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!

Why Google, Bing, Yahoo Should Fear ACTA

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the reason-enough-to-keep-it-secret dept.

Google 290

littlekorea writes "US intellectual property law expert Jonathan Band has warned that Silicon Valley's search engines, hosting companies, and e-commerce giants have much to fear from the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, negotiations for which continued in Switzerland today. The fear for search engines in particular is the erosion of 'fair use' protections and introduction of statutory damages, both of which could lead to more copyright claims from rights holders." The article links a marked-up ACTA draft (PDF) that Band and a coalition of library organizations and rights groups believe is more balanced. Quoting Band: "Our high-level concern is that ACTA does not reflect the balance in US IP law, [which] contains strong protections and strong exceptions. ACTA exports only the strong protections, but not the strong exceptions."

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

Fuck it (1, Offtopic)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 4 years ago | (#32733690)

I'm already -1

Re:Fuck it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734502)

preposterous

Re:Fuck it (-1, Offtopic)

logjon (1411219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734522)

The Habbofags are still out for your Karma, eh?

kdawson is a fag (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32733726)

He sucks CmdrTacos micropenis for fun and profit!

The untimely war on filesharing. (5, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32733742)

The war on filesharing is untimely.(Bad economics)

Because they'd rather you not listen to their music at all than let you download it.

This is about information control, and controlling who can and cannot be happy. It's also about profit margins. But the truth is most college students and recent college grads aren't going to spend more than a specific amount of money every year on entertainment no matter what they do. They can pass any laws they want and it's not going to improve the job market. They should be finding a way to make money on ad revenue but instead they want to keep the old models even when the economy doesn't support it.

Because they'd rather lock you up than hire you or give you a raise.

If a college student budgets $200 to spend on movies and music for that year thats what he or she is going to spend. He or she can spend it all on one concert or buy albums and movies on itunes but the limit is not going to change no matter what laws they pass. As the economy is getting worse they keep upping the price of the music on itunes so that young people can afford less and less of it, while at the same time complaining that sales are down. They cannot have it both ways, and they have to compromise just like everyone else has been forced to do in this economy.

If they think passing ACTA is a good idea it's not. It's not going to make someone friendly to your business if you sue them. This goes for corporations like Google or for individuals. And the 3 strikes policy is completely unacceptable, ruin a persons livelihood because they downloaded some music they couldn't afford or didn't want to risk paying for? Find another strategy, not wait until an economic depression to crack down hard on all the poor jobless undergrads and recent grads unless they really want to make the the situation worse and make people desperate.

If sales figures are down it's because we have less disposable income. If people aren't buying music, movies or art it's because they are paying their bills. Find a way to expand the market, is that even up for debate? And before anyone comments, I own several copyrights and these people backing ACTA do not represent me.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (4, Interesting)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734000)

the problem with this sentiment is that I have (many) friends who, because they can, allot 0 dollars for entertainment and download every movie, song and game they want from the torrents. They then use that 100-200 dollars that would otherwise have been entertainment funds to buy more pot, better brands of cigarettes or a better brand of beer/beer at a more expensive bar depending on their preferred method of intoxication.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (2, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734058)

The other fundamental flaw in the argument is claiming that college students and recent grads are actually capable of making a budget and sticking to it. They're more likely to just start heaping up debt on credit cards, because that's what makes the economy go round and round until the bottom falls out like a kid sitting on a pool drain.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734086)

Well I'm assuming by "budget" he means "money lying around that is not needed for food/rent that they can spend on whatever they want".

Not every graduate is financially retarded. (2, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734362)

I would think a majority can use a spreadsheet and know about http://www.gnucash.org/ [gnucash.org] and I guess if they didn't they know now.

Those kids who are in debt now are going to be in debt for a long long.. js.

Re:Not every graduate is financially retarded. (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734548)

I think you're overly optimistic; beyond that, can use a spreadsheet != will use one to keep a monthly budget.

Re:Not every graduate is financially retarded. (2, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734594)

I'm also pretty sure that the majority of people don't know about GNUCash. Just because people on Slashdot know about it, doesn't mean "normal people" do.

Re:Not every graduate is financially retarded. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734604)

ITT: Gay plug for OSS

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734908)

Obviously, not all students or recent grads or young people in general stick to a budget. But isn't it better for society if more of them do, and more people learn to budget younger?
      So long as there are tremendous interest rate differentials, society takes the hits for even a few idiots. One fool who signs a contract for a $4,000 big screen color TV at 36% and defaults, has as much negative impact as 18 wiser heads have positive impact by saving $4,000 each, if their return is only 2%. We could do a lot of financially educating people and never get anywhere near to where the ratio is better than 18/19ths wise people. So long as there are bail outs, you, me, and even the RIAA take a big economic hit waiting to get the fast growing economy we might have with better than 18/19ths smart budgeters.
      You're claiming the grandparent argument is fundamentally flawed. Either you really meant to claim that no college student or recent grad can make a budget, which is obvious trolling, or I'll give you credit for sanity and assume you really meant not enough of them do. That's true, but when the rules are structured so that enough equals better than 18 in 19, what you really just said is the fundamental flaw is that the whole US economy can't work, period. So, are you a troll or a commie? I'm not really trying to make you look like either one here, but if we give the benefit of a doubt as to trolling, I think it's only fair to warn you you have reasoned your way to a point where the entire republican right would call you a dirty commie commie hippy libtard.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32735038)

Here's my budget, which I followed not only as a student but also as an adult:

- Don't Spend

Simple as that and over the years I've watched my bank account grow to almost half-a-million. Pretty soon (age 45 or so) I'll be able to retire and just live off the interest, plus an occasional contract job. Personally I think all Americans should follow my budget, but I know most would rather carry ~$10,000 in credit card debt plus ~$120,000 in mortgage debt, rather than sacrifice and save.

SIG (from other forum)

- My internet cost == $15/month. My cellphone cost == $5/month. My television cost = Free!

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734336)

How much do they spend on concerts, going to movies, and buying video games and the like? I don't know many people who don't spend ANY money on entertainment. Potheads might be the one exception.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734476)

Movies? They almost all torrent and don't bother with theaters. I have so much trouble finding people to go to theaters with.

Video Games? 1/2 of them Torrent or do without, 1/2 of them torrent most PC and buy console (used if they can).

