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!

MPAA Asks If ACTA Can Be Used To Block Wikileaks

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the form-a-protest-group-called-acta-up dept.

Censorship 322

An anonymous reader writes "With the entertainment industry already getting laws to block certain sites, it appears they're interested in expanding that even further. The latest is that at a meeting with ACTA negotiators in Mexico, an MPAA representative apparently asked if ACTA rules could be used to force ISPs to block 'dangerous sites' like Wikileaks. It makes you wonder why the MPAA wants to censor Wikileaks (and why it wants to use ACTA to do so). But, the guess is that if it can use Wikileaks as a proxy for including rules to block websites, how long will it be until other 'dangerous' sites, such as Torrent search engines, are included." Note: TechDirt typically has insightful commentary, but make of the original (Spanish) twiiter message what you will.

cancel ×

322 comments

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

Did they (4, Interesting)

odies (1869886) | more than 3 years ago | (#33656974)

Did they ask if it could be blocked because they wanted to, or because they think it could mean backslash for using ACTA as a censor tool instead of enforcing copyrights?

Re:Did they (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33656996)

enforcing copyright is censorship, there's no "instead of" there.

OK, lets get a rating system for websites. (2, Interesting)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657294)

We can add some functionalities to Web Of Trust to allow more ratings for websites, by more groups, and allow users to configure their ratings-sources and weights for them. WikiLeaks can be categorized by the mpaa however they wish. And the mpaa can get rated by people as whatever they wish too - for example an unreasonable and unpopular censoship body.

How about... (5, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657320)

How about just requiring that any ISP that takes public funds or uses public land must not engage in any sort of filtering or traffic redirection?

Re:OK, lets get a rating system for websites. (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657670)

The problem isn't that they are unpopular the problem is to the public the MPAA is unknown. Most people don't know of or why they should care about the MPAA.

Re:Did they (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657942)

enforcing copyright is censorship, there's no "instead of" there.

So then you support the ignoring of the copyrights to GPLed code, right?

Re:Did they (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#33658160)

You're screwed either way . . . by not including the GPL license (thus violating it), you are still censoring it. :P

Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657072)

Did they ask if it could be blocked because they wanted to, or because they think it could mean backslash for using ACTA as a censor tool instead of enforcing copyrights?

I'd imagine the MPAA and government have similar interests in forcing ISPs to block certain websites. The MPAA is probably making a calculated move to suggest they would be the watchdog going after Wikileaks if such a censorship method could also be used to protect their copyrights.

Frankly, it looks like they're trying to show to the government that they have aligned interests. As the TechDirt article notes, the MPAA could merge The Pirate Bay with Wikileaks in the eyes of the government and then from there it's guilt by association. Personally I think this is the MPAA fishing for how extensive they can make ACTA by appealing to the United States government's emotions. Think back to the DMCA and Patriot Acts and how following their passage into law we all sat around scratching our heads wondering WTF was going on with some of the prosecution that was falling under those acts. Wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA ran a campaign saying that passing ACTA into law worldwide will stop terrorists, child porn, small arms traders, drugs, wildfires, Satan, etc.

I'm guessing the MPAA would love to prosecute cases of copyright infringement under the same law (and maybe even penalties) as cases of threats to national security.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (2, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657152)

I was thinking something along the same lines. Proposing that maybe this would be possible.. and if it isn't possible, why not - and how CAN they make it possible? After all, ACTA is being negotiated with quite a few other nations and it would be nice for the U.S. government if they can invoke that agreement to shut down sites within/access to sites from other nations as well; as a side-benefit, all the funny business about piracy would get accepted as well. Like a 'rider' attached to a bill.. except that riders are used to 'ride along with' the general consensus on the bill.. and this would almost be the reverse case.. pushing through ACTA -because- it'd then allow the shutdown of e.g. wikileaks, not because of its original intent.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (4, Insightful)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657194)

I'm guessing the MPAA would love to prosecute cases of copyright infringement under the same law (and maybe even penalties) as cases of threats to national security.

Why shouldn't copyright infringement and national security come under the same law? They're both tools for stopping the spread of information built around assumptions that have long ceased to be even half true.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657464)

I have always had this idea as a car mechanic to create how to videos for popular model vehicles, instead of just vague books, with high-def video cameras and step by step instructions for each task... such as changing out an A/C Compressor, Replacing a bad power steering pump, fixing broken this that and the other thing.... and selling them for a REASONABLE price all across the nation. This would require a decent amount time and money in equipment, time to film, edit produce etc...

Then I realized that some dickhead would probably just take the videos, put them up on Piratebay and I would be left poor and broke after spending a crapload of time and money on this project so I said fuck it.

Hollywood might overcharge and not provide a distribution model that the people agree with, but there are a lot of other legit businesses with honest hard working people that are not getting their honest pay for the work they did. The spread of "information" could be something YOU spent years working on, then you'd be pretty bitter too.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (5, Insightful)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657492)

Then I realized that some dickhead would probably just take the videos, put them up on Piratebay and I would be left poor and broke after spending a crapload of time and money on this project so I said fuck it.

