely no difference! If Nader had campaigned for Kerry instead of against him, we could have had change you can believe in five years ago.

Doesn't matter (4, Insightful)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223208)

The fact is that each of us probably commits three felonies a day as it is, or so says Harvey Silverglate of the EFF, ACLU, and FIRE (see his book "Three Felonies a Day.") Heck, it's probably a felony (under wire fraud statutes) to surf Slashdot while you are at work. And given that it's a felony there, it's probably also a felony under the CFAA. So if you surf Slashdot at work, you are already two thirds of the way there.....

The fact is it doesn't matter if you have done anything wrong. The current state is that the government can prosecute just about anybody on vague laws and make it extremely difficult to fight (try hiring a lawyer will all your assets frozen).

I am of the opinion that the Constitution is in shambles anyway. I oppose this treaty but I am too cynical to think that will make a difference. Prosecutors can ALREADY go after anybody they want to.

Re:Doesn't matter (2, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223304)

I could not agree more, but what bothers me the most is the absolute apathy most people seem to have. Most people are not just unaware of what is happening, but they do not care at all even after they are told -- and that is when they bother to listen at all. People just do not care about these issues, so long as they can see the latest celebrity scandal or play with some new high tech toys.

Re:Doesn't matter (3, Interesting)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223644)

I think part of the problem is that it usually comes up when prosecuting alleged bad guys.

For example, it's really hard to have sympathy for Jeff Skilling or Lori Drew but some of the charges in both their cases illustrate this problem perfectly. I have no problem with the securities fraud charges against Jeff Skilling, but the wire fraud charges? The idea that Jeff Skilling engaged in a fraud to deny Enron the "intangible right" to his "honest services?"

Yet I have known people who were railroaded in these sorts of things for political purposes. They don't make the news. It was a nice republic while it lasted.....

Surprised? (0)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#31222952)

Is anyone really surprised by this? I know I'm not. I was actually hoping they'd implement the death penalty or at least life in prison for sharing MP3s.

DMCA, international edition (1)

redlegion (748448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31222968)

Wunderbar. Perhaps instead of a death penalty we should castrate or cut off clitorises as a punishment for copyright infringement. It's just as barbaric, or perhaps even more barbaric, than ridiculous awards for copyright infringement cases.

been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS (5, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223010)

been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS

Do like what you market competition is doing just a accused them and watch how they can't do any work any more then they get shut off.

some get's layed off then to get back they just accused them.

You make your own art / music and you trun down a deal and they just trun around and accused you

You give a bad review of a moive / game / any other thing and they just accused you and shut down your web site.

You say that x is doing a bad job and he shuts you down.

This like a red light cameras with no court that goes off on yellow and goes off right before you hit the stop line.

So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this? (3, Insightful)

jr2k (1434921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223012)

I think I have posted 1 time since I opened am account here. This issue caused me to find my login /password. This thing scares the shit out of me. Something that is seemingly "all encompassing" treaty for internet use should be out in the public for ridicule. What would be the due process for contacting whomever in government has the power to stop this thing? Or do we have no option? I am generally apathetic about internet policy because I have FIOS, but this treaty has changed my outlook.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this? (1)

jr2k (1434921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223050)

Oh yeah...I'm sure people from other countries have a type of due process, but I'm just speaking for myself. I know that internet does not = united states. No disrespect to people from far away (and much better climate) lands.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this? (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223188)

I wouldn't get too excited, our governments are made up of just as many selfish dicks as yours is.

Christ, we've got The Dark Lord Mandleson handling our business affairs until at least May and given how retarded & easily led most of our population is, probably for 5 years beyond that as well.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this? (1)

jr2k (1434921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223246)

If I could pen a letter to whomever represents me in England or Ireland, I would. Unfortunately, I do live in the US and therefore I need to write (yes...a real letter that goes in the mail) someone that will read my letter and has a chance of acting. I'm pretty sure I would be wasting my time writing foreign politicians.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this? (1)

ttldkns (737309) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223478)

who else is there to vote for? Vacuous Cameron? The man who has no policies worth mentioning so that once he's in he can do what he likes?
I'll vote after making an informed choice but as no one else will all we'll end up with is the same kind of government shafting us all for 5 years more.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this? (3, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223080)

What would be the due process for contacting whomever in government has the power to stop this thing? Or do we have no option?

We have no option. You know how, when talking about annoying/abusive advertising practices, people love to say "you're not the customer, you're the product?"

Welcome to reality: the government views you exactly the same way.

