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!

FSF Starts Anti-ACTA Campaign

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the clean-up-your-acta dept.

Government 173

judgecorp writes "Free Software Foundation president Richard Stallman has said in a blog post that the ACTA file-sharing proposals punish users unfairly. He wrote, 'Any time there is a proposal to change things for the worse, the obvious way to oppose it is to campaign for the status quo. To campaign for the status quo suggests the approach of singing its praises; thus, praising WIPO is a natural way to highlight how ACTA is a step for the worse. However, where there have been previous changes for the worse, lauding the status quo tends to legitimize them. The past 20 years have seen global waves of harmful changes in copyright law — some promoted by WIPO. To confront a further assault by presenting the status quo as ideal means we stop fighting to reverse them. It means that our adversaries need only propose a further affront to our rights to gain our acceptance of their last affront. Instead of making the status quo our ideal, we should demand positive changes to recover freedoms already lost.' The FSF has launched a petition against the ACTA proposals."

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

Wow, a petition. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603376)

Seriously, what the fuck is a mere petition going to do? Well, it'll get disregarded and thrown out, most likely.

Status.... Um.... What? (-1, Redundant)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603386)

There were so many uses of the term "status quo", "ideal", and "worse" that I lost track. I now, quite frankly, am confused enough to not care. Is the status quo ideal or worse? Oh Stallman.

Re:Status.... Um.... What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603418)

status quo == bad
ACTA == worse

Re:Status.... Um.... What? (-1, Flamebait)

xzc (1798868) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603440)

Don't worry, Stallman is the biggest ass-fucked immature fuck on Earth.

Re:Status.... Um.... What? (5, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603448)

That may be true but really, almost every one of his predictions has come true in one way or another. As much as I really would like to dismiss him as having unworkable policies, he has been spot on for almost everything.

Re:Status.... Um.... What? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603736)

Have to also say that an immature person is preferable to the MPAA and RIAA trying to take over the world.

Re:Status.... Um.... What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603772)

Is that the same way the bible makes predictions?

Re:Status.... Um.... What? (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604214)

Sadly, it's pretty easy to be right when you're a cynic and don't trust people who plan on making money off of you.

Re:Status.... Um.... What? (3, Funny)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604234)

Stallman might make accurate predictions (though I wouldn't say that all his predictions are all that accurate - it's just that you don't hear much about those which are not), but his suggestions as to how things should be done instead are utopian, to put it politely.

Re:Status.... Um.... What? (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603526)

I found the article clear and well explained. Perhaps it is a reading comprehension issue on your part?

Or perhaps you did not read the article, but are referring to the quote in the ./ story. It is not as bad as you make it out to be, but is clearer in the context of the article.

Re:Status.... Um.... What? (-1, Troll)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603636)

I get it, but his attempts at eloquence are lost on me.

He could have just said "If we complain about ACTA and say we want to keep what we have, it means we are OK with what we have. Instead, I propose that we insist that both ACTA and the current state of Copyright laws is less than ideal. I will now present valid reasons that have nothing to do with my resenting corporate wealth..."

It would have been a lot easier to read. RTFA is for suckers.

Have you ever... (1)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603876)

slogged through the GPL? I did, admittedly sometime in the early nineties, and I found it to be one of the most self-agrandizing masturabtory exercises in literature that I have ever encountered (even worse than that last sentence). Instead of making clear statements, RMS prefers to build a series of statements that are dependent of each other for reference or support.

I do not know if there is any real value to it, or if RMS just wants to believe that it requires a 'greater intelligence' to read his work

Re:Have you ever... (2, Interesting)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604528)

It's about precision. Those of us who know how to use emacs understand it. :)

I certainly don't agree with everything RMS has to say, but I do respect his intelligence and his conviction. Signed the petition, too.

Re:Have you ever... (2, Funny)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604904)

Honestly, I agree with RMS more than disagree.

However, vi is the superior editor

Same question... (1, Insightful)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603660)

that I asked myself when I read the GPL. why the FUCK doesn't Stallman communicate directly and get away from the obsufcated communication style that he uses.

People that write code like RMS communicates are widely hated by the poor fools that try to maintain the pile of spaghetti.

Re:Same question... (3, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604278)

that I asked myself when I read the GPL. why the FUCK doesn't Stallman communicate directly and get away from the obsufcated communication style that he uses.

If the GPL causes you so much distress, I suggest you go try to read a typical proprietary EULA. Then maybe that will cause your head to explode and we'll all be better off.

Re:Same question... (0, Redundant)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | more than 4 years ago | (#32606734)

Ummmmm... right...

I expect EULAs to attempt to obfuscate and conceal their true intentions in verbage.

It is like being approached by a thug in a dark alley, I expect to start looking for ways out of the situation.

I do not expect a proponent of software development who publishes a great amount of work that is aimed at providing developers with the legal means to BOTH share and protect their work to place these tools in wording that is unreadable.

It is like approaching the Salvation Army dude ringing a bell and then getting shanghaid

So, IF RMS really wants to 'reach out' to the population of software developers, then I would suggest that HE make the material more readily digested

Re:Status.... Um.... What? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603964)

What it means is: you're too stupid to handle ideas. If you're too stupid to oppose ACTA, that's ok. But then don't implicitly support ACTA by retaining the status quo in political leadersh-- oh fuck, I used "status quo."

Let me try again. What it means is: jeffmeden, you're too stupid to vote, maybe even too stupid to live (unless you have a very competent slavemaster). Just die, already.

Re:Status.... Um.... What? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605462)

LOL; this coming from someone who couldn't figure out how to log in. That's rich. I think YOU are the status quo. DIAF.

Re:Status.... Um.... What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32605056)

Reading is hard, let's go shopping!

Re:Status.... Um.... What? (2, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32606788)

The real question is, how is the first goddamn post redundant? Idiot mods.

Anyway, I'll help you out.

He says normally you resist bad policy by promoting how good things are without it.