I agree completely. This is a reasonably accurate evaluation of the market conditions for video content and a sound business decision based on that evaluation. What I don't understand is why the MPAA members don't seem to do this.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657514)

So you want to copy http://www.haynes.co.uk/ [haynes.co.uk] ?

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657586)

when I said "vague books", I was actually referring to haynes manuals... they are rather generic in many aspects, they try to share the same book between many models and years of cars and expect you to know mechanical lingo. They also try to be too professional sometimes and leave out the personal touch that a human on video would provide, for example when removing a commonly rusty part a human would chime up and say something like "And this little bastard bolt here is always rusted so yer' gonna need to lube it up a bit first and beat the crap out of it before it'll move." A typical car manual (haynes) would simply say "Remove bolt in step #67 and move on to step #68" and the user would be left frustrated when the bolt doesn't come off.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657548)

Oh boo hoo. The world doesn't owe you a living. The world doesn't owe you anything. If I make a table and no-one wants to pay for tables, I've just wasted my time effort and resources. Sunk costs are sunk costs. Go do something else, I won't cry for you.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (5, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657724)

Make the videos anyway. If you market it to the right crowd, and it's actually worth it, it will sell.

I don't imagine car mechanics and car enthusiasts are like you average college student, downloading everything in sight. Chances are your target audience would be more than willing to pay a fair price. People who work on cars for a living should be used to the idea of buying materials/manuals, and similarly for people who have the time/money to routinely work on their own cars.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (2, Informative)

morari (1080535) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657766)

I don't know... There is a series of Volkswagen how-to videos that seem to get by pretty well.

http://www.bugmevideo.com/ [bugmevideo.com]

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657862)

...and selling them for a REASONABLE price all across the nation.

What's reasonable? From your comment about being left poor and broke, seems like you expect to make enough money to not work as a mechanic anymore and just sell those things. That makes it unreasonable.

In the information selling world, if you're not willing to do it for a hobby and just get some extra money from it as a bonus, then you're not worth the trouble. That's the wonderful world of instant information. We lost nothing, somebody else will do your videos if they haven't already.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (4, Insightful)

black6host (469985) | more than 3 years ago | (#33658128)

I have always had this idea as a car mechanic to create how to videos for popular model vehicles, instead of just vague books, with high-def video cameras and step by step instructions for each task... such as changing out an A/C Compressor, Replacing a bad power steering pump, fixing broken this that and the other thing.... and selling them for a REASONABLE price all across the nation. This would require a decent amount time and money in equipment, time to film, edit produce etc...

Then I realized that some dickhead would probably just take the videos, put them up on Piratebay and I would be left poor and broke after spending a crapload of time and money on this project so I said fuck it.

You know, I appreciate that you might not want to do that for free. Back in the day, when I ran a BBS, I incurred a lot of hard costs to do so and I did not charge for access, while many of my contemporaies did. I had a P.O. box for registration, which ensured that I at least had a valid address, and many people sent me unsolicited money. I sent it back. My point is, you are under no obligation to undertake a risk that, to you, would be a loss. To many people, giving is enjoyable. At least it was for me.....

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (2, Informative)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657694)

People forget that prosecuting innocent computer-less grandmothers for piracy isn't the MPAA's only claim to fame. Their ratings board has a long history of using it's weight to bully film makers around, and is for all intents and purposes a censorship tool that has been used in very heavy handed political ways. They may not be government, but they're made of people with the same sort of mindset.

I'm sure they actually oppose wikileaks for many of the same reason that the US government does, and are not doing this purely to get their foot in the door.

(also, have you ever noticed that the general public doesn't really seem to be aware that the MPAA isn't a government agency? They seem to put a lot of effort into appearing so without actually saying so, and their close interaction with government officials in the past and present certainly doesn't help).

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (3, Interesting)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657944)

The origins of the rating system were a desperate (yet successful) attempt to prevent the federal government from instituting its own rating system. The Hays Code dealt with the spread of local laws, and would eventually be replaced by Jack Valenti's letter-based rating system that provided film-makers with much more freedom in how to craft and tell the story.

Kind of amusing, I think, that an organization was once so desperate to keep government out of its business and now runs crying to the government to help it preserve the same.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657506)

Wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA ran a campaign saying that passing ACTA into law worldwide will stop terrorists, child porn, small arms traders, drugs, wildfires, Satan, etc.

It's probably the wildfire stopping that will be the most effective part of that. The others you'd be prepared for. Wildfires though comes out of the blue and catches you off guard and before you can catch your breath, you've already signed the bill in your own blood.

Re:Erroneously Aggregating Enemies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657554)

rock and roll and wrestling again

Re:Did they (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657100)

enforcing copyright is censorship, there's no "instead". Copyright: Party C wants to stop party A passing information to party B. Censorship : Party G wants to stop party A passing information to party B.

They're the same thing, justified differently. It's all just 1s and 0s folks, you can't enforce copyright and have a free society. It's impossible.

