ACTA to be signed tomorrow by gov.

El Horseboxo

lividduck wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Under the ACTA agreement customs officials could nab you for the unauthorised content of your Laptop, IPhone, Ipod, MP3 player etc

OMG..The authorities could take stolen property of us!!! where will it end?

Who said it's stolen? I have media on such devices as mentioned above that I have ripped from items I bought and put on my laptop and Ipod. So I should be stopped and under scrutiny for that?

Lone Stone

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Not a bad idea actually and not that it couldn't be done.
Let's create ourselves a vlan across the whole net and blacklist any ip's that have to do with :

any governemnt agency's
governement in general
interpol
music industry
film industry

and profit ?

Downloading Music is Not a Big Deal

Excellent, just remember it was my idea so the new internet will be known as the lone stone freedom space or LSFS for short.

Stiffler2

El Horseboxo wrote: »

Who said it's stolen? I have media on such devices as mentioned above that I have ripped from items I bought and put on my laptop and Ipod. So I should be stopped and under scrutiny for that?

Yes - you will need to carry all receipts for any songs you have purchased EVER

Stiffler2

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Yes - you will need to carry all receipts for any songs you have purchased EVER

good idea, I think though it would be better to call it "The Union"

at least this way our goverment won't go near it.

El Horseboxo

Stiffler2 wrote: »

El Horseboxo wrote: »

Who said it's stolen? I have media on such devices as mentioned above that I have ripped from items I bought and put on my laptop and Ipod. So I should be stopped and under scrutiny for that?

Yes - you will need to carry all receipts for any songs you have purchased EVER

But they weigh so much.

newballsplease

People are just pissed that they wont be able to download illegal stuff anymore. Nothing else.

Coriolanus

Travelling to the states on Sunday. Might see me on the news if they take a look at the kindle, ipod, phone and external hd I'll be carrying.

MajesticDonkey

newballsplease wrote: »

People are just pissed that they wont be able to download illegal stuff anymore. Nothing else.

You haven't a bull's balls about what's going on.

Chevolution

newballsplease wrote: »

People are just pissed that they wont be able to download illegal stuff anymore. Nothing else.

I'd say it has more to do with being constantly under surveillance while surfy the web and not being able to share documents and music with each other.

120_Minutes

newballsplease wrote: »

People are just pissed that they wont be able to download illegal stuff anymore. Nothing else.

Oh how naive you are...

syklops

quietrot wrote:

You were raised extremely poorly...

Ok kiddy...

Wow. You're an asshole.

newballsplease

newballsplease wrote: »

People are just pissed that they wont be able to download illegal stuff anymore. Nothing else.

It's not just new balls you need.

Gman1

Dont feed the troll guys.

This isnt purely about piracy its about censorship of the internet.

Niall0001

WindSock wrote: »

And I only just finished finally downloading a car

You can now buy (admittedly limited) self-assembly 3d printers for €750 so this was actually a very realistic possibility in the not-so-distant future.

Until now.

dr.bollocko

mod:

Skylops and quietriot banned.

lugha

Gman1 wrote: »

Dont feed the troll guys.

This isnt purely about piracy its about censorship of the internet.

That’s a fairly lazy response. You have to be fairly deluded to deny that a good many of those who object to these proposed rules are motivated primarily by the impact they will have on their ability to get stuff for free!

The line that such and such a rule will not achieve its stated objective and / or will have disastrous side effects is a familiar one. Seanie Fitz made a similar argument against limiting financial regulation. And the “invasion of privacy line” is the stock response when some institution or other wants to hush something up.

There might well be critical flaws in these proposals, I don’t know. But I suspect any proposed law to combat copyright violation / piracy will be deemed by the same people to be fundamentally flawed in some way.

It might be bad law, but many don’t want a good law instead, they want no law or an impotent one.

Haelium

lugha wrote: »

That’s a fairly lazy response. You have to be fairly deluded to deny that a good many of those who object to these proposed rules are motivated primarily by the impact they will have on their ability to get stuff for free!

The line that such and such a rule will not achieve its stated objective and / or will have disastrous side effects is a familiar one. Seanie Fitz made a similar argument against limiting financial regulation. And the “invasion of privacy line” is the stock response when some institution or other wants to hush something up.