Concerts are more of a grab bag depending on whether or not they LIKE concerts but the ones that do will pay. But that doesn't really count because they literally cannot torrent a concert. Their only options are to pay or not get the concert. Which is really damning evidence to the "People will buy just as much" crowd because the only solid stream of revenue that shows in the one that they CAN'T pirate, implying that if you couldn't pirate the CDs you'd be much more likely to buy them.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32735070)

Movies? They almost all torrent and don't bother with theaters. I have so much trouble finding people to go to theaters with.

Video Games? 1/2 of them Torrent or do without, 1/2 of them torrent most PC and buy console (used if they can).

Concerts are more of a grab bag depending on whether or not they LIKE concerts but the ones that do will pay. But that doesn't really count because they literally cannot torrent a concert. Their only options are to pay or not get the concert. Which is really damning evidence to the "People will buy just as much" crowd because the only solid stream of revenue that shows in the one that they CAN'T pirate, implying that if you couldn't pirate the CDs you'd be much more likely to buy them.

If they couldn't pirate cds they wouldn't be any more likely to buy it. It's like asking someone who never buys music to suddenly start buying it. No what they'd do is borrow their friends CDs, trade CDs, but never buy them. Why buy CDs when you can borrow? Why buy DVDs when you can rent or borrow?

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734720)

>>>I don't know many people who don't spend ANY money on entertainment.

That's true. Why just yesterday I decided I would splurge and buy Baltimore Otakon tickets. So that brings my grand total of cash spent on entertainment this year to..... oh, about $60. - POINT: Even if I could not download movies, doesn't mean I would run out and buy the DVD. 1 download == 1 lost sale is a very poor assumption. A lot of us don't spend. And the record/movie companies know thier numbers on "lost sales" are bogus but they don't care so long as they can convince 51% of congressmen that it's true.

ACTA will pass.

It will be shoved through the same way NAFTA, DMCA, Pelosicare, and the EU Lisbon Treaty were shoved through even though 60-80% were against all of those bills/treaties. Alex Jones claims it's because governments are being run by a banking elite and megacorporations, but I don't think it's anything so complicated. I believe our leaders in the EU, US, and elsewhere have simply decided they are the new nobility, and they are blessed by god/time/fate/whatever to rule over the serfs (us). i.e. Democracy is dead; the People are ignored.

ACTA will pass. It might change names (like the EU Constitution was renamed Lisbon Treaty) but eventually it will pass in direct opposition to our wishes.

L8r.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734426)

What makes it even more confusing...

Steam Summer Sale [slashdot.org]

You can get great games for bargin bin prices. TF2? $6. GTA4? $4.99. 25% off, 50% off, 66% off.

When the price point of a game drops below $5, I don't want to hear any excuses about piracy.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (2, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734616)

Nope. The problem is that they spend the $200 on their iPhones or DVDs.

DVD sales are up, cinema attendence is continually breaking records, Apple is selling millions of iPhones ... something has to give, and that 'something' is the thing which is easiest to copy/get for free, ie. music.

I do agree 100% with the sentiment that even if the RIAA gets every law and every copy protection it can possibly dream up it won't make any more money than it's making now. People aren't going to put down their iPods and stop going to the cinema with their friends just so they can have another CD on their shelf.

OTOH ... the world will be a far worse place to live in if we let them do it.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734876)

I do agree 100% with the sentiment that even if the RIAA gets every law and every copy protection it can possibly dream up it won't make any more money than it's making now. People aren't going to put down their iPods and stop going to the cinema with their friends just so they can have another CD on their shelf.

I feel that if they managed to get the torrent sites shut down they'd see an increase in CD/itunes sales. People like music enough that they'll pay if they have to.

OTOH, like you said, the world would be a worse place if they did.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

ParanoiaBOTS (903635) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734660)

the problem with this sentiment is that I have (many) friends who, because they can, allot 0 dollars for entertainment and download every movie, song and game they want from the torrents. They then use that 100-200 dollars that would otherwise have been entertainment funds to buy more pot, better brands of cigarettes or a better brand of beer/beer at a more expensive bar depending on their preferred method of intoxication.

While I can understand what you are saying, there is a counter point here. Studies have shown, time and again, that those that pirate music, movies, etc are typically the ones that spend the most on them as well.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734826)

Could I get a link to those studies? I'm interested now.

Not that I'm calling you a liar.

Trust me, I know the people who make that statistic a reality. They're people like me and some of my friends who AREN'T in college who torrent 5 gigs of material and buy 2 gigs based on what we like. But there is an enormous group of people who don't. (usually cross sectioning well with the pothead demographic. I think it's the whole "fuck the law, I'll do what I want" mentality. Not that I have any problem with smoking pot, I'm just saying the two demographics overlap a LOT) People who will never buy a CD or Movie they don't have to. People with entire hard drives of pirated material and shelves of burned PS2 games whose total financial contribution was to buy the external hard drive and pay the modder to chip the PS2

Why did they change the business model? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734796)

I have (many) friends who, because they can, allot 0 dollars for entertainment and download every movie, song and game they want from the torrents

Replace "download" by "listen on the radio". Do you know of anyone who opted for not buying an album because the songs were available on the radio?

Music sales have always been like that. People get most of it free, then they buy one particular album because they like it specially much, or to give as a gift. I have a few albums I bought mostly for the enclosed poster when I was a teen.

The big failure of the media industry is in insisting on changing their old business model that worked so well for decades. My grandparents already got music for free on the radio and films for free on the TV, why should I start now paying every time I listen to a music or watch a film?

Re:Why did they change the business model? (1)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32735026)

Radio isn't "free". The radio station buys rights to play the song and then sells advertisers rights to advertise on their station. You don't directly pay cash for it but the music industry still profits off the radio and you still hear the ads or at least the throwaway "brought to you by Mennen"

Re:Why did they change the business model? (1)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32735060)

Also, owning a pirated version of a cd is much different from hearing the released single on the radio occasionally if you tune in at the right time.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

harl (84412) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734026)

This is about information control, and controlling who can and cannot be happy.

Wow that's quite the sentence.

The first part is the key problem with the copyright conflict. You view it as information. The rights holder, and the people authorized to use force, views it as property.

As for the second part. What the fuck are you talking about? IP rights holders are incapable of controlling happiness. Can you restate your point please?

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734130)

As for the second part. What the fuck are you talking about? IP rights holders are incapable of controlling happiness. Can you restate your point please?

