Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Pro-ACTA Site Says 'Get the Facts'

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the just-the-facts-ma'am dept.

Piracy 84

Glyn Moody writes "We hear a lot about politicians and countries rejecting ACTA, but not so much from the treaty's supporters. Here's a new site, called 'ACTA Facts,' which invites Europeans to 'get the facts' on how wonderful ACTA really is. Judging by its content, this one will be about as successful as Microsoft's 'Get the Facts' campaign a few years ago, which tried to dissuade people from using GNU/Linux. For example, a new report linked to by the site claims that ACTA could 'boost European output by a total of €50 billion, and create as many as 960,000 new jobs.' Unfortunately, that's based on numerous flawed assumptions, including the idea that countries like China and India are going to rush to join ACTA, when the treaty is actually designed as a weapon against them, as they have already noticed."

cancel ×

84 comments

Gotta love this (5, Insightful)

Pikoro (844299) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302219)

Members of Europe's Parliament have come under considerable pressure to "look the other way" on the fight against counterfeiting and piracy - a global problem that impacts virtually every product category in every sector worldwide.

If that "considerable pressure" is being brought by the people who live in the EU, then perhaps it's not something they want. Why pass laws that nobody who lives in the EU wants? Doesn't sound like this is in the best interest of the population in Europe...

Re:Gotta love this (5, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302311)

Presumably, from the standpoint of the "Get the Facts" site, the only reason the European public dislikes ACTA is because they don't have, well, the facts.

Like the way a rape victim's only basis for fighting back is that they don't realize how good the rape will feel if they just accept it.

Re:Gotta love this (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40303159)

Presumably, from the standpoint of the "Get the Facts" site, the only reason the European public dislikes ACTA is because they don't have, well, the facts.

Like the way a rape victim's only basis for fighting back is that they don't realize how good the rape will feel if they just accept it.

In other words ...

These Pro-Acta people are laying out the "facts" to the EU people, telling them to enjoy the shove, even if they don't need 'em ?

Re:Gotta love this (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#40305317)

Lie back and enjoy it, otherwise it'll be WAY more traumatic for you once the results take effect.

Re:Gotta love this (2)

MtHuurne (602934) | more than 2 years ago | (#40303779)

Also note they call "counterfeiting and piracy" a single problem, while those are separate issues. Until we get replicators, clothes manufacturers won't have to worry about piracy of the digital kind (robbery at sea might still be an issue for them). And even for industries that do have to worry about both, the people committing counterfeiting (running an unlicensed DVD factory) and piracy (downloading movies) are two different groups with different motivations and different ways of operating, so lumping them together is not helpful.

In my opinion, any proposed law or treaty that tries to bundle unrelated issues should be struck down for that reason alone, but I guess I'm just not cut out for politics.

Re:Gotta love this (2)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40304153)

And even for industries that do have to worry about both, the people committing counterfeiting (running an unlicensed DVD factory) and piracy (downloading movies) are two different groups with different motivations and different ways of operating, so lumping them together is not helpful.

Also not helpful: lumping together the group of people who board and rob ships with those who download movies.

Re:Gotta love this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40305299)

Are eggheads trying to trick you? Don't be fooled. Cows produce MORE methane than nuclear power plants do! Get the facts, look it up.

"Facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re:Gotta love this (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40307459)

My wife worked in one of the auto Big 3's anti-counterfeiting group for awhile. It's a big problem for companies.

The easiest trick is to just look up part numbers on the internet and figure out if the smarm-meisters are offering legitimate stuff.

Another problem is the people they contract to in other countries to run their assembly lines often, violating contract, run off extra parts, and frequently with substandard materials at that.

And, sorry, so what if some demagogue jackass in EU can suggest "The People" want to have cheaper counterfeit stuff -- that's not how freedom works to be productive. The choice isn't between well-engineered, somewhat expensive stuff and cheap knockoffs. It's between well-engineered, somewhat expensive stuff and nothing.

There are no knockoffs if there's nothing to knock off of.

And as a side note, how outrageous to suggest there's something noble or justifiable in generating a mob who wants to thieve things, and that the mob is justified because it's a mob.

No. "Shameful" is a better word. You fail to recognize the primary problem of human history: that of thwarting the impulse to take that which is not yours so people can have a stable environment to work hard to produce nice things.