There might well be critical flaws in these proposals, I don’t know. But I suspect any proposed law to combat copyright violation / piracy will be deemed by the same people to be fundamentally flawed in some way.

It might be bad law, but many don’t want a good law instead, they want no law or an impotent one.

The law does not stop people from getting free music. I for one have downloaded a few gigabytes of music and have burnt it to CDs which I plan to start handing out. I urge everybody to do the same.

MajesticDonkey

the impact they will have on their ability to get stuff for free!

This legislation won't have any impact whatsoever on my ability to download free sh1t.

lugha wrote: »

but many don’t want a good law instead, they want no law or an impotent one.

Exactly, we don't want any law. The internet is a global communications platform, which means no one government, corporation and any single entity should be allowed control it.

lugha

Decryptor wrote: »

Exactly, we don't want any law. The internet is a global communications platform, which means no one government, corporation and any single entity should be allowed control it.

I am not sure what you mean by "control"? Presumably you don't think people should be permitted to use the internet to break the law? Were I to libel (or is it slander?) you, should you not have recourse to the law?

MajesticDonkey

lugha wrote: »

I am not sure what you mean by "control"? Presumably you don't think people should be permitted to use the internet to break the law? Were I to libel (or is it slander?) you, should you not have recourse to the law?

"Control", as in censorship. Yes, obviously I should be able to hold you accountable if you were to say anything (I'll bate ya! ).

Stiffler2

Here's what I see down the line:

1) Internet will slowly be killed until there's only boards and google left
2) They will release IPV20 giving each person in the world 20 IP's ( just in case )
3) Each person around the world will be assigned 1 ip address

This IP address will be yours for life, just like the PPS number.
This new form of IP address knows no boundaries in terms of global location

Anything you do on the net can and will be recorded against your IP address
Gards call on door, you will be responsible for your IP for life

+ side - trolls will all die
downside - internet will die

that's what's going to happen down the line eventually ( I think )


Edit: ( Must be awful to get banned after having over 6,500 posts )

histories

quietriot wrote: »

You were raised extremely poorly if you were taught to disregard fact and the law of the land for whatever you felt was right.

At the end of the day, you're wrong here and I'm right, or I should say, the law and my interpretation of it is right.

Don't give me this absolute crap, "you might need the government to direct my life", I absolutely do not. We do, however, need the government to enact law in society to prevent people like you, who feel they're above it and may interpret it however they wish, going unpunished.

It's not open to interpretation either. This isn't a passage in the bible. This is law. It's written very plainly and the definition of "piracy" has changed over time to keep up with this law, now referring to the infringement of copyright.

Listen, I know it can be hard to admit defeat or being wrong on something, especially after just telling someone you would "explain simply and succinctly how you are wrong and haven't got the foggiest idea about what this discussion is about.", we all have our pride, but to sit here instead and fling vacuous accusations at me is just hilarious, but absolutely pathetic.

Get over yourself Kirby, this isn't the first time you've been wrong and it won't be the last either. As I said, if you really believe the law is open to interpretation then head over to an essentially lawless country like Somalia and see how great life is there. If not, adhere to fact and enjoy what is a fairly decent society.

If you've nothing else to say on the matter except fling personal crap at me in an effort to heal your own bruised ego then I bid you goodnight. I am sure that you're petty enough that even though you've actually nothing else to add, you'll still try to get the last word in. Tip: Don't bother. You've made a big enough clown of yourself already.

Not to nitpick but the law always has been and most likely always will be open to interpretation. The objective of the courts is to discover the intention of the legislature. This is so down to the structure of the sentence and the words used. Should the literal rule be used? Will it lead to absurdity? Do we instead use the golden rule and attached a secondary meaning? Don't forget the interpretation of the legislation is governed by the Interpretation Act 2005. If the law was a case of "it is how it is written" then we wouldn't have the legal system we have.

Darius.Tr

"More than 10,000 people have taken to Poland's streets to protest the signing of an international treaty activists say amounts to internet censorship, the BBC reports."

http://www.aysor.am/en/news/2012/01/26/poland/

Something like this should happen all over the europe, this way the goverment might notice that the people are against it and think of what they are doing.

k.p.h

Just so people know, because a treaty has been signed it dose not mean it has been ratified.