This, however, obviously implies that things are good without it.

If things are bad and getting worse, promoting the bad in favor of something worse legitimizes the bad. All policy makers need to do to legitimize bad policy then is to simply introduce worse policy, which gets people to accept the bad in favor of something worse.

He's basically saying "Don't say 'look how good things are now, don't destroy it with new restrictions', say 'you ass-holes have been destroying our freedom for 50 years, cut it the hell out!'". In a nutshell.

It's worth noting that this is exactly what happens in politics anytime you hear someone say "Well, he's better than the alternative".

I think the little prick has a really good point here.

Too bad for RMS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603392)

Too bad for RMS that most of the world doesn't know of him or care what he says. I'm guessing this will have about as much effect as their anti-DRM campaign. That is to say, absolutely nothing.

I will do my civic duty and sign these petitions! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603434)

The more I pay attention, the more I realize that laws are being skewed more twards the corporations and the governement than the people. Which is why I'm heavily deciding if I should run for Congress to hopefully put a stop to this madness. I feel with every law passed like this, the people who are supposed to be our servants are not listening. If I can get it, I'm sure I'll make a difference. This difference should be for the people, not for companies. It seems to be that the current people in charge let the almighty dollar be the "success factor" which in fact it is hurting our freedoms and providing grave consequences to the nation as a whole.

Re:I will do my civic duty and sign these petition (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603528)

This isn't a "law" this is an agreement, meaning it basically passes without the consent of the people. Essentially the US is letting other countries write the laws for us. This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about with "Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None".

While there is a time and place for some "binding" contracts such as bi-laterally reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles (lets face it, we don't need thousands upon thousands of warheads that could get lost/stolen/etc.), things like the ACTA and also to some degree the UN effectively force the US to give up its own sovereignty, placing lawmaking not in the hands of elected officials, but unelected delegates from not just the US but almost every other country.

Free trade is easy to accomplish, simply let people purchase goods from foreign countries just like domestic products, only using internationally recognized standards such as gold, silver, platinum, palladium, oil, etc. However, in this day and age, its hard to avoid entangling alliances that infringe on the sovereignty of the USA.

Re:I will do my civic duty and sign these petition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603582)

Then why should I not try to get that process modified? What about making a law that requires the agreement process be run through the same processes that normal laws run through? While I'm at it, make it a requirement to delay these agreements and let the public have a chance to look at them. Make the law to ensure none of these agreements could be made behind closed doors. Make it so that people have an avenue and/or mechanism to put feedback into these agreements. Why not try and do something to change it for the better rather than just bitching and rolling over and doing nothing?

Re:I will do my civic duty and sign these petition (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603630)

Because the largest party that promises to do just that, the Libertarian party, is still dwarfed by people who will automatically vote republican/democrat despite their lack of having any coherent ideals. I'm not saying don't get involved, I'm just saying if that third largest political party and one that shares similar ideals on that subject, doesn't have anyone currently in congress the chances of change are slim.

Re:I will do my civic duty and sign these petition (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605150)

To someone who follows mainstream politics, and in my own words, the Libertarian Party seems horribly fragmented. There is no way to vote for the party, because each candidate has their own take on what is part of the philosophy.

I've read the definitions and distinctions between someone who has libertarian views (lower case) and is part of the Libertarian party. That there's even a distinction between the two suggests that the name was poorly chosen, or the philosohpy adapted/bastardized.

That there remains a core movement which maintains that distinction, on both sides of the issue, should be a clear warning signal that the members cannot even agree. People with similar viewpoints get into a semantic war and remain separated by a non-existent schism.

To rephrase, there isn't a party to vote for, and voters often use mental shortcuts like appearance and eloquence to choose their candidates which makes the liklihood of purely philosophical reasons. You want Libertarians to win? Foolproof plan. Get a clean-looking, well-spoken sock puppet with an attractive wife (or attractive daughter who puts herself out in the spotlight by volunteering, visiting whomever from the pet project of the future first lady, does interviews, whatever). Then just keep them from saying ridiculous stuff (stuff that can and will be ridiculed). Instant win.

Re:I will do my civic duty and sign these petition (5, Insightful)

cpghost (719344) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603680)

Essentially the US is letting other countries write the laws for us.

Actually, the US is misusing ACTA to change its own laws. All those draconian steps in ACTA were promoted and forced through by nothing less than the US Government, to protect what is essentially an economy that relies increasingly on immaterial goods after having outsourced manufacturing to China and elsewhere. Other ACTA participants are bearing the pressure of the US here, rather than vice-versa.

Re:I will do my civic duty and sign these petition (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603702)

Well, yes, that does seem to be the case, but since the majority of this is behind closed doors, we never will really know what goes on but the principle behind it is that a country like, say, Morocco can add in a clause to it and it would pretty much have to be the law in the US.

Re:I will do my civic duty and sign these petition (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604184)

It could be... but fortunately, ACTA still needs to be ratified by all parliaments before it goes into effect. There may be some arm-twisting going on, but ultimately, every country could -- at least in theory -- just say no by not ratifying it.

Plus, what kind of pressure could Morocco exert on the US? Would they cancel the free trade agreement that gives them much more advantages than it gives the US? And why would they want to, since they have so little intellectual property to protect, compared to the US? It's not like the (beautiful) handmade stuff they're exporting is being counterfeited that they have to worry. They're just in the same ACTA boat, because the US asked them nicely to be, referring to the old Treaty of Friendship of 1789, and they politely smiled and just said: okay, we're on.

Re:I will do my civic duty and sign these petition (3, Interesting)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604784)

Actually, the reason Morocco is involved in the ACTA negotiations (it is definitely an outlier when you look at the rest of the parties) is likely because the US already has a free trade agreement with them that includes IP enforcement provisions that the USTR points to as a basis for ACTA.

Re:I will do my civic duty and sign these petition (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603774)

This isn't a "law" this is an agreement, meaning it basically passes without the consent of the people.