Re:Gotta love this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40308163)

Why pass laws that nobody who lives in the EU wants? Doesn't sound like this is in the best interest of the population in Europe...

The U.S. Congress tries that all the time so what's your point?

Who's their copywriter... (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302223)

...Nancy Reagan?

Secret negotiations (5, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302237)

Okay, I'd like to get the facts about who was involved in the treaty planning, and what they said.

Oh, I'm sorry. By "facts", they apparently meant their talking points. My mistake - I assumed we were using the normal meanings of words today.

Re:Secret negotiations (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40302391)

Okay, I'd like to get the facts about who was involved in the treaty planning, and what they said.

Oh, I'm sorry. By "facts", they apparently meant their talking points. My mistake - I assumed we were using the normal meanings of words today.

Not sure why this was modded "Funny". It points out a very important problem in the consumption of knowledge today.

Propaganda is masquerading as "fact". Both on this "Get The Facts" website, FOX News [ceasespin.org] , and other outlets for malicious marketing.

How do we fix this problem?

Re:Secret negotiations (1)

MickLinux (579158) | more than 2 years ago | (#40303065)

Well, I say we sponsor a sitdown protest to display the facts, at which point the police attack to convince us of the facts, and we videotape it to broadcast the facts, and the police youtube their spin of the facts, and then we go home and rationalize our stupid behavior while griping about how stupid everyone else is.

Which may not help the problem of all our news being spin, but at least it shows that I understand the SLASHDOT spin as well as anybody out there. Today's news was sponsored by the word `spin'.

Re:Secret negotiations (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40303289)

We don't. Symbiotic corruption between politicians and propagandist "fact sellers" is simply too strong to fight against with common methods. About the only methods that would work would likely be worse then this disease, so all we can do is threat the symptoms, as they would result in total upheaval of society. This particular problem is simply so deeply rooted in our society now, there's unlikely to be a way to root it out not unlike like metastasized cancer.

Re:Secret negotiations (1)

MtHuurne (602934) | more than 2 years ago | (#40303535)

I don't think the problem will ever go away: manipulative use of text will not be unlearned and attempting to ban it would cause far more problems than it solves, since it's very hard to be truly objective even if you try to be unbiased (this applies both to people writing texts and to people judging them). Therefore the best way to deal with it is to teach people how to spot spin, framing and other manipulative communication. For example by pointing it out and there are plenty of opportunities for that.

Re:Secret negotiations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40303819)

When has propaganda not masqueraded as fact?

Re:Secret negotiations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40305523)

In movies, for instance.

Propaganda has been common since at least the early 20th century. Not that there's anything wrong with it, excepting cases like this where it's propaganda I disagree with.

Re:Secret negotiations (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 2 years ago | (#40305517)

I'd start with forbidding links that say that you are going to one place that send you to another. Everyone with half a brain knows FOX spins fact to suit their agenda.

Re:Secret negotiations (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302773)

I have some bad news for you about the "normal" meanings of words as they are used by politicians, lobbyists, media, and industry today...

Re:Secret negotiations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40303713)

I don't understand what you mean, the normal meaning of the word 'fact' is actually 'talking point' today.

Don't tell me you are left in the old days when 'fact' meant something that was actually verifiable and true...

Six! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40302341)

Fiction: ACTA can lead to the recording of personal data of Internet users (as they are defined by Art 2 of the Data Protection Directive 95/4/EC)...

FACT: ACTA is very protective of privacy; the word “privacy” occurs six times

Re:Six! (2)

ewibble (1655195) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302505)

You will have no privacy, all past transaction will no longer be covered by privacy laws, The privacy of your record will be maintained by the copyright owner.
your privacy will not be covered by due process. privacy is not as important as protecting copyright holders rights. Trust us with your privacy.

There mentioned it 6 times obviously the statements protect your privacy. I said it lots

Re:Six! (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#40303249)

There mentioned it 6 times obviously the statements protect your privacy. I said it lots

Well i'm satisfied.

Re:Six! (1)

Rainbowdash (2645097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40306411)

You're obviously NOT satisfied and the reason for you NOT being satisfied is because I am saying that you're NOT satisfied, and becuase you're NOT satisfied I have to be NOT satisfied as well. This is a fact because this text includes NOT satisfied six times! So I would reconsider your post man!

Re:Six! (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#40315699)

Damn! You make an infallible point :( ...or....

Re:Six! (1)

Rainbowdash (2645097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40332745)

You wouldn't download an airplane.