It's not a lost cause there s still plenty of time to oppose it

The European Union Signed ACTA today – months after withholding its signature at the official signing ceremony in Japan. But the political atmosphere in the EU remains very much in flux. The key to the future is that, unlike the US, the EU has admitted that ACTA is a binding international agreement and therefore requires parliamentary approval. But Parliamentary approval in the EU is in doubt.

Marietje Schaake, a pro-business member of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the European Parliament, known for being “Europe’s most wired politician,” recounted this week that “the European Parliament has the decisive voice on ACTA,” with the first public “exchange of views” on ACTA in the key committee scheduled for February 29th or March 1st. The committee will most likely hold its vote on the ratification of the treaty in April or May, with a full parliament vote expected in June.

The EU vote is likely to be close, especially in the wake of the short term defeat of SOPA and the heightened awareness of internet freedom in its wake. As Schaake notes:
“In November 2010 we proposed an alternative resolution on ACTA, which intended to take away the main concerns. It was voted down by a very slight majority, . . . 16 votes, out of 736.”

So Schaake and others are calling for a grass roots campaign to swing the handful of votes needed to defeat ACTA in the EU.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is still holding firm to its position that the executive branch can bind Congress to ACTA without the traditional congressional approval required of treaties or internationally binding Executive Agreements. Senator Wyden challenged the administration on this plan, most recently to the State Department’s top legal advisor, but as of yet the administration has not backed down or provided legal reasoning justifying the constitutionality of its course of action. A Constitutional showdown with Congress may be looming.

No other country has ratified ACTA. The Mexico Senate has voted once to reject it, albeit in a non-binding resolution. In the post-SOPA landscape, it looks more unlikely that it will go into effect than it did a few months ago. But the ultimate tally will be sure to be close.

http://infojustice.org/archives/7508

MissKK

Just to make it clear ACTA still has to be ratified by the EU before anything happens and that's a few months down the line at best!

CptSternn

These are scenes from all over Poland.

http://kwejk.pl/obrazek/876467

People coming out to protest ACTA today. WTF Ireland? Where are our protesters?

Seachmall

CptSternn wrote: »

These are scenes from all over Poland.

http://kwejk.pl/obrazek/876467

People coming out to protest ACTA today. WTF Ireland? Where are our protesters?

Tomorrow and Saturday starting 12pm at the spire.

Cuddlesworth

Seachmall wrote: »

Tomorrow and Saturday starting 12pm at the spire.

I'll give the seven of you a wave.

GoldFour4

An awful lot of scare-mongering going on by this whole anti-govt movement. This is not SOPA in any way. Youtube pays for everything that is uploaded, including copyright material. Facebook and twitter will not be shut down.

99% of the people who say they will protest against the government will actually do nothing.

mr kr0nik

I've half a mind to contact each of the record companies and ask for permission to play a song in a video clip I'm making about record company greed. The songlist would be:

(Phone numbers are available online)

Warner Music: 01 6762022 - Song - REM - Strange Currencies
Universal Music: 01 4022600 - Song - You're Crazy
EMI Music: 01 2039900 - Song - Pink Floyd - Money

So far over 50,000 people have signed the online petition. If 10% of them rang once a day for a week I'm sure they would notice.

AlmightyCushion

malachyscott wrote: »

An awful lot of scare-mongering going on by this whole anti-govt movement. This is not SOPA in any way. Youtube pays for everything that is uploaded, including copyright material. Facebook and twitter will not be shut down.

99% of the people who say they will protest against the government will actually do nothing.

If youtube pays for everything that's uploaded why were Viacom trying to sue them for $1b a few years back? And couldn't the likes of Viacom threaten to use ACTA against them in an effort to get them to settle.

Seachmall

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I'll give the seven of you a wave.

It's great that you're going but unfortunately I can't make it.

RobbingBandit

Seachmall wrote: »

Tomorrow and Saturday starting 12pm at the spire.

get some boards.ie t-shirts printed up for this one.

GoldFour4

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

If youtube pays for everything that's uploaded why were Viacom trying to sue them for $1b a few years back? And couldn't the likes of Viacom threaten to use ACTA against them in an effort to get them to settle.

Because Viacom tried to pull a fast one and failed. Viacom had for years secretly used marketing companies to upload videos of its material to youtube as advertising. They even allowed copyright material from normal users to stay up as advertising.