Ratified treaties are just as much "laws" as anything passed by Congress. Perhaps you need to re-read the Constitution?

This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about with "Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None".

Except that you're wrongly attributing a quote that paraphrases something Jefferson said as if all the Founding Fathers were of a similar opinion. This is not true. Amongst those that can be named, James Monroe is probably the most obvious example of disagreeing with such a notion.

Re:I will do my civic duty and sign these petition (5, Interesting)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604014)

Essentially the US is letting other countries write the laws for us.

As someone who lives in another country, let me assure you it's exactly the other way around. Many of the proposals in the leaked document come directly from US law, and are being pushed down everyone else's throat with the threat of being blacklisted if we don't agree to it. For instance, Canada's new law that forbids breaking DRM, lobbied for by US groups, pressured for by the US ambassador, and written up by RIAA.

Maury

Re:I will do my civic duty and sign these petition (2, Interesting)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604810)

To be fair, it works both ways. The current draft text of ACTA still includes language that permits "graduated response" or "three strikes" laws in a section that was contributed by EU countries. While the original footnote that referred specifically to three strikes was removed, neither is it explicitly forbidden.

Having gone over the draft text and the leaked version that indicated the various country positions, I'd say the US and EU are equally responsible for some of the nasty things in ACTA - just different nasty things.

Re:I will do my civic duty and sign these petition (2, Informative)

alexo (9335) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605418)

Canada's new law that forbids breaking DRM, lobbied for by US groups, pressured for by the US ambassador, and written up by RIAA.

It's not a law yet, it is only a bill (C-31) but unless you (Canadians) get off your collective fat asses and start making noise about it, it will be.

Article 6 (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604070)

This isn't a "law" this is an agreement, meaning it basically passes without the consent of the people. Essentially the US is letting other countries write the laws for us. This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about with "Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None".

From Article 6 of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The language couldn't made much plainer - and it shows damn little fear of alliances or any involuntary loss of sovereignty.

Also known as the Overton Window (5, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603452)

"praising WIPO is a natural way to highlight how ACTA is a step for the worse. However, where there have been previous changes for the worse, lauding the status quo tends to legitimize them"

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window [wikipedia.org]

Or better yet use the existing problem to advantag (3, Interesting)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603488)

The best way to get a problem like copyright legislation is to use it against those who created it. Follow the trail of greed, find individuals responsible and track what copyrights they violate.

Make them turn on themselves like a bunch of rabid animals and sit back and laugh as they tear themselves apart.

Not that it would work because they don't want to fight each other they just want to pick on the little defenseless suckers that get singled out.

I thought I would just throw out my stupid idea while we are dreaming.

Re:Or better yet use the existing problem to advan (2)

Misch (158807) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603626)

Kinda like this video from Youtube which accuses Viacom of the same infringment that they claim Youtube has done?

Re:Or better yet use the existing problem to advan (2)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603760)

Exactly but you have to go against the people not the business. If you sue Viacom no one in the company cares because it is the legal department that handles it. But if you sue the CEO of Viacom in small claims locally that would be funny. Of course you have to have a legit claim against them.

Re:Or better yet use the existing problem to advan (1)

brian_tanner (1022773) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604252)

Except the CEO of Viacom isn't the one who is bothered by outrageous prices and terms on content. He can afford to pay whatever the premium rate is for the medium de jour, and he can upgrade his personal digital library when HHDDVVDD BVD comes out. Similarly, he doesn't need personal backups of his content, because he can afford to repurchase it.

I don't think using their own dirty tricks against them is a way to make much progress. They can afford to play by their own rules.

Re:Or better yet use the existing problem to advan (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32604436)

They can afford to play by the rules, but they probably don't.

So the tactic may work in the short term. Do you think that music producers or Simon Cowell (or the executives lower down in the pecking order) ever pay for music that they listen to? No, they assume that they can just copy it and that the person copied from should be honoured at the possibility of getting noticed by the aristocracy. Heck, they assume they can put it into a track and sell it and worry about the "clearance" afterwards.

At the very least we should make sure that their designer living rooms are all cluttered up with multiple DVD players for each locked region so they can get a glimpse of how annoying it is.

And could you imagine if they pierced the corporate veil and chucked Bill Gates inside for the various times Microsoft has blatently infringed copyrights or patents?

Re:Or better yet use the existing problem to advan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32605648)

Fine go after the artists, musicians, and directors that sign with the labels, whenever and wherever you can. Make it joining a label a poison.

Worried about ACTA impact on patent law (4, Interesting)

FlorianMueller (801981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603518)

My concern about ACTA is not related to copyright law but to its effect on patents. Copyright law is practically always infringed by intent, while patent infringement in the field of software is in most cases inadvertent (that's the most fundamental problem I have with software patents). It would be desirable to introduce into patent law, at least in connection with software, an independent invention defense. However, ACTA in the version I saw might do quite the opposite, treating a patent infringer as a "pirate" once he is made aware of an infringement (for an example, by a cease-and-desist letter). That's unreasonable and unjust in my view. I blogged about that [blogspot.com] .

Recently I read on Twitter that the US Trade Representative told knowledge rights activist Jamie Love [twitter.com] that the US wouldn't mind throwing patents out of ACTA and instead the US government blames the EU for wanting patents included. Since those negotiations take place behind closed doors, it's not easy to verify that claim. However, it's more likely than not to be accurate. It would be good if EU-based activists could inquire about this (especially with help from Members of the European Parliament). With pressure from inside the EU there may be a chance to get patents thrown out of ACTA altogether. I know a lot of people here are at least equally interested in copyright issues but to many of us patents are the number one concern.

For those interested in EU processes relevant to free and open source software, here's a link to a blog post [blogspot.com] on a talk I gave on the subject (not discussing ACTA per se in detail, but with a couple of slides on EU patent policy in general) at LinuxTag in Berlin last week. LinuxTag is Germany's and probably Europe's largest open source event. The blog post I just linked to contains links to the presentation.