Re:Did they (3, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657322)

Ok. Now Party A is your doctor/hospital worker, Party B is a data mining company, and the information is your personal health files.
By your definition, it's censorship too, right? It's all just 1s and 0s?

People have rights over certain data, and protecting them isn't censorship. If authors should have rights over their creations - even at the expense of others' rights - is another matter.

Re:Did they (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657380)

Yup. Party A has every right to share the data with party B. I shouldn't have gone to Party A if I didn't trust them and make a contract with them to keep it secret (there is a major difference between two parties contracting to keep something secret, and a statutory requirement on everyone to keep something secret because They said so, as any libertarian will tell you).

But Party B (or their client party X) discriminating against me based on information in those health files might be criminal, like the way health insurance companies can't discriminate against people with medical conditions in some places (though not the US of course...)

Re:Did they (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657802)

There's some differences between individual contract or trust and a statutory requirement for everyone, but there's also a lot of overlap:

1. Violations put people in court either way. If someone violates a contract with you, you will usually have to turn to the courts to resolve your differences just as often as if they violate a statute. The court will more frequently be on solid ground in settling a case based on someone violating a statutory requirement. If the first few cases have been resolved decently and set proper precedents, a lot of subsequent enforcement becomes routine (and if there are bad precedents, you have a problem whether it is standard law or a one shot contract you are litigating). For a custom contract, it's pretty easy to be drawn into litigation and find out only after spending a lot on legal fees that you don't have nearly the strong case you initially thought you had. There's also a deterrent effect for statutory requirements that builds as the related body of case law multiplies, so that people trying to skirt the edge of compliance learn that they simply can't win in court by any of their methods, and that deterrence is much less when it comes to custom contracts because the borderline cases are all unique and somebody usually convinces themselves that the precedents won't apply to their 'novel' dispute.

2. So much data is interrelated. You can have a very good custom contract with Party X, but if Persons A, B, and C, have all had problems with Party X, and they didn't sign very good contracts first, it's pretty easy for Party X to get the courts to forbid disclosure as part of the settlement, even if A, B, or C sometimes, somehow, wins. A statutory requirement can compel Party X to disclose other legal info to you (for example reporting the existence of outstanding cases in a stock prospectus), so if you have a more standard contract, or some dealing outside of normal contract law (such as that example stock purchase), you are still protected, or if you haven't signed a contract at all yet, your time wasted deciding whether to deal with Party X at all can be minimised. As long as other people, by not realising they should have some of the protections you sought by contract, can also affect you, statutory regulations can protect you and them.

   

Then maybe freenet will be able to takeoff ? (1)

Fenax (1094827) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657030)

Then maybe freenet will be able to takeoff ?

Re:Then maybe freenet will be able to takeoff ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657124)

That's still around?
Last time I checked there was next to no content, it was slow as hell and the client itself had so many bugs (like corrupting its own download database every couple of hours) it would've done Microsoft proud.

Re:Then maybe freenet will be able to takeoff ? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657340)

I tried it a few months and it was slow (although it depends on the files) and it has little content, yes, but it worked just fine with three days of uptime.

Re:Then maybe freenet will be able to takeoff ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657934)

That's still around?
Last time I checked there was next to no content, it was slow as hell and the client itself had so many bugs (like corrupting its own download database every couple of hours) it would've done Microsoft proud.

There's content on it. And the content (kiddy pr0n) is why I stay away.

Re:Then maybe freenet will be able to takeoff ? (1)

SailorSpork (1080153) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657146)

Until dangerous sites like wikileaks (and any other site we have a whim to block, like review sites that give poor reviews and non-MPAA/RIAA indie movie and music sites) are blocked, we and our children are not safe!

Re:Then maybe freenet will be able to takeoff ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657672)

FreeNet is the future. It won't be long and corporations will own the internet. With gene patents corporations are on track to own all life as we know it. The internet for the general public will be for-profit and ruled with an iron fist. Applications that perform encryption and traffic obfuscation will thrive in the underground. I'm beginning to see (in my old age) we are perpetually in one of two active states -- bleeding for freedom or losing it. In my estimation, no middle ground exists.

ask again and again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657076)

Why the fuck do THEY care? They don't have enough enemies as it is?

Re:ask again and again (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657116)

Because this will help them take their enemies offline and unable to have their secrets shown, like how there has been so much protests against ACTA in general, even though it started as a quiet, behind doors concept and wasn't meant to be public until after it was all said and done.

Hand in hand (5, Interesting)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657726)

Call me a foil hat wearing lunatic but I say at this point we've seen more than enough [wikipedia.org] evidence [chuckbaldwinlive.com] of close [sourcewatch.org] cooperation [seekingalpha.com] between the American government and America's large industries to call it a budding facism [wikipedia.org] .