The hiding of the bill's creation is only half (3, Interesting)

You'reJustSlashFlock (1708024) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223300)

The hiding of the bill's creation is only half of the fearful part of the legislative process.

The DMCA [wikipedia.org] was passed with not one legislature sigining a name to it. It passed the House through voice vote and the Senate through unanimous consent. They knew what they were doing.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this? (0, Offtopic)

Redwing (311189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223720)

..., but this treaty has changed my outlook.

Changing your mail client will not solve this problem.

Ex post facto? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223040)

Will this be applied ex post facto (e.g., you copied an MP3 to your iPod some time ago, and once this gets passed you can be prosecuted, even after the statute of limitations is up?)

I'm asking as an American, FYI.

When governments cease to represent their citizens (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223084)

I'm reminded of the beautiful phrase: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ..." Too bad this sort of response is no longer a realistic alternative.

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz (2, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223326)

It's in your interest that the rich become richer. After all, doesnt it trickle down?

I'm still waiting for that top 1% to release the cash on us poor 99%ers

Oh wait, they're just going to lock us up for pirating things they sell that we cant afford, because they refuse to pay us a humane living wage and provide us a country of fair laws that represents the interest of its people....

we are so fucked.

Its the kind of shit that makes you want to fly planes into buildings... but then they label you as "crazy" rather than try to understand why you were crazy... even when you write a perfectly sound explanation as to why.

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223680)

What's really twisted is that every cushy cushy feel good bill that comes down that looks like it spreads the wealth a little bit ultimately just shifts more money into the hands of the rich, because they were the ones who wrote the thing in the first place.

Public schooling, free health care, social security, you name it - it's all designed to keep the poor poor by tricking them into thinking they are actually getting wealthier. Meanwhile the rich control the systems that govern each of these programs and use them to further line their own pockets.

Its the kind of shit that makes you want to fly planes into buildings... but then they label you as "crazy" rather than try to understand why you were crazy... even when you write a perfectly sound explanation as to why.

Actually the only way you could call what that guy wrote as sound is by ignoring at least half of it. It is completely self contradictory, for virtually every point he made he later made a separate, contradicting point. Take one set of arguments or the other and you have reasonable explanations based on differing philosophies. The two philosophies he combined were like oil and water, though, they can't mix. The man was off his rocker, he had lost it, and didn't really know what he believed - as evidenced by his manifesto. All I can figure out that he really knew for sure was that he hated the tax man so much he was willing to kill himself trying to hurt them.

Minimum service! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223100)

Not that I use my bandwidth for anything special ;) But if this goes through I think I'll be moving from my $46/month 60GB plan down to the $20/month 25GB plan. After all I'll have no real use for something I can't use effectively. Already installed firefox and AdBlock to make sure I never go above that anyway. I can explain and get my family to accept the same as they (read: not me) also would never need 60GB a month if this goes through. That's what I can do. It would be nice if a medium existed that actually organized otherwise stupid (read: only do something after the fact) people who also will have no need for anything but a basic plan and an ad blocker in case of an eventuallity such as this. I'm not about to give up my own net but if I have to use it only for kosher reasons, well, my ISP offers real cheap plans that would fully cover that. Imagine if everyone bought the plan they actually needed if this went through. Bloody murder and secondary effects to prop up a particular industry. Of course, I'd really start talking about getting a public domain then: that's the only thing that would increase the fictional amount of bandwidth I would use then. Blah blah blah, put powerkegs under parliment. Yay Canada!

Re:Minimum service! (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223202)

You know what, people should prod their ISP's to start looking into restoring a functioning public domain: it would be a great way for ISP's to sell more bandwidth if we could all download those 1980's movies. You know, the ones like Conan and such with the Governator. *THAT* would be a great way to increase bandwidth utilization considering if this goes through it won't be needed for anything else.

What is an Internet Service Provider? Say NO2ISP's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223758)

Is an Internet Service Provider a corporation or a utility device that bribes others to piggyback on it's useless over-rated network at the punitive harassment to subrscribers by others?

Is an Internet Service Provider someone that bridges two different networks?

Because I see a large net of loosely-tiered Wireless Access Points without an ISP, all running Peer2Peer topologies better than DNS, right here in southern California. You can't shut this down, when there is no need for DSL when you have an intelligent switching algorithm on every node that works with the Peer2Peer client.

It's obvious (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223110)

That the powers that be do not care one bit about the cattle... er consumer.

If this goes into effect with any really weight, I'd say it's time for some good old fashion protest vis-à-vis an all you can eat pirating fest across the globe. Start mailing your grabbed goods on disk to MAFIAA members, pols, etc.