Not sure what the OP meant by this exactly, but:

  1. You need to be alive in order to be happy.
  2. IP rights holders (patent holders in particular) in many cases possess the legal right to deny access to a product or process that can keep someone alive, either by the patent right itself, or by the market power conveyed by the patent that allows them to price the item out of the reach of people.
  3. So in some sense, yes, IP rights holders can control happiness :-)

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734330)

Simplified your logic for ya:

You need to have the new Lady Gaga record in order to be happy.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734432)

You need to have the new Lady Gaga record in order to be happy.

I'm not sure that this is a true statement, though that's what Interscope/Universal/Vivendi tells me.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734748)

Lady Gaga records aren't patented, and patents are what I'm talking about. Read my other comment [slashdot.org] for more detail.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

harl (84412) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734338)

I'm just going to assume that's a joke based on your use of the emoticon.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734732)

It's not really a joke. The difference in price between patented medicines and patent-expired medicines, or those that are still under patent but obtained with compulsory licenses is significant.

Patent rights contribute significantly to the cost of medicines and medical technology. They're not the only cost, nor the most significant in every case, but given that expenditures are always limited, more money spent as a result of the patent means fewer people treated.

It's not a direct line, but yes, patents can kill. This is why there was such mobilization around ARVs in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and why patents and public health continue to be a huge area of debate. It's also relevant to ACTA, because, as most people here seem to continually forget, ACTA implicates patents as well.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

harl (84412) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734962)

Yes the "logic" you posted is a joke.

However the follow up has some merit.

What's the solution? You seem to be saying that people who develop medicine shouldn't be able to charge and/or profit from it?

It's also relevant to ACTA, because, as most people here seem to continually forget, ACTA implicates patents as well.

This is the first I've heard of it. More info please.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734566)

As for the second part. What the fuck are you talking about? IP rights holders are incapable of controlling happiness. Can you restate your point please?

Not sure what the OP meant by this exactly, but:

  1. You need to be alive in order to be happy.
  2. IP rights holders (patent holders in particular) in many cases possess the legal right to deny access to a product or process that can keep someone alive, either by the patent right itself, or by the market power conveyed by the patent that allows them to price the item out of the reach of people.
  3. So in some sense, yes, IP rights holders can control happiness :-)

Thats not an angle I had considered but it's possible. The angle I considered is the information control angle. Let us assume that profits could be even greater if they relinquished control of information and just put a 10 or 20 second ad before ALL youtube videos and paid directly to the IP holders. This might actually generate more money than they would get from the digital music sales. But this would give control to the user and creator while the IP holder which is usually the record industry has to relinquish control.

They control everything right now from what songs get the most radio play, to what songs/artists get put on MTV and VH1. This is very much like Microsoft thinking they are entitled to profits from Windows sales to the point where the customer views it as the Windows tax.

On top of this hardware is made more expensive as well because the hardware companies often take orders from IPholders who tell them they need all this advanced anti copyright type technology which never really works to begin with. Google is profiting just fine off ad revenue and so do a lot of websites. There is also the subscription model, micropayments, and many many other models which would be more profitable for artists and customers but which reduce control from IP holders who usually aren't the customers or the artists. The music industry is pimps and hoes and the artists are the hoes.

Does it have to be this way?

Information dominance is the point. (2, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734458)

It's not a matter of if they are capable of controlling happiness. Thats their way of expressing dominance. It's not entirely about profits, because if it were they would take profits even at a loss of control which they don't and wont ever do.

IP rights holders want control of entertainment. They do not want free or cheap entertainment to exist. You have some of them trying to ban radio because people might record from it. Of course it doesn't work but if the world worked the way their model proposes it should, if you don't have the money then you wouldn't be able to listen to music, watch movies, or play electronic games.

Fortunately there is the creative commons, the copyleft strategy. No I don't think economic control is the same thing as profitability. Microsoft wants economic control and information dominance. Google wants profits and will let you do whatever with information as long as they get to organize it and they make their money by eyeballs.

It's not an easy point to understand because it's about power not profits.

Re:Information dominance is the point. (1)

harl (84412) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734760)

It's not an easy point to understand because it's about power not profits.

It's about both. They want power so they can make profits.

Thats their way of expressing dominance. It's not entirely about profits, because if it were they would take profits even at a loss of control which they don't and wont ever do.

What's wrong with them expressing dominance over their property? Are you saying no one should own anything?

They're allowed to take what profits they want and make what business deals they want. I think you're reading way too much into things.

They want to make money anytime someone watches Transformers 2, for example. That's it. They want legislation and DRM to make it as hard as possible for people to not pay them. They don't care about you. They don't care about your happiness. The just want cash every time someone watches their movie, listens to their song. It's really just that simple.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (3, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734044)

I have some questions about your statements.

As the economy is getting worse they keep upping the price of the music on itunes so that young people can afford less and less of it, while at the same time complaining that sales are down.

Hey, I really really hate iTMS. I've posted on here about how crappy it is time and time again so I'll spare you that rant. But what on Earth are you talking about? Aren't songs still 99 cents? Several years later even? Are they even adjusting for inflation (I know we had little one year but ...)? Hell, in the past four months I've bought more $5 albums (that's albums) from Amazon's MP3 Service than compact discs. You were kind of right about the budget thing. I would not recommend telling them that they'll lose the poor college student market and use that as logic that their entire revenue will drop out from under them though. As a working professional I'd argue that if the prices dropped more, I'd undoubtedly end up spending more than that.

If they think passing ACTA is a good idea it's not. It's not going to make someone friendly to your business if you sue them.

I thought the whole idea of a global ACTA was so that the RIAA and MPAA would feel okay with distributing music and movies digitally on a global level? Because it would require local governments to allow/enforce their terms and conditions for licensing and copyright? And that's why China and India hate it -- it would burden them something fierce with enforcement.

I mean, every single time there's an article on YouTube or BBC iPlayer or Hulu or <TV Station> making their shows free online the rest of the world cries out that it's only for the US or UK. I thought the purpose of ACTA was to try to satisfy the content owners who have been preventing technology from disseminating their product? Yeah from our angle it really sucks for the end consumer but on the other hand you might be able to watch Hulu in China. These two things are linked.

Find another strategy ...

There is no other strategy. Capitalism is great but a nasty side effect are these crazy contracts, men in the middle, managers, labels, exclusivity, distribution contracts, etc that result in this maelstrom of lawsuits when some people just want to listen to music. Bands love their fans. That's the source of their income. But tack on what the music industry has become and suddenly they look like the biggest danger to their fans.

In my opinion, it's not a new strategy but rather they need a total restructuralization of how the industry functions. Distribution is cheap. The labels are leeches. Isn't this obvious?