Consider: Pluralism [thehill.com] has been steadily weakening [abcnews.com] as congress and the presidents sign law [rawstory.com] after law giving and allowing the president to take unprecedented power. The courts [andyworthington.co.uk] already lack any real ability to stop this [ccrjustice.org] trend. [wikipedia.org]

New laws have made everyone a criminal. Those against whom the government chooses to enforce these laws are being imprisoned and harassed. It's no longer possible to be a law abiding citizen in America -- only on the ruling powers' good side or not. Police all over the US have an "us against them" mindset that has led to countless abuses to the extent that a police uniform is no longer a comforting site even for those who obey the law. It's now illegal in several states to even record these abuses and Americans everywhere are shutting up and keeping their heads down.

If these dangerous trends are not stopped the US will be a fascist police state very soon.

Re:Hand in hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657896)

It already is
Posting anon for obvious reasons

Web censorship at its best (5, Insightful)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657086)

This is a dangerous path to follow because the MPAA would have strong backers for something like this, like the US government. [salon.com] Torrent search engines would be small potatoes, how about people/websites that show what your doing is wrong? Again, like WikiLeaks, but others like the EFF? Don't like that they show your dirty little secrets? Just use the ACTA on them and claim something like "they were using illegal software". [nytimes.com]

Re:Web censorship at its best (1)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657166)

If you for a moment believe that isn't really the US government asking, using MAFIAA as a mouthpiece, you live in a happier world ...

Re:Web censorship at its best (5, Insightful)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657226)

If you for a moment believe that isn't really the US government asking, using MAFIAA as a mouthpiece, you live in a happier world ...

The US government isn't using the MPAA as a mouth piece, the MPAA wants to use/abuse this power and will turn around to ask other governments around the world, US included, to help them get what they want.

Re:Web censorship at its best (2, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657816)

Actually, no, I don't think the US government is using the MPAA as a mouthpiece. What I DO think is that the MPAA came up with the idea, and the US government is going "Fuck, why didn't WE think of that? Give them another couple hundred million."

Re:Web censorship at its best (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33658046)

I'm a bit curious as to what exactly would be in the MPAAs interest here. I'm having a hard time seeing any incentive for them to ask, which really implies that there's something fishy. Hollywood isn't exactly known for being Republican territory.

Re:Web censorship at its best (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33658104)

Last time I checked the US government was the lobbyist's mouthpiece, not the other way around.

Re:Web censorship at its best (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657216)

It might be any number of reasons really. Even something like they dont want Wikileaks to host the HDCP data
or they're worried a flaw in AACS/BD+ might get leaked. Someone somewhere must have proof that the MPAA/RIAA
members have been acting like cartels, price-fixing and bribing politicians.

I'm honestly surprised that none of the delegates/lobbyists has claimed copyright over the leaked ACTA drafts
to use DMCA to remove it as they're not 'public record' yet.

Re:Web censorship at its best (1)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657852)

You got it the other way around. It's the US Government which has strong backers, like the MPAA.

Ever notice... (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657088)

Ever notice how governments actively seek to forbid citizens from actually -using- their rights? Sure, lets give them freedom of speech. What!? People are critical of the government?! How dare they not use our freedoms to only spread their love of big brother! Lets pass the Alien and Sedition Acts/McCarthyism/ACTA/etc. to stop them from using their freedom! After all, who in a free country would speak out against their government, its like people think the constitution is to protect people who dissent against the majority opinion or something!

Re:Ever notice... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657138)

Shhh. Most people think freedom of speech is there to protect what they agree with.

Re:Ever notice... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657168)

Shhh. Most people think freedom of speech is there to protect what they agree with.

And whenever you say "Shut up, you're an idiot, people protest that now you're the one suppressing their freedom of speech" which of course they use to justify silencing you.

Funny how that works.

Re:Ever notice... (-1, Offtopic)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657566)

Shhh. Most people think that the right to keep and bear arms is to protect hunters.

Re:Ever notice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657860)

Bear arms protect bears

Re:Ever notice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33658096)

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.

Re:Ever notice... (5, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657238)

What is worse, they've come up with a very neat way to do it - it is called "international agreements".

The ideas that would be opposed at home get floated at the IFPI, WPO, WTO, etc. Then a number of small, spineless or otherwise dependent countries are made to support those. Then the idea is re-branded as "the international consensus". Then it is heavily marketed and accepted by the European Commission and the US whatever representative, who work hard to sell it to the respective national legislatures.

Then it becomes a binding treaty, and is fast tracked at the various national legislatures, usually sweetened with some pork. Job done, consumer raped again.

International cooperation at its best.

Re:Ever notice... (1, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657298)

And this is why every American should pressure congress to get the US out of various international organizations because the assurances we have in the constitution don't mean shit in the international world of politics.

The constitution says

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

While international agreements puts legislative powers in unelected bureaucrats.

While I understand the point of things like the UN (to prevent something like WWII from happening again) it, along with all the other international organizations have defrauded the American people of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Wrong fraudster fingered (5, Insightful)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657758)

While I mostly agree with you, I think you lay the blame at the wrong feet.