Re:Worried about ACTA impact on patent law (2, Insightful)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604818)

i suspect we will see each party blame the other, and if one looked closer, find the same lobbying entities behind them both.

its the age old problem of the sick leader allowing the soothsayer to run the show from behind the throne.

Re:Worried about ACTA impact on patent law (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604868)

I am actually currently at a conference at AU law school and just heard Jamie Love discuss this issue this morning. He pointed out that it's not entirely true that the US wants patents out of ACTA. We would like to avoid discussing patents on the section involving border measures, but we are not opposed to the inclusion of patents in the section on civil penalties, including new measures on injunctive relief that would establish standards in areas of US law that are still hotly contested. The USTR's letter in response to Senator Ron Wyden makes this position quite clear. We can't totally blame the EU for patents being in ACTA, only in the border measures chapter.

Re:Worried about ACTA impact on patent law (1)

tobiah (308208) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605200)

an independent invention defense.

Good idea, I hope it gets around.

Re:Worried about ACTA impact on patent law (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32606704)

Copyright law is practically always infringed by intent

The one big exception here is music. What steps would you recommend that a songwriter take to avoid falling victim to something like Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton, where someone copied another song's hook by accident?

It would be desirable to introduce into patent law, at least in connection with software, an independent invention defense.

If patent law changes to recognize independent invention as evidence in favor of obviousness to a person skilled in the art, that might not be too hard to square against the existing law.

Effectiveness of petitions (5, Insightful)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603570)

My enthusiasm kinda dwindles when I saw that the article amounted to a simple petition. Petitions, especially internet ones, are just a way for signees to feel good about themselves while making minimal effort. Kinda like complaining on /. will change the world :P. It'd be interesting if there a more concerted effort behind the petition like showing congress critters opposed to ACTA (so we could vote for them) or raising money to actually lobby against it. Corporations have realized that lobbying, or being active in government helps bend the rules to their favor, so why can't free software institutions do so either? I'm just hoping that this petition doesn't lead to a dead end.

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (3, Funny)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603604)

That's just the first step! Once they get enough signatures, they'll print signs and hold protests on campuses all over Boston. From then, if ACTA isn't dropped, a e-mail campaign will be started to get people to forward e-mails to all of their friends!

Soon the international coptywrite cartels will be begging for mercy!

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604700)

That's just the first step! Once they get enough signatures, they'll print signs and hold protests on campuses all over Boston!

They'll need a new mascot. Everyone loves a mascot. Windows 7 Sins [youtube.com]

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (1)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603674)

So, what's the alternative to a petition? Fire-bomb a senator's house?? Unless you're a multi-billion dollar corporation, you have no legal way to really influence your own government, let alone influence the internationals deciding treaties in secret behind closed doors.

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603924)

The alternative would be taking a more active role in the government in a number of ways from: writing to representatives, supporting representatives, or running as one. Several million people could have a greater impact through their advocacy and voting power, than a large sum money. In order for this to actually happen, significant effort is usually required to organize the populace. The FSF, EFF, or some other organization could act as a focal point for people wanting to be involved in stopping ACTA by organizing protests and raising awareness. Hence, I sincerely hope more is done beyond a petition.

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604016)

Unless you're a multi-billion dollar corporation, you have no legal way to really influence your own government, let alone influence the internationals deciding treaties in secret behind closed doors.

Which is exactly what they want you to think. The reality is that you can make a difference [eff.org] . Let your legislators know your own personal opinion of the ACTA. They are your government representation and are supposed to be voting in your interest. If you can't take the time to firmly and politely inform them of your interests, then yes, the multi-billion dollar corporations who have the other ear are going to win instead.

You can also donate to organizations (possibly the EFF) who persuade and litigate important legal matters such as this.

There's no certainty that all the lobbying and writing campaigns in the world will stop ACTA, but sitting back and just complaining about it on the Internet guarantees the eventual erosion of all your personal rights.

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (2, Insightful)

Eil (82413) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604098)

There's no certainty that all the lobbying and writing campaigns in the world will stop ACTA, but sitting back and just complaining about it on the Internet guarantees the eventual erosion of all your personal rights.

(Including sitting back and complaining about things on the Internet.)

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604910)

The problem with the way that ACTA is being negotiated is that, to be frank, writing letters to Congress probably won't make any difference. This is because Congress is really not involved in the ACTA negotiations at all. It's being done as a "sole executive agreement," which means essentially no oversight from the legislative branch. Only a few members of Congress have expressed any interest in ACTA (notably Senator Ron Wyden, who sent a letter to the USTR on the issue a few months ago).

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605542)

Which is exactly what they want you to think. The reality is that you can make a difference.

Right. This from the EFF, turning back the tide since 1990. Since then we've gotten the No Electronic Theft Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a new "inducement" infringement tort, losses in the 2600 case and Blizzard v. bnetd, etc. The reality is that the EFF can't make a difference _either_.

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32606756)

They are your government representation and are supposed to be voting in your interest.

If my representative and senators don't vote in my interest, and I don't live in a swing district (in fact, I've seen a representative run unopposed), then what should I do?

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (1)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604198)

You want something that works? Write letters. Real, honest to goodness, handwritten on dead tree letters. And get others to do it. Not e-mails, faxes, automated letter writers, real letters created by a real person.

And get all your friends and other copyright advocates to do it. Send them to your representatives and copies to the local papers. Do it every week until you get a non-form letter reply. And then start doing it twice a week.

On-line petitions are too easy and have no weight with anyone. A handwritten letter means business.

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604674)

I've written letters to my elected representatives. They are replied to with a form letter, and probably not even read by anyone other than an intern. If you want them to actually pay attention, then go and speak to them in person.

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (1)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603732)

It's hard to take Internet petitions seriously. Petition writers who use the word 'weasel' as a verb (second bullet) aren't making it any easier.