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734182)

Modded "Troll"? That's funny. An explanation of the view opposite Slashdot is always a Troll.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734444)

Specific to your example of Hulu, I wonder if it would actually make a difference. I haven't heard specifically about Hulu and BBC, but the problem with the BBC stuff being shown online outside the UK is contracts specifying regional rights, not copyright law. Might the same thing be the problem with Hulu? I mean, it isn't available anywhere outside the US right now, and

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734682)

Only we don't need them to distribute for us anymore when we have Youtube and Itunes. They now are basically an information control cartel who profits based on their political connections alone. Most of the new musicians coming out aren't even real artists. They don't write their own music, they don't sing on stage, they can't dance, they can't play an instrument, the only thing they can do is look pretty and pretend to be an artist. This is the current system and it sucks.

Why don't we get to choose? Because we lost mp3.com which in my opinion had changed the game for the better and ended up with Itunes which accepted the information control cartel's influence.

I'm not saying the IP holders dont have a right to profit from the IP they own. But they already seem to be making billions in profits, why do they need ACTA? ACTA seems more like a control measure than a profit measure. And if it weren't about control why do they have to act shady and operate in complete secrecy? Usually when people operate in secrecy it's because they are conspiring to rule the world not benefit it.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734848)

Aren't songs still 99 cents?

Nope. They've been $1.29 for quite a while, even since Apple removed the DRM. (Which still doesn't matter since all files sold use Apple's "Advanced Codec" instead of industry-standard MP3s so they're still iPod-only, unlike every other online music store in existence.)

Some songs cost more than that, and quite a few are only available on albums. Likewise, the cost of an album is up to like $12.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (5, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734068)

You make a very good case, but you miss one very important point. As the record and movie companies have increased their emphasis that downloading unauthorized copies of their products is illegal I have decreased the amount that I do it to the point that I no longer do so at all. At the same time, I have also decreased the amount of their product that I buy, which has also reached zero.
My failure to buy is not because I cannot afford to. It is not because I don't want to give my money to such jerks. It is because I just can't be bothered to find out whether the product they are selling is good enough to spend my money on.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (2, Interesting)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734672)

As you get older you care less and less about the latest movies and music.. That might explain your change of behavior more than anything else.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734714)

That is a probable result as well but the reason that isn't happening is because they killed off mp3.com so now it's a lot harder to buy anything else. Once again that in my opinion was a deliberate operation on their behalf to retain control and not about profits. Mp3.com was no threat to their market but it allowed individuals like you and me to sell our music and make money without giving them their cut.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734346)

This is just one of the final Baby Boomer holdovers. ALL IP companies in the US will crumble and fall as they have no flexibility, the ACTA exemplifies that.
We had a very similar situation with radio in the early 20th century, it was dealt with by blackballing all who imposed restriction on their IP.
People have forgotten how to negotiate, they want instant gratification and total control, they will squeeze so hard they will have nothing left in their hands.
Creative Commons and GNU are the only ways forward, all media will be free, because all non-free media will cease to exist.
If an artist creates art and no one sees it, is it art?

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734486)

Assuming that a college student is budgeting their money at all... It's unlikely those that do are the target market of music and movie sellers.

Re:The untimely war on filesharing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734960)

Your argument is valid in places, but we live in a capitalist society. THINGS COST MONEY. So if you only budget $200 for songs, then you should only GET $200 in songs. But so many people have the attitude now that "well I want it so I should just get it". That's not the way things work.

You're correct though, in saying that this economy is a bad time to be doing this sort of thing.

The piratebay got sued.... (2, Informative)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | more than 4 years ago | (#32733744)

...so why can't google?

Oh rite...they can afford the lawyers.

Huzzuh! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32733780)

First post!

so ACTA will kill the internet? IP rights? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32733818)

so ACTA will kill the internet? so any thing can be claimed to be taking some ones ip?

I clam the IP rights to the letter E will want a fee of $0.01 per use!

I claim the COPYrights to the letter E! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32733842)

I claim the COPYrights to the letter E will take a fee of $0.01 per use!

Re:I claim the COPYrights to the letter E! (0, Offtopic)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32733884)

The "joke" wasn't funny the first time nor the second time around.

you must pay $0.05 or get shut off! (0, Troll)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32733966)

you must pay $0.05 or get shut off!

Re:you must pay $0.05 or get shut off! (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734010)

Apparently your math skills are just as poor as your comedic skills.

Re:you must pay $0.05 or get shut off! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734366)

Volum Discount

Avoid'd using thy lattar to avoid paying such a stupid tax to "Joe the (dumbass) dragon"*

*axampt from tax sins naym is rafarans.

Re:you must pay $0.05 or get shut off! (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734440)

Now that was actually funny.

Re:you must pay $0.05 or get shut off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734032)

and that wasn't funny either

Re:I claim the COPYrights to the letter E! (1)

harl (84412) | more than 4 years ago | (#32733974)

You can't. You didn't create it.

Re:I claim the COPYrights to the letter E! (1)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734166)

Since when did that ever matter? All those out there today that produce intellectual property never see the benefits, or even own it, instead it is owned by some company who takes all of the profits. Scientists and Engineers that should be filthy rich from amazing inventions might be getting paid 50k a year while the stockholders of their company walk away with all of the money that they earned.

There is nothing in copyright that says "You had to create this in order to own it".

Re:I claim the COPYrights to the letter E! (2, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734216)

There is nothing in copyright that says "You had to create this in order to own it".

In order to copyright something you either have to be the creator or the creator has to cede the copyright to you. If all those scientists and engineers didn't want any of their works to be copyrighted by their bosses then maybe they should start their own business or not agree to the clause were you forfeit the copyrights to your work.

Re:I claim the COPYrights to the letter E! (2, Insightful)

harl (84412) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734320)

You are completely wrong. It's always mattered. Only the creator can copyright something.

Copyright is treated the same as property. You can buy, sell, transfer just the same as a physical object.

There's also the work for hire concept. I'm paying you to make something for me. The copyright is mine. Otherwise if I payed you to do something I could never use it.

If these people you mention don't want to get rich then they need hold onto their copyrights or negotiate much better terms when they agree to give up the copyright. They hold all the power. You can't steal a copyright.

Re:I claim the COPYrights to the letter E! (2, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734326)

If it was that way, only rich engineers would produce anything. I'm in the middle of trying to bring a small electronics project to market and I can tell you that the start up costs alone are nudging $100k, and that's not including the research, design and development I've already done. If I want to take it to the next step, I need a loan, VC investment or I need a company to bring it to market. I wish it wasn't that way, but that's economics. As your projects get bigger, the amount of funding you need to take off increases dramatically.