AlmightyCushion

malachyscott wrote: »

Because Viacom tried to pull a fast one and failed. Viacom had for years secretly used marketing companies to upload videos of its material to youtube as advertising. They even allowed copyright material from normal users to stay up as advertising.

True but if youtube was paying the copyright holders for every video uploaded, why would any judge even hear the case. How could youtube be infringing copyright if they are paying royalties. Actually, lets go back a step. Since when did youtube pay for every video uploaded?

Think it's time to go back and start a node on fidonet.

GoldFour4

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

True but if youtube was paying the copyright holders for every video uploaded, why would any judge even hear the case. How could youtube be infringing copyright if they are paying royalties. Actually, lets go back a step. Since when did youtube pay for every video uploaded?

I gather that its a recent thing from reading this article this morning. The guy who says it is the head of EMI Ireland so I presume he knows that hes talking about.

Willie Kavanagh wrote:

Do you have any concerns about the consequences of the proposed legislation?

Let me just clear something up. YouTube will never be taken down. YouTube pays for the material it broadcasts. Even when illicit copyright material is broadcast on YouTube, YouTube pays for it.

MajesticDonkey

malachyscott wrote: »

The guy who says it is the head of EMI Ireland so I presume he knows that hes talking about.

He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He wants to make more money and protect the company he's working for.

Seachmall

malachyscott wrote: »

I gather that its a recent thing from reading this article this morning. The guy who says it is the head of EMI Ireland so I presume he knows that hes talking about.

He's possibly referring to the money they receive per view on their own uploaded videos. There could be also be a compensation agreement that hasn't been made public, but there's no way to verify that.

Either way he's wrong when he suggests YouTube couldn't be shut down (although his exact word was "wouldn't") and he's hardly an unbiased source.

The legislation speaks for itself. Perhaps EMI have an agreement with YouTube but unless they extend that agreement to all sites with user generated content they still pose a significant threat.

dasdog

Seachmall wrote: »

Perhaps EMI have an agreement with YouTube but unless they extend that agreement to all sites with user generated content they still pose a significant threat.

If they didn't make in public in 2007 (and why should they?)...

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/31/news/companies/emi_youtube

I doubt smaller labels get such treatment but a small slice of something big is better than many slices of something small. The regular user partner programme has criteria attached one of which is you don't get paid if you don't own content.

Seachmall

dasdog wrote: »

If they didn't make in public in 2007 (and why should they?)...

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/31/news/companies/emi_youtube

I was referring to a compensatory agreement. For example, YouTube might pay a fee for every count of copyright infringement they find and remove and EMI agree not to file lawsuits or injunctions.

It's the only reason I can see for Kavanagh's statements as they're not supported by the legislation.

conor.hogan.2

So what happens if I sign up to itunes match for a year and then download all my music off it and cancel after that year won't all the music be legit?

Hypothetically, goes without saying.

dasdog

Seachmall wrote: »

I was referring to a compensatory agreement. For example, YouTube might pay a fee for every count of copyright infringement they find and remove and EMI agree not to file lawsuits or injunctions.

It's the only reason I can see for Kavanagh's statements as they're not supported by the legislation.

At the moment I think the uploader is liable to compensate if action is taken so the provision is there but I don't know if its being acted on (Big bad record company v's John Doe for $5 million doesn't look good). Certainly implying, that's if he was implying, that every YT play compensates all original copyright holders is not correct.

Capt'n Midnight

quietriot wrote: »

Piracy and copyright infringement are the exact same thing.

Oh no, stop spreading that fud.

Piracy refers to specific crimes on the high seas.
Many countries have the death penalty for some of those crimes.
Any country can intervene. Actually UN countries MUST intervene.
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm

Article100

Duty to cooperate in the repression of piracy

All States shall cooperate to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State.

Article101

Definition of piracy

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

No, nothing about copying discs there.
Nothing about downloading content there.
Nothing about downloading from Australia, which has a shorter copyright term and is perfectly legal in Oz.
Nothing about signing up for a US netflix account and watching it through a proxy, because they don't have the same choice of films here, because that would be a grey import.
Nothing there about EU citizens rights to access goods and services in other EU countries even though they may be blocked here.