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (2, Informative)

Misch (158807) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603788)

The EFF is doing a little more in the way of advocacy, but for some reason the Obama administration has decided to defend the Bush administration classification of information related to ACTA.

The EFF and Public Knowledge announced today [eff.org] that they dropped a lawsuit against the US Trade Representative to release background documents related to ACTA.

Re:Effectiveness of petitions (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604596)

announced today

I believe your clock is running about a year behind.

The Usefulness of Petitions (1)

tobiah (308208) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605436)

..or at least the usefulness of this one, is to state clearly what is and isn't acceptable in this treaty, make people aware and get a consensus about it. I mean, there are a lot of people here who would agree with the statement, "ACTA is bad, make it go away", but it's not a very constructive way to engage with policy makers or the unaware.

The statement "ACTA must respect sharing and cooperation: it must do nothing that would hinder the unremunerated noncommercial making, copying, giving, lending, owning, using, transporting, importing or exporting of any objects or works." is a lot more specific, and lays out the rights everyone should have. I know the US Constitution is supposed to only spell out the limited rights Congress can take away, but in practice the only rights the U.S. government doesn't take away are the ones that are specifically protected (e.g. Free speech, assembly, and guns). So getting out ahead of this treaty and trying to spell out the rights we want is a good way to keep them. Even better if we can get that into law, which is easier to do if someone has spelled it out already, and everyone has agreed that's what they want.

More of an anti-copyright campaign (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603614)

Here's the first item on their list:

ACTA must respect sharing and cooperation: it must do nothing that would hinder the unremunerated noncommercial making, copying, giving, lending, owning, using, transporting, importing or exporting of any objects or works

They essentially only want copyright to prohibit making money by copying, etc., the works of others.

Sounds reasonable to me (2, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603838)

They essentially only want copyright to prohibit making money by copying, etc., the works of others.

That sure sounds reasonable to me.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604290)

It's also a very good way to get the campaign dismissed out of hand due to unrealistic demands.

Re:More of an anti-copyright campaign (2, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603990)

Of course, RMS wants all software to be free.

I don't always agree with his politics but I do share his concerns.

For example from the TFA:

“ACTA threatens, in a disguised way, to punish Internet users with disconnection if they are accused of sharing, and requires countries to prohibit software that can break Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), also known as digital handcuffs,” said Stallman.

I agree that being accused of sharing is not enough to justify disconnection.

However if they are convicted of file sharing then disconnection can be an acceptable punishment though I think it's silly and unenforceable. I'm also against mandatory sentencing guidelines, because they don't take circumstances into account.

Software that break DRM is tool and can be used for legal reasons too. What if I wanted to run a program that I purchased but can't because my netbook doesn't have a CD-ROM drive? I'm not going to share my program so why should I be treated as a criminal?

Where we differ:

I believe that someone who knowingly share a copyrighted file(s) without the consent of the creator has committed copyright infringement and is liable for any punishment related to that infraction (US has laws that make it criminal as well as civil) .

It's still copyright infringement and copyright laws are only as good as the enforcement. I also believe that the current laws are good enough and every attempt "strengthen" them involves taking rights away from the consumer. Take the DRM removal software for example. If I used the software and made the resulting broken DRM file available to others, I am already breaking copyright law. However, if I use it on software that I have a valid EULA for (because I actually paid for it) and keep it to myself then this should remain legal. Also, if I use the DRM to "steal" services by copying files that I did not rightfully purchase then there are already laws against that too.

The corporations are frustrated that they can't stem the tide of piracy and therefore want to make the tools that make it possible illegal. I say too bad for them. They already proven they can find violators so why go after a tool?

Well I guess RMS and I don't differ that much.

Re:More of an anti-copyright campaign (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32606806)

Software that break DRM is tool and can be used for legal reasons too. What if I wanted to run a program that I purchased but can't because my netbook doesn't have a CD-ROM drive?

Buying a game that uses disc-based copy authentication and trying to run it on a netbook is like buying a PSP UMD game and trying to run it on a PSP Go, or like buying a PS3 game and trying to run it on a PS2. It's not designed for that. Vote with your dollars against PC games that require the disc during play.

"Recover" freedoms? (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603620)

Richard, I love ya and everything you've done for the open source community, just want that clear. Now what the sam hell are you doing telling us to "recover" our freedoms? You don't recover freedom -- you fight for it. You disobey, you protest, you drum up support, tear down walls, and throw wrenches in the establishment. Freedom isn't free, and you won't get it by firing off strongly worded letters.

Look at it from the other side -- the ACTA is about trying to make a global police framework to try and stop file sharinng. Let them pass it. Let the government sink billions upon billions tryinng to solve the problem, while we come up with ever more clever ways to evade detection, and eat away at their bottom lines. The ACTA is about moving the costs from an industry to a global support group of governments. Now is the time to maximize damage -- gut their bank accounts, make free copies pervasive.

Slip how-to manuals into people's mailboxes, leave CDs on the bus with instructions on how to get stuff for free, build and distribute new tools that are harder to track, use stronger encryption, and frustrate traffic analysis efforts. Bury these fuckers to the point where for every dollar they can recover through this kind of legislation they have to pay five more. Keep the hurt machine running at full power.

That's how you defeat the ACTA and protect your freedoms -- by going on the offensive. If they have no rules, neither should we. They want to hand this mess over to the government and we should be only too happy to obliege them -- let's make it cost more than the combined budget of all of law enforcement to recover what little cash they're getting back now. Eventually the costs for this will make it a public spectacle and people will question why we're diverting so much money and throwing all these people in jail and ruining their lives and the general public will finally ask the question it should have been asking years ago:

Is it worth it?

Re:"Recover" freedoms? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603848)

Yo, I'ma let you finish, but Braveheart had one of the best speeches on freedom of all time! One of the best speeches of all time!

"war on drugs", eh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603858)

Your idea is proved wrong every day in the war on drugs: costs more $ and humanity every day, still there are drugs everywhere you care to look.