Re:I claim the COPYrights to the letter E! (1)

harl (84412) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734354)

Title 17 is the United States Code
Section 201 (a)

  201. Ownership of copyright

(a) Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.

Re:I claim the COPYrights to the letter E! (1)

c-reus (852386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734240)

Sure I can, as long as I have big enough army of lawyers. Would you like to be sued and spend the next 3 years tied up in that lawsuit or just pay the measly 0.01$ per letter "e"?

Re:I claim the COPYrights to the letter E! (1)

harl (84412) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734454)

No you can't.

Pro-se. Motion for Summary judgment. The work in question was created before the platinif was born. It is impossible for them to have created it. They have no documentation to show transfer of the copyright.

Additionally this is all pointless as the work is old enough that it's in the public domain.

Re:so ACTA will kill the internet? IP rights? (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32733906)

They want to make money off the internet in a way that the internet isn't designed for.
Imagine if you got charged extra on your cable bill for every video you watch on MTV or ever song you listen to on the radio were 99 cent. Now if they wanted to go with micropayments I could accept that. If we pay 10 cent a play or something like that but the point it is should never surpass X amount of money per month. They know how much money we have to spend on entertainment, they know a lot of us don't have big money so raising the prices on mp3s to $1.25 might have been a good move if the economy were improving but now it's worse, shouldn't they bring their prices down for a while? No of course they don't do that.

How about people who don't have a job? How about ad revenue based play? You download an mp3 for free and each time you play it you hear a brief 10 second ad before it starts? This would work too but they don't consider anything that could change their control model. I'm sure Google wouldn't mind the ad revenue model, as it works with Youtube.

Re:so ACTA will kill the internet? IP rights? (3, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734012)

A brief 10-second ad before every time I try and play a song would be worse than paying $1.25 to never hear the ad. That shit would get old really, really quickly.

Re:so ACTA will kill the internet? IP rights? (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734736)

A brief 10-second ad before every time I try and play a song would be worse than paying $1.25 to never hear the ad. That shit would get old really, really quickly.

Not if you don't have a job. If you have a good job then it's worse but the entire world isn't going to agree with you on that. Also a lot of songs suck and aren't worth buying so you wont be listening to it more than a few times anyway.

Re:so ACTA will kill the internet? IP rights? (1)

DiademBedfordshire (1662223) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734272)

You download an mp3 for free and each time you play it you hear a brief 10 second ad before it starts?

I would be ok with this kind of pricing model, like hulu and youtube, but the downside is that I have to listen or watch the same exact ad ten times in a row. I would be more ok with commercials or even more commercials if I only ever had to see the same ad once a day. I don't care if I see multiple ads for the same company as long as they are different each time.

Re:so ACTA will kill the internet? IP rights? (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734750)

You download an mp3 for free and each time you play it you hear a brief 10 second ad before it starts?

I would be ok with this kind of pricing model, like hulu and youtube, but the downside is that I have to listen or watch the same exact ad ten times in a row. I would be more ok with commercials or even more commercials if I only ever had to see the same ad once a day. I don't care if I see multiple ads for the same company as long as they are different each time.

If you want to listen to the song 10 times in a row maybe you should just buy the song? And of course the ad should be dynamic and targeted. If you listen to Snoop's gin and juice perhaps a liquor ad would make sense.

different worlds (4, Insightful)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 4 years ago | (#32733832)

lawmakers and everyday people live in different worlds. what they refuse to understand is that if people can get something for free, they will get it for free. period.

another important issue is that it's very dangerous to try to forbid something that you can't actually stop. that's when you lose all authority.

offtopic: http://xkcd.com/137/ [xkcd.com] . we shouldn't be afraid to say the truth about what we want.

Re:different worlds (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734766)

lawmakers and everyday people live in different worlds. what they refuse to understand is that if people can get something for free, they will get it for free. period.

another important issue is that it's very dangerous to try to forbid something that you can't actually stop. that's when you lose all authority.

offtopic: http://xkcd.com/137/ [xkcd.com] . we shouldn't be afraid to say the truth about what we want.

So profit off them getting something for free. Google proves it's possible and really easy.

Re:different worlds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734780)

Forget about the Humble Indie Bundle (http://www.wolfire.com/humble [wolfire.com] ) already?

Google need not fear (1)

BhaKi (1316335) | more than 4 years ago | (#32733946)

Bing and Yahoo? Yes. Google? No. Google has excellent tie-ups with cronies in high-levels.

Re:Google need not fear (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734050)

Are you saying that microsoft doesn't have excellent tie-ups with cronies in high-levels?

Re:Google need not fear (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734194)

No, he's showing us that he's just another anti-Google conspiracy nut.

Re:Google need not fear (3, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734212)

Bah, he should be an equal opportunity conspiracy nut like the rest of us.

Re:Google need not fear (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734412)

Are you saying that microsoft doesn't have excellent tie-ups with cronies in high-levels?

Surely only the third-rate cronies would want to be stuck lobbying for a company like Microsoft which is becoming increasingly irrelevant?

Does anyone outside Seattle really care what Microsoft thinks anymore? To me Windows is just some weird legacy system I have to interact with while there's Linux for real work and most of the 'shiny stuff' in the IT world these days is either on mobiles or the web.

Re:Google need not fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734462)

If you look at marketshare you'd soon realize that you live in a fantasy land.

And I'm 99.99% sure that whatever company you happen to belong to would kill to be as "irrelevant" as MS. I guess this is just another example of how people who spend too much time on Slashdot can't seem to grasp the reality of the computing world landscape.

Re:Google need not fear (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734602)

If you look at marketshare you'd soon realize that you live in a fantasy land.

What relevance does current market share have? Windows is just so 20th century, and Microsoft have shown no indication of being able to move on... it's not going to get substantially better, and people are going to increasingly move to the numerous alternatives now on offer.

Microsoft were important when they were the 800 pound gorilla who controlled the PC market; they no longer control the market and PCs are now considered last century's news by an increasingly large fraction of the population.

Anyone else currious? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32733948)

Anyone else wonder how long these companies can go before they ruin the 'wrong' life. You know, sue into oblivion that guy that is willing to take his collection of rifles and 'extract his payments' using his own judicial system?

I mean, the tax code caused a guy to fly his plane into the IRS station, and as I understand it, that guy wasn't even financially ruined. The problem with a corrupt system is that once people see how corrupt it is, they realize that to get justice they need to do it their own way.