We're inching closer to a point where something has to give in this system. I say nerds unite. The internet was built on the backs of our nerd fore-bearers. Time for the nerds of today to stand up and defend it.

*inverted exlamation*VIVA LA REVOLUCION*exclamation*

Treason, and terrorism (5, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223132)

Can't think of anything that fits with the definition of treason better than a system that passes laws that the citizens aren't permitted to know. That immediately removes the incentive for being law abiding since you can't know if you're breaking the law. Anyone enacting or enforcing such laws should be covered by treason laws.

Can't think of anything more terrifying than threatening to take away a person's ability to communicate, possibly their livelihood without having to PROOVE a crime in court. Enacting such laws is the very definition of terrorism. Where's the anti-terrorism legislation now?

Re:Treason, and terrorism (3, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223302)

Next up, you're not allowed to know what you've been charged with or what you've been sentenced to.

Re:Treason, and terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223790)

At least it wont be long after that until you aren't allowed to serve the sentence for the crime you aren't allowed to know that you have been found guilty of.

Maybe it'll be a good thing... (1)

No Grand Plan (975972) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223166)

Perhaps this could signal the death knell for the **AAs, the music and movie industries as we know them. I'd love to see people just refusing to buy their crap, not downloading their lousy movies and turning their backs on the whole situation. Only buy CC music, only download and use FOS software and only watch independent (true independent) movies.

You may say I'm a dreamer... but I'm not the only one.

Re:Maybe it'll be a good thing... (3, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223224)

No, you're not, but you are still in a minority.

Face it, 90% of the population of any given country involved in ACTA don't care in the slightest about copyright and patents and net neutrality and the like; at least, they don't realise they do, even if they do. They're quite happy to carry on with their lives and put up with or work around any shit that new legislation throws at them without changing their day-to-day routine.

Re:Maybe it'll be a good thing... (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223338)

Yeah, this is a problem. Most folks won't know this exists (if passed) until they receive a summons for DLing a MP3.

They need to add YRO to school curricula. ;)

Re:Maybe it'll be a good thing... (1)

jr2k (1434921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223390)

Exactly. I just asked my girlfriend about this, and the DMCA. She thought I was talking about WOW.

My guess is that the general population will only care about this once they start getting lawsuits.

Verizon will have to be shut down. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223222)

Why dont we really curb piracy and close the internet all together.

If this bullshit becomes a reality, it will destroy our economy and technological progress. Think about it.... think really hard about that.

Re:Verizon will have to be shut down. (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223330)

The sad thing is that the entertainment industries that are pushing this ludicrous legislation account for a fairly small fraction of most nation's GDP, it's not like they're "too big to fail"; the UK could certainly take hit of the loss of all musical and movie-based industry without catastrophic problems and I suspect the US probably could too.

Re:Verizon will have to be shut down. (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223364)

I hope that at the very least a pathetic patchwork of internet, for the geeks, by the geeks, rises from the ashes.

Who buys stuff anymore? (1)

kyrcant (858905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223242)

I bought one CD last month, They Might Be Giants Science album, and that was the first one in over a decade. Likewise, I have almost no DVD movies. They're making themselves irrelevant even quicker than necessary. I'm all about Hulu, Pandora and Netflix.

Smoke and Mirrors... (1)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223292)

Until it gets ratified by the Senate (for us US folk). Write your senators, get the word out, take care of business. If the entire thing stinks to high heaven, the politicians just need to be convinced by their constituents that it's important enough to be shot down.

Disproportionate punishment (5, Interesting)

mudshark (19714) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223294)

People have been using the postal service to commit fraud for decades, but even repeat offenders are not banned from sending or receiving mail. And when was the last time you heard of someone getting kicked off the telephone network? Just because the medium has evolved, the right of people to have access to common means of communication does not change.

Canadian solution (3, Insightful)

jvillain (546827) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223316)

For me the proper solution to the piracy concerns from the US is to stop the import of all movies, music, tv shows and any thing else they are so worried about people stealing at the border. If other countries did it as well then production would move from the US to other locations. Problem solved they wouldn't have to worry about people stealing their content any more. I swear, I try not to hate Americans, but when they start demanding that we abandon our laws and customs and adopt theirs I just loose it. How long till the next secret treaty is about making every one, every where abandon their gun control laws because that is how it is in the US?