Get the facts = lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40302359)

Every time I see one of these "Get the facts!" sites it is always full of lies. I think everyone has pretty much figured that out now. Except the MAFIAA

Re:Get the facts = lies (2)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40304649)

"Get the facts!" is the motto of corporate FUD. It's something everyone with a brain knows. Don't let the RIAA types know!

Except that people are stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40302437)

For example, a new report linked to by the site claims that ACTA could 'boost European output by a total of €50 billion, and create as many as 960,000 new jobs.' Unfortunately, that's based on numerous flawed assumptions, including the idea that countries like China and India are going to rush to join ACTA, when the treaty is actually designed as a weapon against them, as they have already noticed."

As horribly flawed and guestimated as statements on the site may be, it will probably work on vast swaths of the population, simply because vast swaths of the population are stupid, and believe anything that they see or read.

The best possible way to avoid this is to keep this as unseen by the public as possible. The less it's mentioned, the better. Thankfully, at least a decent portion of Slashdot readers will be smart enough to see through the idiocy, but if it were advertised aggressively to the rest of society... wrong or not, it's going to be accepted.

Re:Except that people are stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40302461)

I doubt that vast swaths of the population will even bother to see the site. This isn't likely to go viral.

Re:Except that people are stupid (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302657)

The IP-> jobs thing has gone hilariously debunked in the way of the "america invents act" in the US - where the claims came from, and yet what happened? Less IP jobs than before, actually.

Re:Except that people are stupid (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40303593)

I call BS

The America Invents Act is patent reform legislation passed in September 2011. It's hard to believe that an assessment of it's effects on employment could be meaningful at this point.

If one even exists.

Re:Except that people are stupid (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 2 years ago | (#40306093)

You don't need any protracted analysis to evaluate the effect of IPR on jobs. As it's taking resources from other segments of the economy to provide them to the beneficiaries it's equivalent to taxation (most like VAT in implementation).

So it's equivalent of asking if higher taxes create more jobs, which is questionable at best.

What a terrible website (4, Interesting)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302477)

Looks like its 10 years old and written by someone not much older at the time. Should a assume that the content on the page is of similar quality?

Re:What a terrible website (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#40309015)

They could not find anyone with better skills as they already knew the facts.

Get the Facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40302519)

should work pretty well if the comparison holds true. Who, other than people on /. uses linux for their desktop os?

For those who can handle the truth... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40302541)

ACTA was conceived and written in corporate boardrooms, for the benefit of the corporations those boardrooms control. Corporate money solicited politicians to secretly adopt it. Corporate money funded the politicians. Negotiations were done in secret so that the general population couldn't see what underhanded business was going on. Politicians were paid to change national/international laws to allow ACTA. Again, they were selected in boardrooms, funds drawn up from corporate funds and listed as 'investment'. Corporations led negotiations. Corporations put the soft sell into the politicos. They found vulnerabilities in the politicians and offered 'helping hands' in a quid-pro-quo form. In many cases the politicians problems were exacerbated so that the corporations could 'save them' in a more pronounced way. The entire thing was stage managed from beginning to end. When given the light of day and public scrutiny (that's where we are at now), ACTA fails. Its corporate greed writ large. Its draconian and undemocratic. The corporations will yelp and complain about its absence, but their interest is in corporate welfare. When you look at ACTA, repeat the words of Gandalf: "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"

Re:For those who can handle the truth... (1)

MickLinux (579158) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302923)

Except that doesn't work unless you are the keeper of the secret fire, or the speaker of the house, or something.

Re:For those who can handle the truth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40308107)

When you look at ACTA, repeat the words of Gandalf: "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"

An excellent anology. Do keep in mind that after that statement, he had to wrestle with a balrog through most of Moria, finally delivering the killing blow at the top of the highest peak of the mountain range and he himself died in the process.
I'd prefer we find a way to kill this balrog without the death part at the end, but it may not be an option.

€50 billion, 960,000 new jobs (4, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302559)

Is that the amount they plant to extort from 960,000 people per year?

Re:€50 billion, 960,000 new jobs (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302791)

It's the same imaginary numbers on how people would spend billions of their money on IP if only they couldn't get it for free on the Internet. Because everybody would totally spend that money anyway if it wasn't free. Also those 50 billions earned is coming out of someone's pockets, so it'd probably be a million less jobs in all other industries. It's a million jobs, not a net million jobs.