This seems to be the cycle: system goes corrupt, people realize system is corrupt, people enact a revolution, people ensure system cannot go corrupt, system overrides protections, system goes corrupt.

Re:Anyone else currious? (1)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734588)

One guy flying his plane into an IRS station does not a revolution make.

Q&A with ACTA Negotiators in Lucerne (4, Informative)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734060)

Below is the text from a Q&A session with ACTA negotiators held on June 28, 2010 in Lucerne. These were notes taken by hand by the questioner, and the answers were considered "on the record." I have highlighted some important parts, and omitted some irrelevant parts.

On June 28, 2010, at 7:30pm Swiss time, a group of civil society representatives met with 21 ACTA negotiators. The negotiators included representatives (21 in all) from the Switzerland, France, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Mexico, Japan, U.S., Morocco, Canada and Korea.
...

The questions raised were given to the negotiators in advance and the answers were represented as those of the collective views of the negotiators rather than of an individual negotiator unless otherwise indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the speaker is the chair of the Swiss Delegation who was appointed to speak for the group.

There are a couple news items here. First, there is an “emerging consensus” to take patents out of the border measure chapter, but not out of the rest of the agreement. Some parties appear to desire to take patents out of the whole text. The EU appears to be in favor of leaving patents in the civil chapter. The change appears to be a rather direct result of concerns raised by access to medicines advocates.

There are still major concerns on access to medicines and free flow of goods in the border chapter. Negotiators seem committed to requiring in transit seizure and it is possible (although there seems some division) that it will include common trademark infringements and non-commercial scale copyright infringement, thus reaching far beyond TRIPS standards.

There was an admission that countries may have to change their laws to comply with ACTA. That may not be real news, but I have not heard it admitted by a delegate before. But the EU continued to press that they will not change their laws.

There seemed to be little desire to remove or narrow considerably the internet chapter. There was a desire by some delegates to ensure that DMCA-like protections are in the ACTA internet chapter. But several discussed (off line) the desire to combat “file sharing,” even apparently when not done on a commercial scale.

Meeting with ACTA negotiators, Lucerne, 28.06.2010; Compiled questions from the civil society for the Q&A session

1. Will negotiators commit to continue releasing the text of the Agreement following completion of this week's negotiating round and subsequently until the completion (or abandonment) of negotiations?

A: This is a question that the delegation takes up at end of each round. This will be a question to be discussed and agreed by consensus.

On issue of public comments, this is a plurilateral process and each country will have to take that into account. It is not as if the ACTA group is a formal organization. For a pluralateral agreement, we have promoted a great deal of transparency already – more than in other agreements.

Q. Wait. In other processes – e.g. anything done at WIPO or the example of the Doha declaration – civil society got access to text before and after each round. That has not been the case here. We received text once, after years of negotiations and close to what you declared to be the end point of the discussions.

A. Those are multilateral negotiations. This is a plurilateral negotiation. We do not have a secretariat to assist with such matters. This has been an extremely transparent process.

2. Are negotiators reviewing the text of the Agreement to ensure it is fully consistent with the WTO TRIPS Agreement? Will the WTO or other independent legal experts be asked to review the text of the Agreement to ensure it is legally consistent with WTO rules? Will you provide clear and objective information regarding the evidence base upon which ACTA is purportedly justified, as far as international law, access to medicines and Internet are concerned?

A: This is in the process of being negotiated. It is clear that parties are WTO members and they have rights and obligations under WTO. This does not change if they should join ACTA. There is dispute settlement possibility. If there is a question of compliance then another interested WTO member could invoke dispute settlement. With regard to the press release of the 8th round, the negotiators declared that the ACTA will be consistent with TRIPS and Doha.

On the question of the evidence base – the ACTA countries are seriously concerned about the phenomena of growing counterfeiting and piracy. We will not cite one particular figure or study. Taken together the development cannot be denied. Whether it is about real or intellectual property it is the government’s duty to provide effective enforcement. More effective enforcement standards are needed to address this phenomenon.

3. Criminal sanctions are being negotiated, which imply the usage of police & judiciary systems, as proven by the presence among the negotiators of the EU Presidency. How can you justify any legitimacy for criminal sanctions (which highly impact fundamental freedoms) being negotiated outside of any democratic frame, in the secrecy of what is much more than a "trade agreement"?

I think here it is important to point out that the ACTA negotiations are no different than other inter party negotiations. If at the end the agreement should contain additional obligations for a party compared to a country’s laws, implementation of the ACTA will necessitate that it will adjust its national legal situation. For most countries, simply the approval of ACTA is dependent on parliamentary approval. Thus we very much do believe that the democratic process is being complied with. And this process of consulting with stakeholders is evidence of that commitment.

4. What is the prevailing definition of a 'counterfeit' amongst negotiators? With respect to pharmaceuticals, is it the official position of negotiators that medicines which are suspected of patent infringement are counterfeit? If not, will you commit to ensure that the entirety of ACTA excludes patents from the scope of the agreement as the inclusion of patents is unrelated to the issue of counterfeit, and poses significant risks for access to medicines in developing countries?

A. The issue of definitions is still under negotiation. The only definition currently in the text is for counterfeit trademark goods, which reflects the TRIPS agreement.

As regard to risks to access to medicines in developing countries, which is a concern also raised in question 5: As far as border measures is concerned there is an emerging consensus that patents should not be included in border measures.

Q. The concern about patents is much broader. The April draft mentions patents in every section of the text, at least in brackets.

A. I can only say that there is an emerging consensus on patents being taken out of border measures.

5. Should customs authorities be authorized to seize medicines in 'transit countries', even when the medicines do not infringe any laws in the producing or importing countries? Will you commit to ensure that any inclusion of ex officio action and/or in-transit seizures is optional and not mandatory for countries? If permitted, do negotiators maintain that customs officials in exporting, transit or importing countries are capable of determining whether medicines infringe patents or whether a pharmaceutical product is 'confusingly similar'? Should there be any anti-abuse provisions included?

Follow up question: You said that there is an emerging consensus to take patents out of border measures, but you did not comment on the broader question of applying transit measures to all trademark infringement – as opposed to the more limited set of true criminal trademark counterfeiting. Nor did you address the question of whether there will be transit seizures authorized based on the law of the transit country rather than the law of the country of importation, as TRIPS Art. 52 requires.