They won't stop no matter the costs.

Re:"war on drugs", eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603912)

But people are waking up to the ridiculousness of the war on drugs. More and more every day. Not to mention the fact that most everyone you meet in any rational part of the country have used at least a little at some point. It will die the same death he's predicting here.

Re:"war on drugs", eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32604932)

People said the exact same thing in the 50s, 60s, 70s etc. This generation is also dumber, lazier, and more distracted than the previous generations. The most they'll do is form MySpace/Facebook groups dedicated to their "cause."

Re:"Recover" freedoms? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32604136)

You seem to forget that the money of our government is ours.

I don't want to sit back and then fight back.

I'm gonna fight for my freedom before and after they take it away from me.

Re:"Recover" freedoms? (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604526)

I suggest thinking, just a little bit, about the end points that are possible. How about picking from the list below:

  1. We all live in the Star Trek Universe where everything is free for everyone all the time. Rent, food, clothes, everything.
  2. Commercial media production and promotion ends. Anything supporting this or supported by it ends, like magazines, a whole lot of advertising and a lot of ad-supported stuff. Most "music venues" simply cease to be. Mostly, because there is no revenue, people just don't bother - they are too concerned with doing stuff to pay the rent and buy food with. After all, we are looking at 20-30% of the economy disappearing in the US overnight.
  3. More and more DRM - you need to use your fingerprint (RF scanning, not optical - no gummy fingers here) to unlock everything. Your DNA is on file with the RIAA. You submit to a full body scan to watch TV in a small room that is controlled by the media associations. Physical media, like DVDs, are gone because they could escape from the controlled room and be copied.

Personally, I think number 2 is the way it is going. I wouldn't give #1 a ghost of a chance - my daughter owns a house that it rented out and she isn't about to start charging zero for it. But number 3 certainly seems like a real possibility and the more militant Internet users get the more likely it is all time.

Re:"Recover" freedoms? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604686)

Look at it from the other side -- the ACTA is about trying to make a global police framework to try and stop file sharinng. Let them pass it. Let the government sink billions upon billions tryinng to solve the problem, while we come up with ever more clever ways to evade detection, and eat away at their bottom lines.

There is an undeniably brilliant way of eating away at their bottom line that is, always has been, and always will be undetectable, no matter how much money is spent on enforcement or improving enforcement techniques. Not only that, should you even decide to publicly announce your taking of this course of action to said enforcement, they will be unable to touch you. And, as if this incredible method didn't do enough for you as it is, it also protects you against those snobs making barely-veiled insinuations about your motives for "actively" opposing the ACTA.

Yes, you guessed it: it's called boycotting. It works the same way as pirating, just without the threat of looming lawsuits, and without generating sympathy for the opposing side. Plus, it's great for those of us with bandwidth caps!

Re:"Recover" freedoms? (1)

fwice (841569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604692)

Eventually the costs for this will make it a public spectacle and people will question why we're diverting so much money and throwing all these people in jail and ruining their lives and the general public will finally ask the question it should have been asking years ago:

Is it worth it?

just like the war on drugs?

Re:"Recover" freedoms? (2, Insightful)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604982)

I appreciate your passion, but you're missing one point. These treaties will push the burden of enforcement from the copyright holder more onto the governments. So part of what you're suggesting is to waste government money, taxpayer money. Civil disobedience is necessary in many cases, but we have to be preventative as well, if nothing else so that we can say "we told you so".

The message to future elections has to be "You wasted our money and we tried to stop you, and we hate you for it." Hurt the machine, but avoid hurting yourself if possible. At some point we will be the machine, but we're not there yet.

let ACTA pass (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603654)

its a farce

all of copyright law is based on a dead technological era. well, copyright law as applied to agreements between creators, say: the company that films the adaptation of harry potter and jk rowlings, for example, is still valid, because the parties in the agreement are finite

but copyright law as applied to end consumers is completely and utterly unenforceable. its not like you need to have a vinyl printing plant or a tape duplicator to spread media anymore. you simply need to be able to point and click. additionally, its completely international, and completely without economics: the cost to send 100,000 copies of lady gaga to johannesburg, novosibirsk, cartagena, etc is exactly the same as sending one copy of lady gaga across town. your agerage 15 year old today has more publishing power worldwide than bertelsmann, time warner, etc., had in 1990. this really means something, and what it means is: copyright law (as applied to end consumers), is dead, and unenforceable

so let them make ACTA as draconian as the morons want. who fucking cares? 10,000 lawyers in western countries versus 10 million media hungry, technologically savvy and, most importantly, POOR teenagers, worldwide, is no contest. of course i understand the EFF, they are protesting on the matter of principle. and to this extent, they should protest, and you should join them. but remember who we are dealing with here: the media industry. a bunch of sociopathic assholes. principles don't matter to them, so the EFF won't sway them. so i say: go ahead register your principled objections, to clear your conscience, but do not grow disheartened by a lack of response from the lizards. rejoice in the fact the lizards are at an end game, and are dying out, and that there ridiculous ACTA is a useless folly

its called disruptive technology for a reason: it disrupts the status quo. the printing press did away with monarchies, the gun did way with the feudal caste system, the automobile created suburbia, the nuclear bomb did away with world wars, etc.: technology changes society and the law. the law and society do not change technology. well, that's never stopped one shortsighted asshole after another from trying, but their efforts are always futile and pointless, just causing a lot of temporary pain for innocent bystanders. in the end, none of their posturing matters: the internet will assimilate the media industry, resistance is futile

the internet has rendered copyright law as applied to end consumers null and void, despiter all the believers to the contrary, despite all the power they hold. its a fait accompli

the media industry's job now is to embrace its obsolescence. of course, it goes down kicking and screaming instead. but again, who fucking cares? let them pass the most draconian ACTA anyone can imagine in their worst nightmares. UNENFORCEABLE. END OF STORY

RIP, vinyl record era copyright law. i'm certain you will exist on the books for a long time to come. but in terms of being an enforceable concept on end consumers in an internet-using society, you're toast

Re:let ACTA pass (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604524)

Hi.