Cannot be dumber (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40302563)

How dumber can it be to assess that the EU's ombudsman rejection to give access to some documents an opinion toward the goodness of ACTA? I did not bother giving more head to it...

Beside, the author did had clear ideas by not putting its name on the site. The code, however, is quite revealing.

Re:Cannot be dumber (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40303307)

I did not bother giving more head to it...

The same can't be said for your mom.

Re:Cannot be dumber (1)

Rainbowdash (2645097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40306429)

How do you give a woman head?

Re:Cannot be dumber (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40311367)

Are you asking him what his personal technique is, or do you actually not know how that works?

Brought to you by the fine folks behind (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302595)

the Buisness Software Aliance and other orginizations dedicated to breaking the kneecaps of orphans, their nuns, and all other fine folk without reasonable cause since 1988.

Ahh, memories. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40302617)

Now we are talking! [whirlpool.net.au]

(Australians will know exactly what I'm referring to. For those outside Aus, that was a website that was set up by Telstra as a propaganda mouthpiece. Shutdown about three years ago, shortly after Sol Trujillo left.)

Rebuttal? (1)

Memetic Rebroadcast (1439085) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302627)

Anyone got a 'fact' per 'fact' rebuttal?

Re:Rebuttal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40304137)

this is actually a fairly important question. we're a technical group. what's the best way to croudsource an _effective_ rebuttal? how much is 'actafacts.org' going for? or 'therealactafacts.com'. and who would put such a thing together in a convincing way? after that, it would need to 'go viral' a la the SOPA protest...

Fuck them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40302667)

I say we DDoS the site.

They've should've called it FACTA (5, Funny)

petteyg359 (1847514) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302725)

a.k.a. Fuck ACTA

Their numbers don't make sense (4, Funny)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40302865)

€50 billion won't nearly be enough for those 960000 new lawyers!

The oldest trick in the book: "Just call it facts" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40302945)

The whole point of terms like "fact", "neutral" or "fair and balanced", is to hide the inherent bias that every life form in this universe must have.
And the point of hiding it, is that it is assumed, that if it weren't hidden, the victim would not accept the bullshit it actually is

You will never ever see a wise man say those things. He knows that he knows nothing, that everything is just nice theories that happened to match observation until now, that everything is relative in physics, and that neither our senses, nor our brain, have even a concept of non-biasedness. (Is this the correct way to say that in English?)

The people who have to use those words, are the manipulative dicks and liars. Including Wikipedia. No exceptions.

It's surprisingly poorly done (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40303101)

So, there's a FAQ that has no questions, but some fairly arcane "rumors" or "myths" that they're debunking. And the "why you should support ACTA" links to an impossibly brief pamphlet that pretty much tells you that ACTA only does good things.

I suspect the site is aimed at people who already support it and want to find legal opinions to justify themselves.

"It appears that the Agreement per se does not impose any obligation on the Union that is manifestly incompatible with fundamental rights.“

That's a positively ringing endorsement of ACTA, especially with the "per se" and "manifestly" qualifiers.

And the Euro notion of "fundamental rights" always makes me chuckle, there are something like 50 of them in their freedom charter.

Re:It's surprisingly poorly done (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40303363)

Looking at the source code it has references to things like file:///C|/Users/Jeff%20Hardy/Documents/4-websites/CCAPCongress/home/tn_new_o.gif
Jeffrey Hardy, BASCAP Director - I somehow doubt he's decided to moonlight as a really shitty web designer in aid of the cause.

I'm really not sure what to think. It's so poorly done I'm almost suspicious it's not actually legitimate.

Re:It's surprisingly poorly done (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#40303671)

Oh that is priceless...