A: We see trademarks and patents as different. We see justification to have trademark in the scope of border measures. This is the most common practice we are trying are trying to respond to. There is little justification for someone who chooses a mark that is confusingly similar, to the degree that it cannot be distinguished from the original mark.

Q. You seem to be confusing two standards in your answer. The standard that a mark cannot be distinguished from the original – that it is identical or intended to be identical – is a criminal counterfeit. But the concept of trademark infringement is much broader, at least in U.S. law. The question is whether you are applying the same border measure seizure standards to alleged counterfeits as to alleged confusingly similar trademark violations which are normally a civil matter and involves more complex legal and factual determinations. Do you understand the distinction we are making?

A: A mark that is confusingly similar is counterfeit.

A, Susan Wilson, U.S.: Wait a minute. There are civil, criminal and administrative remedies for multiple kinds of trademark violations. But there are only criminal sanctions for counterfeiting – using an identical label. The category of confusingly similar is only subject to civil remedies in most countries. There is a distinction there. Confusingly similar is not the counterfeit legal standard.

Q. Thank you. And the question is whether the confusingly similar standard of trademark infringement, as opposed to counterfeiting, is being included for consideration for in transit seizures of goods, ex officio [on the official’s own instigation, without a complaint], based on a suspicion or prima facie evidence. That is the Amoxicillin case and it worries access to medicines advocates. Is that still on the table or is there an emerging consensus to remove that standard?

A: There is no emerging consensus. It is still on the table in the border chapter.

6. Could negotiators list out the relevant anti-abuse provisions in ACTA to ensure that rights holders do not use the Agreement to expand intellectual property protection for products, including medicines? ACTA currently contains no pro-consumer provisions and minimal protections for an alleged infringer, alongside maximum privileges and incentives for a right-holder to allege infringement (including extraordinarily limited liability for abuse of recourse measures). The enforcement provisions are universally mandatory while the protections are optional. There are virtually no references to exceptions and limitations, or to TRIPS flexibilities and safeguards. Do negotiators feel that sufficient balance has been achieved under the Agreement?

ACTA delegates would like to make clear that ACTA is not about substantive standards. It is not to expand existing rights. With regard to alleged infringers, the agreement may not directly address this issue. National law on the protection of consumers will apply to implementation at the national level.

ACTA delegates do consider that ACTA provides for exceptions. E.g. the de minimus provision has been proposed by some parties and is being considered.

With regard to maximum privileges to prohibit abuse, I can point to parts of the draft permitting rights holders to request customs authorities to assist with border measures and the authorities may ask for security before asking for assistance.

7. Are negotiators aware that the Agreement could create third party liability for suppliers of active pharmaceutical ingredients whose materials may be used in mislabeled products without their knowledge? What are the reasons for holding suppliers of active pharmaceutical ingredients unknowingly liable for mislabeled products?

Liability is still under negotiations. Under national laws, liability depends on knowledge and fault. These national standards will still apply in this context.

8. ACTA can become a very strict text should certain proposals be followed, not leaving much room to maneuver for its application. Are contracting parties foreseeing to include in the agreement exceptions to preserve the public interest or flexibilities allowing for adaptation to different national realities? Will you remove institutional measures in which ACTA Member countries attempt to export heightened TRIPS-plus IP protections to other countries, and in particular developing countries

All the parties are negotiating to enter this agreement in an autonomous, voluntary manner. ACTA parties see that the agreement they would like to fashion will leave parties free to implement as they see fit in their national system.

9. How do you guarantee that policies required to benefit from liability safe harbour for Internet service/access providers won't have the effect to force them to restrict fundamental freedoms -- such as freedom of expression and communication, privacy, and the right to a fair trial -- turning them, via contractual policies, into private copyright police/justice?

It is important to recall that ACTA parties have expressed concern about fundamental rights after Wellington. We are aware of the importance of this matter and we have made clear . . . It is clear that ACTA parties are bound by human rights declarations and their own constitutions. ACTA will obviously have to comply with those norms.

Q. – but you think encouraging companies to take down expression is respecting rights? This is how you make enforcement comply with freedom of expression?

A. French delegate: You think in EU we live in a totalitarian state? Is France a dictatorship? Have you no rights in France?

Q. That is not my question.

A. I am telling you it will comply with EU law. Are you saying EU does not comply with fundamental freedoms?

Q. It is companies that collect the information. You are encouraging the companies to use that information in ways that, if done by the state, would violate fundamental privacy protections. Is that promoting fundamental rights?

A (French): Is France a totalitarian state? Is it?

Q: No, that is not what I am saying. Ok, fine. You have addressed the issue. Lets move on.

10. There have been no open hearings or other engagements with civil society since the text was released. Will you commit for the establishment of consistent mechanisms for the ongoing engagement of civil society? More generally, how are you going to fix the process to encourage greater public deliberation on the record, with access to text, and in a meaningful setting? And how are you going to fix all of the specific concerns raised in the previous questions and in all the critics upon ACTA made until now?

This is the responsibility of each ACTA country itself. This is underway. It is happening according to the rules and practices of each member. It is a country choice.

how bad will the junk patent flood be under ACTA (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734110)

how bad will the junk patent flood be under ACTA.

Any one can patent basic stuff and use ACTA to shut and lock down just about anything.

End run around the legislative process (5, Insightful)

butlerm (3112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734192)

ACTA is an end run around the legislative process. Treaties like this should ratify what is already the the consensus of the legislative bodies of the participating countries, not try to legislate entirely new bodies of law by subterfuge, on a take it or be considered an international pariah basis. Unelected international bureaucrats have no business deciding what that consensus should be.

Fuck Them All (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734282)

This is getting completely out of hand.

Copyright proponents are clearly living in a dream world if they think ACTA or suing/arresting people for downloading files is going to improve their business or profits. Here are my reasons for continually violating copyright laws, for anyone who cares to read them:

1. Copying a file is not theft. I do not deprive the original owner of the property which I am taking, therefore nothing is lost, therefore there is no crime. If somehow downloading a file made it disappear from the host machine, I could see theft being a valid argument.

2. Prices are going far beyond the worth of the materials they are asking me to pay for. Value should be computed based on what people are willing to pay for a particular item. By this logic, if trends are any indication, digital music and video files should be free or nearly free.

3. The proceeds from sales of these items does NOT go to the people who produce it. Instead, there is a cartel of corporations with no real product to speak of who collect a majority of the money paid for these items, just to police and enforce future payments on the items. This sounds ludicrous to me and I don't understand why it's allowed to continue.