While I understand the point of things like the UN (to prevent something like WWII from happening again) it, along with all the other international organizations have defrauded the American people of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The UN itself has done no such thing. The ones defrauding the US public of their constitutionally guaranteed rights are the elected representatives in the US government, and by extension their financial masters (a.k.a. "donors"), using the UN and other international groups as cover to get what they want. Though given the state of voting in the US (black-box hackable e-voting machines [blackboxvoting.org] , gerrymandering [google.com] , overly large constituencies [thirty-thousand.org] , etc. etc.), the term "elected" might not hold much meaning here.

Cheers,

Re:Ever notice... (2, Insightful)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657796)

Last time I checked, international agreements on their own did not carry the force of law within a sovereign country. Unless a treaty is ratified or subsequent law is passed by the legislature, I don't see how a government could prosecute anyone unless they already have the power discussed in the agreement. Look at the E.U.--when they decide on a policy, their member nations each pass laws that comply with the EU policy, but aren't necessarily dictated by the EU itself. If they don't, there may be consequences, but folks are usually loathe to exercise sanctions on their trading partners. If ACTA is attempting to alter the legal structure of the U.S. without going through Congress, I would like to see that stand up in court.

IANAL, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I may have missed this bit in the whole ACTA debate, but it seems relevant to me.

Re:Ever notice... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33658008)

Why do you assume that ACTA won't be given the consent of Congress? Did you miss the fact that the DMCA passed with unanimous support of the Senate and virtually no opposition in the House when it was passed?

Re:Ever notice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657992)

And this is why every American should pressure congress to get the US out of various international organizations because the assurances we have in the constitution don't mean shit...

The constitution says
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Which is why the legislative branch of government has to approve all international treaties - if you don't like how your legislators vote give the job to someone else (of course until campaign finances are reformed you can expect the new someone else to be in the pocket of big business in short order).

Re:Ever notice... (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657996)

The constitution says

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

While international agreements puts legislative powers in unelected bureaucrats.

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." Let's not pretend that the general idea of treaties is unconstitutional or un-American.

Congress's tendency to devolve its legislative power on to unelected regulatory bodies may or may not be a problem, but has little to do with whether those bodies are domestic or international.

The fact that this particular treaty sucks sweaty donkey balls is not an indictment of the general concept of treaties.

Re:Ever notice... (1, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657998)

Except that the President is endowed with the power under Article 2 section 2 to make treaties which according to Article 6 are the "supreme Law of the Land." You can't just quote the parts you like and ignore the rest.

Re:Ever notice... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33658074)

consider that the ACTA talks where initiated by, among others, USA, because the WIPO started becoming to open to non-commercial representatives (EFF and others).

Re:Ever notice... (2, Informative)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657812)

Contact [numbersusa.com] your [house.gov] representative [usa.gov] . Ask them to clearly and concisely state their stance on ACTA. If it doesn't comply with your views. Vote. That. Fucker. Out. Tell your friends.

Keep doing it. If enough people continually push the douschers out of office, perhaps they will get the message. Send them welcoming letters. Make them feel the recession (thats supposedly over). In reality, businesses swept off all the excess cream and just went with lower quality, cheaper wages, and cut benefits, and offshoring and now they're profiting again! Yay! No more recession!

Or we can do nothing. Be apathetic, and let our rights continually be trampled on by these asshats. Can we bring some semblence of intellectual curiosity and creative initiative back to America, or piss it away?

If you at least vote, you have some say in the complaining process. And if you have never voted, perhaps now is the time to start. I know I will.

Re:Ever notice... (-1, Flamebait)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657358)

Well, if people are disagreeing with Obama, then there's something wrong... i'm not sure i have a problem with this if the democrats are in charge. The Republican party does not have the people's good at heart, the democrats do. So you have to take that into consideration and wonder if there are good reasons for these sorts of things.

Re:Ever notice... (4, Insightful)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657534)

Ever notice how governments actively seek to forbid citizens from actually -using- their rights?

In spite of the name, "rights" is a game of subtraction, not addition. A person not under the domain of any government or any other higher power has no restrictions on their actions at all. Government and law add new restrictions (do not kill, do not steal).

The Bill of Rights and all related articles are there as a desperate attempt to stop this from getting out of hand, explicitly for those times when it seems like going down that slippery slope seems appropriate. It was never adding anything, because it was never capable of adding anything. People knew it was necessary to include it because they knew times like these would happen.

It's up to us as a country to make sure we don't disappoint the wonderfully insightful gentlemen who included those provisions as part of the nation's Constitution by allowing them to fade on our watch.

Re:Ever notice... (5, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33658054)

It's up to us as a country to make sure we don't disappoint the wonderfully insightful gentlemen who included those provisions as part of the nation's Constitution by allowing them to fade on our watch.

Actually many of the founders were against the Bill of Rights on the grounds that they saw that it could be used by some future generation to try to deny rights to the people because they weren't explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights. This perversion that they foresaw has been shown to be true in such examples as how right-wingers try to claim there is no right to privacy since it isn't explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Re:Ever notice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657654)

Buy lots of guns and shoot em when they come for you.