Re:It's surprisingly poorly done (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40305881)

Well, BASCAP is "Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting And Piracy", so it's at least up their ally. And here's Jeff's contact details. Click here to send an email, it says. Maybe we should.

http://www.icc-ccs.co.uk/bascap/digest/Contact.htm [icc-ccs.co.uk]

Re:It's surprisingly poorly done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40306367)

Uh, I get some of the same strings in a random 'learn french' website http://ibonnemere.com/
Maybe times are so hard he's had to get a second job ;)

Re:It's surprisingly poorly done (1)

Rainbowdash (2645097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40306451)

88 I believe they're two people doing this! Owner as well, must be a codename for some Acta hacker!1

Right, lets break it down. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40303959)

From http://www.actafacts.com/faq.htm , going by point to point in the faq. I'm not copying it here so you'll have to put it side by side ;p

About the Internet
- "No requirements" - In other words, open to interpretation by the reader with no policies put into effect to prevent abuse.
- Same story, open to interpretation and abuse with no set policies against such breaches of freedoms and privacy.
- ACTA "mentions" privacy according to this entry but does not actually safeguard it, having no policies (yet again) to do this, letting it open to interpretation of the reader.
- Very clever wording, "seeks not to duplicate" -> However, ACTA seeks to CONTROL and supplant any existing policies regarding governance of the net.
- Again clever wording without actually mentioning safeguarding the rights and freedoms of anyone, much less the citizens, making no mention of whom it's supposed to protect.

About access to medicines and patents
- Good in what way exactly? In who's eyes? While removing counterfeit medicines is a good thing, the current treaty also prevents medicines to be produced without consent of the patent holder, which encourages price fixing and does not actually help the patient at all. The treaty makes this international law and as such only protects business interests of patent holders.
- Vague wording on a policy governments "may" institute or not.
- Again, open to interpretation, as governments may appoint customs officials as a 'competent authority' to save money.
- 'Lawful generics' - IE, patent holder interests, not patient interests.
- Seeds are not but patents and intellectual property are, under which seeds fall as per the design. While this entry doesn't blatantly lie it does beat around the bush trying to do it.

About Fundamental Principles, Rights, Data Protection and Freedom
- ACTA "recognizes" privacy and does not make data retrieval 'mandatory'. So what DOES it do exactly?
- Open to interpretation yet again, where it does not reference any existing law or policy safeguarding these freedoms, not to mention the loopholes that already exist in current law all over the globe.
- Again, using words like "recognizes" and "does not require" without giving any guarantees whatsoever to protect said freedoms and privacy.
- A savings clause that safeguards laws which already permit breaches of privacy and security, or might soon do? Loopholes are abundant.
- Same as above. "Protective of privacy" - Of whom exactly?
- Freedom of expression is exactly that, freedom of expression. When phrases, songs and looks are trademarked in such a way that you can get arrested for imitating them anywhere, it kinda limits what 'freedom of expression' actually is, right? This entry is just a blatant lie.
- Very open to abuse, this one, as it heavily encourages patent and copyright infringement trials which due to "protection" will most likely end up in the plaintiffs (usually corporate) favour, combined with the already mentioned breaches of privacy and basic rights above.

About Transparency and Governance
- In other words, it's a corporate effort to sidestep official national and international lawmaking.
- Clever wording: "Texts of ACTA were made public". ACTA as a whole was never made public and what WAS made public has always been subject to revision immediately afterwards.
- The question didn't mention changing the agreement but enforcing it. VERY sneaky here.
- The public is mentioned as an implied secondary party AFTER freedoms and rights were mentioned. Suspicious yet?
- In other words, if someone makes one penny from anything involving anything infringing, to their knowledge or not, they can be taken to court. The "indirect" wording here is especially worrying.
- This one is just too funny. "ACTA will not have a website" - What am i reading then? Not to mention the governing body which is mentioned at least once before this, does that not count as an international organization?
- US does /not/ abide by the same text of the agreement as the other countries who would sign ACTA. Which obligations exactly? Why so vague and not say that the US will actually abide by ACTA itself?

Other
- This is shady at best, given the current patent wars going on already. Small businesess cannot compete if a larger business decides to take their stuff. By the time they might manage this, the larger company already made a profit off it which is in all likelyhood larger than the settlement, as has been done countless times before.
- Yet not actually clarifying this and showing the pages?
- Taken very broadly this entry is especially dangerous, as most ISP's will already tell you - This is harking back to the control ACTA seeks.
- Yet again a win for larger companies, as shown in the recent Megaupload debacle. They don't NEED to be right to cause considerable damage.
- The vagueness of this one is astounding.
- Instead of allaying the worries in this question, the FAQ flatout states that nothing will change. How reassuring!
- Yet again the vagueness, aswell as being open to interpretation, not actually guaranteeing any protection whatsoever.
- Many words that yet again give no actual guarantees, being open to interpretation.
- "Nothing will change" yet again.
- Again, no guarantees, the entire text being very open to abuse.
- This has already been mentioned, see above.
- Directly contradicting (!!!!!!!!!) a previous statement that border officials do not have to carry this burden!!!!
- Again, no actual safeguards with a wording that does not actually protect anyone or anything.