Please post links to your materials from Bangamovie!

We need nice fresh meat for da InterBeast to play with!

http://bangamovie.com/ [bangamovie.com]

(Pun intended!)

Re:let ACTA pass (-1, Flamebait)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604916)

this really means something, and what it means is: copyright law (as applied to end consumers), is dead, and unenforceable ...

UNENFORCEABLE. END OF STORY

"Oh, OK. Well, thanks fans, it's been fun while it lasted.

Sincerely, 99% of artists."

Or perhaps, that letter should have gone a little differently.

"Fuck you pirate! I'll decide how I'll work for myself, thank you very much! If I could, assuming I'd even want to, tour 365 days per year, or scrounge off your petty merchandising cash, I wouldn't have signed with that soul-sucking, money-grubbing label in the first place, you preachy little ignorant prick!

Make your own damn music. I pity those who would do it for you."

Well, If I were a recording artist, that would be my response. I sure as hell wouldn't put up with this kind of bullshit. Artists need to rise up soon, or they very soon will be downtrodden and oppressed by those who claim to support freedom, but in reality, care only about their own license.

(Please note: the use of swear words is appropriate for the context, and is not meant to incite a flame response; this is genuinely how I feel this particularly offensive post should be rebutted. Also note that this post does not constitute an approval of the ACTA or any of its parts.)

Re:let ACTA pass (0, Redundant)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605180)

Flamebait. That was pretty quick. Perhaps, next time, I should sugar-coat it a bit, huh? :-/

if you didn't want a flame response (2, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605182)

you wouldn't call yourself the velvet flamebait

and here's my flame free rebuttal:

world before internet: 99% of artists were poor. 0.9% one hit wonders signed contracts with distributors in which they got pennies and a ride in a limo for a few months. 0.1% muscled in on the distributor's game and made fair money

world after internet: 99% artists are still poor (this is the way it always was and always will be). 0.5% make enough contact over the internet with their fans to make some money from gigs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail [wikipedia.org] ). another 0.4% realize enough revenue from ancillary means to be moderately financially successful. the final 0.1% are still making u2 and jayz money, from all their tie-ins

sure, the ancillary revenues are tiny fractions of what the marketplace was like before the internet, but artists still make more because mos tof the cash in the pre-internet world went to distributors anyways

your problem is you fall for the contrived bullshit concept that distributors not making money anymore is the same as artists not making money anymore

but, don't believe me that distributors are a joke and artists should just go it out on their own, listen to an actual artist:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10272490.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Radiohead's Thom Yorke warns of 'sinking' record labels

Radiohead singer Thom Yorke has told aspiring musicians to avoid the "sinking ship" of major record labels.

Giving advice to young artists in a new school textbook, he said: "When the corporate industry dies it will be no great loss to the world.

"So, I guess I would say, don't tie yourself to the sinking ship because, believe me, it's sinking."

Radiohead were signed to EMI for 12 years but released their last album In Rainbows via their own website in 2007.

EMI is now in a particularly precarious position, with major debts and restructuring issues following a takeover by private equity firm Terra Firma in 2007.

The songwriter made his comments in the Rax Active Citizenship Toolkit, published next month by New Internationalist magazine for students of GCSE Citizenship Studies.

'Matter of time'

In the interview, carried out in February, Yorke said the fate of new artists was "an obsession" of bandmate Ed O'Brien, who is a leading member of lobby group the Featured Artists' Coalition.

Yorke said: "When we discuss it, he says it's simply a matter of time - months rather than years - before the music business establishment completely folds.

"He is involved in trying to build a world where artists would finally get paid. But we are up against the self-protecting interests of that industry."

Radiohead are currently working on new material, but it is not known how they will release it.

Yorke has recently been performing with a new band, Atoms For Peace, and is playing a solo show at the Big Chill festival in Herefordshire in August.

so please stop swallowing the contrived lie that artists need distributors. its tired. its false. its a dead fake maneuver you are either intellectually being dishonest about or are actually quite cluelessly naive about

the truth is, distributors are parasites that only existed because someone had to manufacture the media. the internet has made that process defunct, and so distributors themselves are now defunct, no matter how hard they try to grandfather themselves into our cultural space with bullshit legal maneuvers that are destined to fail regardless

Re:let ACTA pass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32605390)

Well, If I were a recording artist, that would be my response.

It's not society's problem that you can't make a living doing whatever you want. Proping up unenforcable copyright laws that harm society just so that a couple of "artists" can make obscene amounts of money is utterly ridiculous. If you can't make a living off playing gigs and selling merchandise than get a real job like everyone else.

Your rant on artists rising up and "taking control" is also hilarious since there isn't a damn thing that they can do about it. They could all disappear tommorrow and there'd be plenty of people to take their place.

Re:let ACTA pass (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605734)

Parent should be modded insightful.

Re:let ACTA pass (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604962)

Only one chapter of ACTA deals with enforcement in the digital environment. There are other real-world implications if ACTA passes, especially if it includes border measures relating to patents. The implications for the shipping of generic medicines, or medicines produced under compulsory licenses in one country but still on-patent in another country, may mean increasing costs for developing world health agencies, for example.

Re:let ACTA pass (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605406)

your agerage 15 year old today has more publishing power worldwide than bertelsmann, time warner, etc., had in 1990. this really means something, and what it means is: copyright law (as applied to end consumers), is dead, and unenforceable

The fifteen year old is an unlicensed distributor, not a publisher.

He doesn't put anything new on the market - and he has no interest in reprinting anything old. No interest in serving an audience older or younger than himself.

The product he offers is second-rate.

The amateur's DVD rip. Distributed through networks which are slow and fragile.