Slippery Slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657090)

I mentioned the Slippery Slope argument's applicability [slashdot.org] to this recent slashdot article [slashdot.org] . The current article is a prime example, and that is all I have to say.

Torrent-sites? That's your worry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657112)

How about giving the MPAA a front-seat at any piggy-banquet for "protecting american soldiers" (not to mention the political acceptance they'd gain from it).

Story worthy? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657126)

Link to a blog which links to another blog which links to a twitter post: [twitter.com]

Pide MPAA en junta de #ACTA que en mexico sea posible cortar acceso/pais a sitios "tan dañinos" como wikileaks. Neto: WTF!

Amazing what's become of journalism in the era of blogging.

Anyway, it sounds like a good tactic on the part of the MPAA as they're trying to sell ACTA to various governments.
"Hey, if you pass ACTA, you may be able to use it to block Wikileaks too!"

hey MPAA (5, Funny)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657132)

you better shutup and mind ur own damn bidness or 4chan and Anonymous will come after you again

I can think of two reasons... (4, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657140)

I can think of at least two reasons:

1) Wikileaks has leaked details of draft ACTA proposals, and these have somewhat politically embarassing to the politicians who are doing MAFIAA's work.

2) MAFIAA hates it when people singing songs with lyrics like "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" and they really hate that funky sequel that begins with "6692d179032205".

Re:I can think of two reasons... (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657354)

I can think of at least two reasons:

1) Wikileaks has leaked details of draft ACTA proposals, and these have somewhat politically embarassing to the politicians who are doing MAFIAA's work.

2) MAFIAA hates it when people singing songs with lyrics like "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" and they really hate that funky sequel that begins with "6692d179032205".

3) The US government has figured out that people are so accustomed to the MPAA buying laws, they put them up to it so it could slip under the radar.

The MPAA gets the stuff they wanted in ACTA. The government gets carte blanche.

While I don't really believe that the US government is behind this, they do actually gain more from this than the MPAA does. I think more plausibly, the MPAA is trying to use this as a wedge so they can shut down anything which infringes on information they would like to retain control of or how to circumvent copyright -- such information gets effectively equated with sedition or somesuch.

Either way, the outcome of ACTA allowing for the shutting down of web sites "because we want to" basically means that the world is now fucked, and all signatories to ACTA are enforcement arms for multi-national companies ... with the US wielding a stick over everybody else.

This awful treaty is going to propel us into a future ran even more by corporations, and they keep adding more shit to it every time there's a leak.

Re:I can think of two reasons... (3, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657612)

How many left wingers would have made a deal about "BUSH/CHENEY" if this was 4 years ago? How many right wingers are going to claim this is a Obama thing?

Libertarians realize that it doesn't really matter (D or R), government is too powerful now, and need to be reigned in. It doesn't matter "who" is in power, they abuse it. And it doesn't matter what the reason is (save the children,environment,rights,minority,tatas), there is always a nefarious outcome.

Liberty is not just for select few, it is for all. Either it applies to all equally or it is the steps to tyranny. Guess which way we're headed now? AND it doesn't matter who is in power, we keep moving that direction.

Because the US Gov't is interested in WikiLeaks (5, Insightful)

kabloom (755503) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657150)

The MPAA (probably) isn't asking about WikiLeaks for its own interest -- it's asking because it wants the US government on board, and the US government is far more concerned about WikiLeaks than movie pirates.

This is a lesson to all you slashdotters about how to lobby - convince people that you have the solution to their problem. (If it solves your problem, great!)

Re:Because the US Gov't is interested in WikiLeaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657222)

You mean ACTA will lead to a proliferation of child porn? We'd better stop it.

Or maybe Wikileaks has their hands on certain (2, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657412)

ledgers and might just dump those as well.

Re:Because the US Gov't is interested in WikiLeaks (4, Interesting)

ortholattice (175065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657630)

The MPAA (probably) isn't asking about WikiLeaks for its own interest ...

Or, maybe they're thinking ahead to the day when an insider leaks some "creative accounting" ledgers. :)

Re:Because the US Gov't is interested in WikiLeaks (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657806)

It's official, then: WikiLeaks is the new child porn.

You must be so proud, Mr Assange!

MPAA wants to write its laws in secrecy (4, Interesting)

Eternal Vigilance (573501) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657212)

This isn't so much a move against Wikileaks as a sharing site like TPB, but instead a move against anyone who might expose the collusion between **AA and their government lackeys.

That Wikileaks might reveal things like ACTA ahead of time, allowing users to mobilize support against them, makes Wikileaks very "dangerous" to the **AA's goal of complete control.