Good effort by the legal guys but this faq is... Very deceiving.

Re:Right, lets break it down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40307113)

Is there a torrent of the site we can just download?

How can you tell when a politician is lying... (4, Insightful)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | more than 2 years ago | (#40303967)

For example, a new report linked to by the site claims that ACTA could "boost European output by a total of 50 billion (euro), and create as many as 960,000 new jobs."

How can you tell when a politician or special interest group is lying?

When they start talking about all the jobs their new laws will create.

Re:How can you tell when a politician is lying... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40304059)

How can you tell when a politician or special interest group is lying?

They're moving their lips.

Re:How can you tell when a politician is lying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40304763)

For example, a new report linked to by the site claims that ACTA could "boost European output by a total of 50 billion (euro), and create as many as 960,000 new jobs."

How can you tell when a politician or special interest group is lying?

When they start talking about all the jobs their new laws will create.

The way I can tell is when their lips start moving...

Re:How can you tell when a politician is lying... (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 2 years ago | (#40306513)

They thought that uploading a site was a good way to hide the moving of their lips...

I only have one answer to that: GET THE FACTS. Politicians are also lying when they write.

Re:How can you tell when a politician is lying... (1)

AnalogDiehard (199128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40311129)

How can you tell when a politician or special interest group is lying?

When their lips are moving.

Copyright infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40304017)

I wonder if ACTA and suchlike make sense in terms of the individual nation's self-interest: Economically shouldn't nation X clamp down on its own citizens copying product from itself, but encourage copying from nations Y, Z, A, B, C? Or is it that if consumers have free stuff from other nations, they won't buy domestic product?

Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40304089)

From the site:

FACT: ACTA is very protective of privacy; the word “privacy” occurs six times

I would argue that's not nearly enough, plus, of course, meh, doesn't deal with context, blah blah blah, etc etc.

The Facts (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40304625)

Copyright is incompatible with modern, global civilization and efforts to change this will simply result in corporatism which will eventually collapse. In the mean time, those countries that adopt protectionist, innovation-strangling patent and copyright laws will be trampled by countries like China and India.

It's time to let the Romantic myth of divine inspiration die and respect freedom of communication. We all build on what came before - copyright hinders us all and the methods being proposed to prop it up go beyond hindrance into oppression.

Re:The Facts (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314277)

Copyright is incompatible with modern, global civilization and efforts to change this will simply result in corporatism which will eventually collapse.

Not exactly. What copyright is incompatible with is the noncommercial copying of digital data. Without copyright, the movie theater wouldn't have to pay the studio to show the movie. But your making a copy of your friend's DVD of Avatar costs society nothing and costs the studio nothing, and may even cause me to buy another Cameron movie because I saw the one you gave me.

However, copyright is incompatible with noncommercial copying, and before the internet came along, noncommercial copying was never a problem (despite movie and record companies' piggist squealing; e.g. "the VCR is to the movie industry what Jack the Ripper was to women" and the bogus "itis illegal to tape this record" when the law at the time specifically stated that it was indeed legal).

If copyright was shortened to the twenty years patents are, and noncommercial copying was deemed non-infringing, none of the problems that exist because of the stupid ways copyright laws are written would exist.

Copyright used to only apply to works "affixed in a tangible medium" and I posit that bits are NOT tangible and should not be covered by copyright.

Re:The Facts (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40318475)

All the lofty ideas of reinforcing fair use in the world are worthless for two reasons:

1. As long as a media industry exists, any progress will be rolled back;

2. Nothing exists in a vacuum. If I want to write a book in the Avatar setting and sell it, that is morally right by my standards, yet is still illegal under yours. Since everything is, at some point, based on another thing, it is only a matter of time until that system comes crashing down in apparent ways as well.

Total abolition is the only answer that fixes the problem permanently.

Re:The Facts (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40321531)

If I want to write a book in the Avatar setting and sell it, that is morally right by my standards, yet is still illegal under yours.

No, I have to agree with you on that. If you write a book in the Avatar setting that's not Avatar itself, it's a new work and you should be able to copyright it. That's one of the bad things about current copyright law.