Re:Canadian solution (1)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223366)

Why are you acting like we (Americans) are out to get you? I don't like this any more than you do. Also, you might want to read a little more on gun control in the US [wikipedia.org] . It's not exactly a black and white, cut and dry issue here.

Re:Canadian solution (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223606)

Did Americans not form the DMCA? Are they not pushing for this as well? It might not represent the American people's will, but it does represent the american industry's will, RIAA et al.

ISP Reason for Public Domain (2, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223320)

If this goes through here's what I'm going to do: make suggestions wherever there is a receptive venue to restore a functioning public domain. If regulation such as this actually does go through and all those pipes (heheh) are suddenly sitting there underutilized, well, they need something else to fill them back up! Starting with restoring a sane public domain would be a poetic way to accomplish this! Say everything 20 years and older is the target to be public domain. So, any movie, music, book, and software from 1990 and back right now. ISP's who would suddenly be looking at a drought of demand for their infrastructure would probably be receptive to such a proposal. Mom and Pop who suddenly found they couldn't download the latest pop song would also probably be receptive to the idea at least out of a sense of revenge. Seriously if it's going to be class warfare then throw a little corporate warfare into the mix: pit ISP's against content industries. At the very least I could be a little smug. And if it doesn't work, get all your friends and family to move to the really cheap ISP plan which is all they'll actually and reasonably need in this new corporate dawn. ISP's are the ones set to lose the biggest in this, all the more reason to give them ideas as much as possible.

Re:ISP Reason for Public Domain (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223642)

They don't like people using the service they paid for to begin with. Can you imagine how ornery Comcast would get if everybody was downloading huge files all the time - and they couldn't blame it on "dirty pirates"?

And you're forgetting that the ISPs are also content providers. Why watch Die Hard on demand, or wait for it to be on AMC, when you can just download it legally?

Re:ISP Reason for Public Domain (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223766)

Well without grey content and advertisements using all my bandwidth I'll just have to drop down to the $20 plan instead of the $45 ;) With advertisement blocking in my browser I really only need the $20 plan anyway, I would just wish enough other people would do it too ;)

Keep dreaming *AA (2, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223368)

Lofty goals. This isn't enforceable, legally or practically. Three strikes and you get kicked off the internet? How? Will I have a chip in my arm that keeps my router from working? Even if they were somehow able to blacklist me from every ISP how would they stop me from using freely available Wifi? How will they shut down Freenet? How will they stop me from burning CDs and just handing it to my friend?

This isn't going to change anything.

Brought to you by the folks at Disney (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223468)

They implemented DMCA in the USA.
CD sales plummeted.
Not because of pirates.
Because of change of tech (legal downloads) and we already have the good music.
No need to keep buying it over and over just because they create new file formats.

Three what? (2, Interesting)

chilvence (1210312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223500)

The most aggravating thing about this three strikes rule is that it is so obviously based on an obsessive baseball fanaticism.... making it impossible to disguise the fact that it is actually the kind of half baked idea thought up in 30 seconds in a bar somewhere and scribbled on the back of a beer coaster so that it wouldnt be forgotten in tomorrows hangover. That is exactly the kind of flippant attitude to problems that nobody in the world deserves to have forced upon them.

Besides, if you yanks were going to try and pull a fast one on the rest of the world, you should have used a football analogy - its the international sport!

(thats the one with the round ball by the way)

Anonymous Accusations? (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223510)

Do you at least get to know who made a false accusation against you so that you can sue their ass off in civil court where the burden of proof is much lower? After all, you stand to lose something - shouldn't they?

Law vs law? (3, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223520)

This implies no privacy, as whoever that provides us connectivity with others (ISPs, cell/line phone companies, postal service, web services like email/chat/voice/webcams/etc) as could held liable for what their customers do, that must follow all we do using their services. And privacy is an human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, plus probably most governments constitutions. Will that be enough to stop them or we will not have human rights?

It makes the worse totalitarian governments in the world in history look like the land of the free.

Re:Law vs law? (1)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223608)

UN Declaration of Human Rights

"It's just a goddamned piece of paper."

Shadow Run becoming a reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223592)

Wow, I may not have to play Shadow Run with pen and paper any more...it'll just be reality. Without the elves and Orcs of course...and the magic.

Re:Shadow Run becoming a reality (1)

ProfMobius (1313701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223710)

Here you go :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_2020 [wikipedia.org]

You don't need to take shadowrun and remove all this, just pick up Cyberpunk 2020 directly ^^

So now you know!! (3, Insightful)

noz (253073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223622)

Keeping it secret is a matter of national security when the nation is controlled by private interests.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?