Re:MPAA wants to write its laws in secrecy (5, Informative)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657416)

What are you talking about, the **AA is GOVERNMENT now. Let me refresh you memory:

  • Gershengorn, a partner with RIAA-firm Jenner & Block, represented the labels against Grokster (.pdf) and will be in charge of the DOJ Federal Programs Branch. That’s the unit that just told a federal judge the Obama administration supports monetary damages as high as $150,000 per purloined music track on a peer-to-peer file sharing program.
  • Donald Verrilli, associate deputy attorney general — the No. 3 in the DOJ, who unsuccessfully urged a federal judge to uphold the $222,000 file sharing verdict against Jammie Thomas.
  • Tom Perrilli, as Verrilli’s former boss, the Justice Department’s No. 2 argued in 2002 that internet service providers should release customer information to the RIAA even without a court subpoena.
  • Brian Hauck, counsel to associate attorney general, worked on the Grokster case on behalf of the record labels.
  • Ginger Anders, assistant to the solicitor general, litigated on the Cablevision case.

Source Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept [wired.com]

Re:MPAA wants to write its laws in secrecy (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33658020)

So why do the **AAs seem to want this? They don't have SWAT teams, highly trained well armed investigators, or special laws protecting their 'agents' in the line of duty, after all. Why help the government in a law enforcement role, if that makes you look like just another police agency, but you don't have the power to deal with criminals who take it off the internet and get physical? There are people out there talking second amendment remedies, secession, and extreme violence daily - look like just another piece of the government's police apparatus instead of a private organization, and some of the nuttier ones are likely to make your boardrooms the next Oklahoma Federal Building. Against such, the **AAs have what, exactly, in the way of physical defenses? I don't think anybody at the MPAA has gone to Universal or Time/Warner or whomever and said next year's budget needs to include an advanced pistol training range for our accountants, replacing all the windows in building X with 3 inch plexiglass, or equipping a rapid response company with a few armored personnel carriers in case someone makes this mess physical, so presumably, they think the other police agencies they are joining will protect them. That really sounds mind numbingly stupid - wanting to play cop but be the only group not assuming any responsibility for their own physical defense.

Re:MPAA wants to write its laws in secrecy (0, Flamebait)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#33658076)

So much for the Magic Negro (thank Spike Lee for the wonderful phrase!) and Change We Can Believe In.

BTW, ask the LGBT folks how the view is from Under The Bus, where they were just thrown by Dems desperate for re-election.

Re:MPAA wants to write its laws in secrecy (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657444)

Every government wants to write their laws in secrecy, hence why international "treaties" have gotten so popular. Every government's dream is to control every aspect of their citizens' lives without the citizens realizing it. Sure, the government extols the "right to free speech" in every high school classroom but dreams of a world without it. The government loves movements like the tea party that while saying they want to reduce the government's power but give the government power over subjective things like morality and things that are "un-American", any government would take a "loss" of some tax dollars to be able to control something like that (and with fiat currencies, they can just print more worthless notes).

Every government wants to make politics so "boring" that the masses ignore it. Every government wants to make a country with rights that are never exercised.

The ideal state for a government is where the people are cattle, a cow doesn't feel imprisoned, after all he can walk around this whole big pasture, and if he really wanted to he could jump the fence, but why jump when there is all this free food...

What irks me the most... (4, Interesting)

rotide (1015173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657314)

The thing that irks me the most, isn't the fact that the government wants a more powerful trade agreement. It isn't the fact that this trade agreement would be adopted by most every other first world country. It also isn't the fact that the U.S. government wants to keep it classified due to "national security" reasons. No, it's because our government keeps it classified from its citizens _and_ invites the MPAA in on the deal, or did the MPAA invite them? I don't even know anymore.

ACTA was rejected by EU (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657390)

ACTA was rejected by EU - it is effectively dead.
The MPAA just missed the memo.

Who decides what is "dangerous"? That's the issue that I have. BluRay master keys are not dangerous, they are just inconvenient for a tiny group of people.

wikileaks because they're the site to hate. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657402)

The only reason they are asking about WikiLeaks is because it's the current website that's "okay to hate/censor". Once they get approval for WikiLeaks, they'll move to other sites that actually target THEIR industry.

Citation needed. (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657450)

The TFA provided links to the twitter account it seems. Are there any other sources? I mean I do not trust anyone that does not speak American.

However if this is true, I say we build more pipelines so it is harder for them to enforce.

censorship and publishing control 450 years ago (5, Informative)

openright (968536) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657460)

In 1557 the British Crown chartered the Stationers' Company and gave the company a publishing monopoly in order to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books.

This publishing monopoly lasted for more than 150 years.

After revolution, publishing monopolies were first abolished then limited to 14 years with the Statute of Anne.
The founding USA adopted the 14 year rule.

However, due to pressure from large companies in the US, the monopoly has been continually extended, and is now 95-120 years.

The media associations relationship to the Internet is very similar to the Stationers relationship to the printing press.

Re:censorship and publishing control 450 years ago (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33658014)

And the revolution already came and is called the Internet. I've started to not care about ACTA and how it'll mandate capital punishment for file sharers. The bird has flown, the horse has left the barn, the cat is out of the bag, time can not be turned back. They can just make copyright infinity - 1 day already and I still won't care. I still won't think it's wrong. So they can shut down Wikileaks, will it really matter? I mean seriously, in how many kazillion copies is the HDCP master key now? We could do the same with anything wikileaks wanted to publish, there's no way they can win over a huge number of people spreading it over a huge number of channels. They can try legislating away reality and reality will laugh at them.