Brought to you by ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40305097)

GCCCP:

http://www.ccapcongress.net/

AKA every IP profiteering firm in the international business space. (apparently) knocked together by Jeff Hardy:

http://filmprofit.com/?page_id=9 (?)

Apparently the web hosting service is provided by dotster and the site looks like it was created by an 80 year old man fishing for a huge amount of cash.

How is such a blatant exercise in market front page on /.?

"Facts" and "ACTA" don't belong same sentence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40305107)

They've systematically ignored the actual facts with every single publication they have ever made. Do they really expect people to believe their made-up facts?

China/India will never join ACTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40305771)

Countries like China and India would be very stupid to join ACTA. Just think about all the counterfeited medicine. Nobody there could afford the original stuff from the western pharma industry.

Re:China/India will never join ACTA (1)

Rainbowdash (2645097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40306463)

I'd love to download a cam of the aids cure~

Monopolies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40306225)

Sure, it will create more jobs and money for the monopolies. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to measure the money created by a free market, compared to an anti-competitive market.

It's kind of funny how they bullshit about how it will protect "intellectual property" (a highly misleading term) but doesn't really get more specific than that. I didn't see any mentions of further entrenching anti-circumvention (DRM laws), digital watermarking and other parts of ACTA on that pro-ACTA website.

Who are these guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40307203)

I couldn't easily find who's behind this site. The about page just lists a bunch of organisations of unspecified selection. Below is the WHOIS lookup for the domain. Does anyone know anything else?

Registrant:
      c/o ACTAFACTS.COM
      P.O. Box 821650
      Vancouver, WA 98682
      US

      Registrar: DOMAIN
      Domain Name: ACTAFACTS.COM
            Created on: 07-FEB-12
            Expires on: 07-FEB-13
            Last Updated on: 07-FEB-12

      Administrative Contact:
            gpzzza@privacypost.com
            c/o ACTAFACTS.COM
            P.O. Box 821650
            Vancouver, WA 98682
            US
            +1.360-449-5933

      Technical Contact:
            jgwyax@privacypost.com
            c/o ACTAFACTS.COM
            P.O. Box 821650
            Vancouver, WA 98682
            US
            +1.360-449-5933

      Domain servers in listed order:
            NS1.DOTSTERHOST.COM
            NS2.DOTSTERHOST.COM
            NS3.DOTSTERHOST.COM

Here is a fact (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40307321)

If legislation and treaties have to be negotiated and drafted in secret, and then an attempt is made to quickly rush it to passage before anyone can really inspect it and debate it, it is inherently undemocratic. Its wrong for democracies to enact laws in such fashion, it is corruption of the political system and a violation of social contract.

Based on this any legislation pushed in such a fashion should be opposed, always, even if you happen to support the idea behind it. Its the wrong way to do things. The harm to our societies freedom always out weighed by any potential good such legislation might do. Therefore the ATCA supporters are automatically in the wrong no matter what the other facts happen to be.

ATCA should be rejected, without further discussion. They should start over in the day light with new legislation, where they are open about its content and their reasons for wanting it. The "Get the Facts" website should be online before the legislation is finalized not after.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40307475)

****"Microsoft's 'Get the Facts' campaign a few years ago, which tried to dissuade people from using GNU/Linux."****

Well, Linux hasn't really grown (unless you count devices that run Linux where the consumer has no choice on what the device uses). People with home computers still mostly run Windows...

Lilnux still hasn't made itself worthy of home use...

Who wrote those facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40307767)

Take a look at the about page: I never imagined that there where so many 4 letter MAFIAA's in the world.
Also, not a single civil liberties association, nor someone who actually knows how the internet works

At least they say who they are, instead of hiding behind some "independent" study.

Get the Facts about "Get the Facts" campaigns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328073)

The term "Get the Facts" is blindly trusted by billions of people worldwide. But what does it really mean for you and your family?

While "Get the Facts" campaigns have appeared on a wide variety of topics over the years, how much do you actually know about them? For instance, did you know that Get The Facts campaigns:
* Are biased and used to spread propaganda
* Employ deceptive techniques and wording to make technically factual statements which are more likely to be interpreted in a mannter that conveys a biased opinion
* Fail to disclose additional facts which would often portray a very different picture of the topic at hand
* Mix facts and opinions together to make opinions appear factual
* Are backed by powerful and well-funded vested interests which are rarely disclosed upfront and openly
* Scare children

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...