4. It is often easier to get and use products illegally for free than it would be to purchase them legally, even if I was inclined to pay for them. The Pirate Bay is much easier to use than the Adobe store. It's easier to use than iTunes as well, and I don't risk the exposure of my personal information either.

5. The supposed value of these items is far beyond what I am capable of paying for them. I do not have $700 to spend on the CS4 Master Collection, nor $7000 to spend on Maya 2010. I am a poor college student, and suing me for downloading music isn't going to help me afford paying for it in the future.

6. The tactics used to police copyright are nothing less than bullying. The corporations with executives making tens of millions of dollars a year suing housewives and college students does not sit well with me, and therefore I will do everything in my power to defy these people and cause them problems.

Re:Fuck Them All (2, Interesting)

Millennium (2451) | more than 4 years ago | (#32735014)

1. Copying a file is not theft. I do not deprive the original owner of the property which I am taking, therefore nothing is lost, therefore there is no crime. If somehow downloading a file made it disappear from the host machine, I could see theft being a valid argument.

Actually, it is theft. The fact that you made the copy is irrelevant, because that copy belongs to the rightsholder (in a nutshell, this is all copyright really is). By not rendering it up to them, you have stolen it.

2. Prices are going far beyond the worth of the materials they are asking me to pay for. Value should be computed based on what people are willing to pay for a particular item. By this logic, if trends are any indication, digital music and video files should be free or nearly free.

With significant numbers of people still being more than willing to pay reasonable prices for physical copies and downloads from legitimate services, there's a lot of evidence that the prices do indeed reflect the value of this stuff, and that you are simply being cheap. Theft is not a valid alternative.

3. The proceeds from sales of these items does NOT go to the people who produce it. Instead, there is a cartel of corporations with no real product to speak of who collect a majority of the money paid for these items, just to police and enforce future payments on the items. This sounds ludicrous to me and I don't understand why it's allowed to continue.

Here you have a point, and this is indeed a problem. It is not, however, indicative of fundamental flaws in the system.

4. It is often easier to get and use products illegally for free than it would be to purchase them legally, even if I was inclined to pay for them. The Pirate Bay is much easier to use than the Adobe store. It's easier to use than iTunes as well, and I don't risk the exposure of my personal information either.

Convenience is not a valid reason to steal. Also, I strongly question your ridiculous assertion that TPB is actually easier to use than iTunes: it sounds like a thin rationalization that is far too easily debunked.

5. The supposed value of these items is far beyond what I am capable of paying for them. I do not have $700 to spend on the CS4 Master Collection, nor $7000 to spend on Maya 2010. I am a poor college student, and suing me for downloading music isn't going to help me afford paying for it in the future.

This is your problem, not theirs. You are not entitled to their products for free. If you can't pay now, save up or go elsewhere.

6. The tactics used to police copyright are nothing less than bullying. The corporations with executives making tens of millions of dollars a year suing housewives and college students does not sit well with me, and therefore I will do everything in my power to defy these people and cause them problems.

While I agree with you that they are using bullying tactics and need to be smacked down for that, your petty rationalizations using class warfare have no basis in any form of reality, and deserve no respect. Come up with a more valid argument, and then we'll talk.

Taxation without representation (3, Insightful)

vxice (1690200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734302)

Are what secret negotiations over treaties that will obligate us to write laws in concert with the treaty. There was some fuss about something like that once somewhere.

Re:Taxation without representation (2, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734380)

So then actually do something rather than making empty threats on the Internet while using a pseudonym.

Re:Taxation without representation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734834)

Anonymous Coward is my real name, you insensitive clod!

Re:Taxation without representation (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734668)

Maybe this comes up every time a copyright treaty is passed, but...

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but entering into a treaty about copyrights, patents, or trademarks brings up an interesting point:

Article I, Section 8 gives congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Article II, Section 2 gives the president the "Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

Article VI of the Constitution also says "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."

A copyright treaty, thanks to Article VI, would cause Articles I and II to conflict. Simply put, checks and balances mean copyright can not be enforced by a treaty because copyright law is a legislative power, not an executive power.

The Ratchet Effect (4, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734340)

ACTA highlights the fundamental problem with politics (in the U.S.) today.

You've got intellectual property interests driving a legislative bonanza for Intellectual Property holders that, on its face is totally offensive to commerce. These vested interests are the lever driving their interests forward. In response, you get a compromise, (from the librarian group) which acts like a pawl, restraining the ACTA juggernaut, but still the ACTA juggernaut scores a a major win. This process is simply repeated. After ACTA will be another more restrictive set of legislation and the moderate political forces will restrain it, but there will be another big win. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Every time you think, "It can't get worse than this." Think again. Because that's how the Ratchet Effect works. They have to drive the most extreme legislation forward so they get a compromise that resembles exactly what they wanted. If the issue dies, just try again.

And few look around and ask, "how did we get here?" Instead, another economic bonanza is in the legislation queue like so many airplanes waiting for Congress' moderation and approval to further constrain economic activity. The proper response is, "ACTA is harmful to the economy. Here is legislation that eliminates restraints on intellectual property/copyright." The fundamental political failure is the lack of an Anti-ACTA, or Anti-DMCA. This is where the voter has gone wrong. Demand an Anti-Acta and Anti-DMCA is just one way to get the process more balanced.

I didn't make up the term "The Ratchet Effect." This story is an excellent example.

Re:The Ratchet Effect (2, Interesting)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734414)

ACTA highlights the fundamental problem with politics (in the U.S.) today.

Implying that only the US is the driving force behind ACTA. This would be false. The Japanese and their conglomerates are just as much pushing for ACTA as any corporation in the US.

Re:The Ratchet Effect (1)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734726)

This is where the voter has gone wrong.

What happens when all candidates are owned by the same corporations? How can the voter go right?

It really doesn't benefit us (1)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734492)

A problem with copyright law is that it appears to no longer protect individuals as much as it protects large corporations. I'd wager a lot of the money to promote copyright extension and enforcement is coming from places like Sony, who have much to gain.

vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32734574)

We live in a democracy right? So I say let's make a public vote and see what happens.

If only search engines would fight back... (1)

vanyel (28049) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734688)

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the search engines would respond to overzealous takedowns with "ok, if you don't want to be on the net, we'll remove *all* references to you".

"rights holders"? (1)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32734972)

both of which could lead to more copyright claims from rights holders."

Copyright is not an "inalienable right". Therefore, these people aren't "rights holders" unless we, the people, grant them these additional rights.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?