Their copyright == theft campaign is a huge failure. Despite the Pirate Party not making a good election, the percentage of Swedes who think so is down to 30%, down from 38% last year. They've lost 8% of the public opinion in one year. There's not been a single round of mass copyright lawsuits, nobody wants to take another shot at taking down The Pirate Bay, they get services like free Voddler that is very close to a giveaway. They're not even in fight mode anymore, they're in damage control mode so it doesn't spark the copyright revolution and they can keep making money in the rest of the world. It's really too bad that the Swedes don't have a public referendum system like in Switzerland, or it would already have happened.

Not the right question (but it doesn't matter) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657500)

I would like to point out that ACTA cannot be used for anything. ACTA requires enabling legislation. After it is ratified, and it will be, it requires, like all treaties, member nations to adjust their laws to implement it's provisions. Ergo, it if congress passes a law (and we know how poor congress is at that) which would either allow or force courts to sanction service providers for not censoring the site, or to do the same to individuals who access it, then yes. However, based on my (admittedly cursory) reading of the latest leaked version, there is nothing which would mandate such an action (or sanction it). And even if there was, the only type of rules a ratified treaty does not supersede is the Constitution, and SCOTUS, despite its currently right-leaning majority, would probably be reluctant to sanction such an exception to the First Amendment. That said, Congress, beholden to the IA's and other businesses as its members are, will almost certainly pass some draconian, unconstitutional implementing legislation, which will undoubtedly be oppressively enforced until the most inexcusably draconian measures are struck down, leaving behind an otherwise intolerably authoritarian remnant, ultimately accepted, sadly, because it will seem better than the original. Before you know it, the idiotic masses will accept their shrunken rights with gratitude. See perceptual contrast.

End the MPAA (1, Insightful)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657564)

It's high time the citizens of the U.S. work to dissolve the Motion Picture Association of America. This is an organization that actively works against the best interest of all Americans. It must be destroyed. The freedom and liberty of all Americans -- even much of the world -- is under attack by this organization.

END THE MPAA

Stupid (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657568)

This is a stupid move by the MPAA for many reasons but, primarily among them, I would imagine this will put it firmly on the radar of the Wikileaks team who might decide that some MPAA laundry needs airing and, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that 1) there is plenty of MPAA laundry and 2) it would be highly embarrassing if it was to be aired.

Only fools pick fights that they are ill-equipped to handle and the MPAA are fools. Rich fools, but fools none-the-less.

ACTA promotes child pornography; here's how: (4, Funny)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657618)

According to MPAA/RIAA logic, downloading stuff for free rather than paying for it destroys that industry. So ACTA stops or restricts free downloading, child pornography will become a rampant industry, and nobody wants that.

If we stop ACTA, we stop child pornography. It's as simple as that.

First Wikileaks... then the next 'Dangerous Site' (2, Insightful)

illumnatLA (820383) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657662)

Next up, MPAA will seek the blocking of dangerous sites that speak up for copyright reform... then it'll be websites that talk about movies in a fashion that hasn't been pre-approved by the MPAA...

It's a slippery slope when free speech is censored.

TechDirt has insightful...wait wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657696)

> TechDirt typically has insightful commentary

I don't know what site you think you're talking about Timmeh, but TechDirt isn't it.

Hold on big guys (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657742)

I think that ACTA is now a dead letter.

raped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657744)

I hope the motherfucking shitheads at the MPAA and RIAA get raped by rabid bears with spiked cocks. Fucking cunts.

censoring dangerous sites... (1)

mathfeel (937008) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657824)

makes it only accessible to dangerous and motivated people. (My own truthiness).

America, land of the 'free'. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657866)

The free being, corporations of course. this is where unbridled capitalism ends up. nowhere else.

Programmers and Experts Needed (2, Interesting)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657956)

We can fight on the political side to keep the net free and we can fight on the social side as well. But the chances are that we will need to make regulation either impossible or so expensive that downloading and communications simply can not be blocked. We need programs that can seek the materials that interest us and encrypt them and then send them through anonymous servers. If this is done right it should be next to impossible for a third party to determine what went over the net and who sent and received whatever the item was. If it is expensive enough and difficult enough to penetrate then information will flow freely.

Don't Worry Guys! (4, Insightful)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 3 years ago | (#33658148)

Wanting to stop free speech/freedom of information and suing children/computer illiterates/grandparents without internet/the dead for copying movies. All from one group. It is like they have the copyright on being evil dickheads. I mean, I thought they were greedy pricks before. But with this bit of news it pushes them into 'fucking evil' territory.

But here is the possible up side. The MPAA have been around since 1922. And by my calculations that means that their copyright on evil will run out by around 2200. At which point mad rioters can burn down all the CEO's homes slaughter them like pigs and give them as a blood offering to Satan.

So at least there is something to look forward to.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>