Netflix can keep 100,000 videos in its catalog, 20,000 on-line, and contract to have its service built in to every Internet enabled video device priced over $100.

All these things limit the fifteen year old's power dramatically.

 

Re:let ACTA pass (1)

tobiah (308208) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605870)

The fifteen year old is an unlicensed distributor, not a publisher.

He doesn't put anything new on the market - and he has no interest in reprinting anything old. No interest in serving an audience older or younger than himself.

The product he offers is second-rate.

Clearly you were unaware of this. [youtube.com]

Re:let ACTA pass (1)

jongleur_kit (836236) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605812)

I love how adamant you are that we've crossed some kind of Rubicon and can never go back, but all they have to do is change the internet and they win. Change displays to not display "stolen" or "unapproved" content. Change hardware to plug the analog output hole. Change video cameras to blur copyrighted material, or to stop functioning when you point them at billboards/logos/whatever. Change internet protocols to carry bits that identify you. Change networking equipment so that law enforcement can easily get reports of your activity.

All of those and more are being pushed forward, now. Every new video format, every new gaming console, every new Apple product and Windows operating system makes it just a little harder for Joe Consumer to share stuff. It does not matter to them if some Swedish guys hacks a way around those restrictions and a few geeks are freer. Yeah, the technorati will always have hacked-up ways to get what they want. But the media companies don't care about our 1%; they care about the masses. To say that copyright is unenforceable (in the way that companies care about) is naive.

If you insist on seeing the dinosaur media companies as clueless idiots, you'll lose your chance to fight them on every front.

copyright easy to enforce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32606084)

Get ONE ridiculous but highly publicised 6 or 7 digit verdict against the poorest filesharer in court and then you can hit up other casual filesharers with two and three thousand dollar settlement offers and you have a pretty nice racket going.

Hurry up and sign! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603676)

Hurry up and sign so the soon-to-be-created Copyright Gestapo will have a good set of leads to start chasing down p2p'ers.

Re:Hurry up and sign! (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32606076)

Very well. So we will soon be witnessing the live-on-the-web execution of a copyright gestapo member by necklacing.

trolL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603708)

are inherently coolect any spilled rotting corpse of business and POSTS. THEREFORE Distribution make JAVA IRC CLIENT similarly grisly

DRM Removal Tools Illegal (4, Insightful)

lalena (1221394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603888)

FTA:

requires countries to prohibit software that can break Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), also known as digital handcuffs

So if someone has a library of DRM protected Flash videos and seeks to convert them to some new HTML5 format, they are not allowed to use a simple conversion tool to convert their entire video library. They are instead required to find the original DRM-free source of each video - if it exists?

Re:DRM Removal Tools Illegal (3, Insightful)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605872)

Was it a rethorical question? That is exactly so. People with DRMed music that they can play on one portable player also can't turn it into music that would play on another player after they buy another device, people that get DRMed government documents that are proof of a crime can't (by that proposal, the constitution of most places will disagree) publish that document in a format that the public or a judge will be able to read, and so on.

Read petition and laugh (0, Troll)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604260)

Sure, I want everything I can consume for free. So does everyone I know. Why should I pay for something when I can get it for free? I am a smart, knowledgable person with a high-speed Internet connection - that by default means I can freely pirate media, software, etc. Today my risk is that someone will track me and "discover" my IP address is sharing outbound - anything I can do to prevent that discovery means less risk.

People that are not as smart, knowledgable and do not have high-speed Internet connections today have to pay for their media. This is a pity, but about all you can say now is too bad for them.

What Mr. Stallman seems to be advocating is that as long as nobody collects any money directly for distribution that it should all be free. It means an end to all revenue (after the first distribution) of anything digital - all the first recipient has to do is "share". And why wouldn't everyone on the Internet "share" in this manner? I cannot envision any reason why there wouldn't be web services set up to assist with this, probably ad supported.

It means the end of revenue from any commercial works. I suppose there might be some pretty creative ways to trick people into paying for something later on - restricted distribution, over-the-top embedded ads and using music, movies and books as advertising for other physical-world services that can't be copied digitally. But for the most part I think the idea of commercial media would pretty much end.

Some would say that it is about time. Some folks actually employed in the production of commercial media and software might notice they are going to lose their job. But they can join Mr. Stallman in donating their newly-found free time to non-commercial (free) software development. If they aren't a programmer, well, they don't fit in Mr. Stallman's world anyway. That's why we have welfare.

Re:Read petition and laugh (3, Insightful)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32604720)

The entertainment industry does not have either a) a right to exist or b) a right to make money. Agreements such as ACTA and laws like the DMCA provide those rights. The MAFIAA wants to have it both ways: it's a free market when it comes to pricing, competition and business practices, but it's draconian laws when it comes to finding ways to support it's aging business model, and force people to pay when there are better alternatives available.

The guilt card about lack of employment for software and media producers is priceless. Not to mention that the business value of "production" versus "creation" is questionable. Never mind how many of those in Mr. Stallman's world have lost their jobs to precisely the unethical business practices he rails against. Like me, they will have to find ways of adapting to a world with changing ideas. Or, like you say, maybe they can just go on welfare. I, for one, won't pity them, for none was shown to me.

Re:Read petition and laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32605084)

"And why wouldn't everyone on the Internet "share" in this manner? I cannot envision any reason why there wouldn't be web services set up to assist with this, probably ad supported."

WHAM. Just like that, they're commercializing on it and the book, hell, the entire library, should be tossed at them.

It doesn't matter if you're just "recouping your costs" or trying to become a millionaire. If a person is so determined to be giving shit others made away, they should be willing to accept the costs to do. To be clear, even if you were burning a crate of DVDs and snailmailing them across the country, the infringer should be willing to cover the costs out of their own pocket or not be doing it in the first place.

Yes, this is only my opinion just like parent's was.

Re:Read petition and laugh (1)

tobiah (308208) | more than 4 years ago | (#32605922)

exactly

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?