When the word piracy is used by the rights holders the intent is to deceive by making the offense seem worse. It also distracts from the very real, people actually dying, crime of piracy.


PS.

Let's block all of the Channel 4 site because we aren't allowed watch all the stuff on their iplayer.

AlmightyCushion

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Oh no, stop spreading that fud.

Piracy refers to specific crimes on the high seas.
Many countries have the death penalty for some of those crimes.
Any country can intervene. Actually UN countries MUST intervene.
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm

No, nothing about copying discs there.
Nothing about downloading content there.
Nothing about downloading from Australia, which has a shorter copyright term and is perfectly legal in Oz.
Nothing about signing up for a US netflix account and watching it through a proxy, because they don't have the same choice of films here, because that would be a grey import.
Nothing there about EU citizens rights to access goods and services in other EU countries even though they may be blocked here.


When the word piracy is used by the rights holders the intent is to deceive by making the offense seem worse. It also distracts from the very real, people actually dying, crime of piracy.


PS.

Let's block all of the Channel 4 site because we aren't allowed watch all the stuff on their iplayer.

Have you ever heard of the term colloquialism? Piracy is a common term used today by people to describe the act of downloading or distributing copyrighted material. Yes, legally it has a different meaning but I think it's safe to say that in the context of this thread people aren't talking about hijacking boats.

kris71

"In an unprecedented move, the French European Parliament member assigned to monitor the treaty proceedings, Kader Arif, resigned in protest at the signings, and issued a strongly worded rebuke, saying that the EU was trying to have as little public debate on ACTA as possible, and that right-wing groups were trying to ram it into law with no oversight."

source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/27/eu_signs_acta/

What is amazing to me is how consequent majority of the press is, in ignoring most of the topics related to this legislation...

LighterGuy

kris71 wrote: »

"In an unprecedented move, the French European Parliament member assigned to monitor the treaty proceedings, Kader Arif, resigned in protest at the signings, and issued a strongly worded rebuke, saying that the EU was trying to have as little public debate on ACTA as possible, and that right-wing groups were trying to ram it into law with no oversight."

source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/27/eu_signs_acta/

What is amazing to me is how consequent majority of the press is, in ignoring most of the topics related to this legislation...

I know what you mean.
Sure RTE 6:1 news as well as TV3's news both failed to mention anything about ACTA today.
Not suprising tho. Tv stations are in bed with the big media companies.

Capt'n Midnight

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the term colloquialism? Piracy is a common term used today by people to describe the act of downloading or distributing copyrighted material. Yes, legally it has a different meaning but I think it's safe to say that in the context of this thread people aren't talking about hijacking boats.

It's a media industry term, again it's use is to make a civil case look like a criminal case. It's to change the perception to that of a crime against the person and property when it's actually relates to the possible lost future earnings of a monopoly.




At the end of the day the rights holders have been granted a monopoly and they have continually extended this and actively exploit it. It is almost a license to print money. But because it is a legal monopoly their rights must be respected regardless of how you feel about them. However, we don't have to respect their repeated attempts to land grab more rights, especially rights that give them more control of what we can see on the internet.


Has any one done any research on the long term effect of blocking The Pirate Bay has had on downloading by eircom's customers , relative to the downloading habits of other ISP customers ?


Prime time last night - right at the very end said they'd come back to the story.

Capt'n Midnight

LighterGuy wrote: »

Not suprising tho. Tv stations are in bed with the big media companies.

You are not the customer. The ad companies are the customers. Good ratings mean the TV companies can charge more.

You are the product that is sold to the advertising companies.

briany

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Has any one done any research on the long term effect of blocking The Pirate Bay has had on downloading by eircom's customers , relative to the downloading habits of other ISP customers ?

I can't think it had anything like the effect desired. How could anyone downloading been affected? Maybe the small proportion of totally, totally non tech people who somehow stumbled into using it, had a day before they did a Google search and hit upon an indexing site or something?

It was the most deliberately weak attempt at a block and an almost token one. They had and probably still don't have any interest in controlling what their customers do. It's hassle for them, it weakens their position in the marketplace (where there's alternatives available) and makes them look backward.

Whatever blocks might be coming, the ISPs will only do the absolute bare minimum required by the law in implementing them.

If the powers these coming laws are as broad in scope as we fear then there's really no telling how it will affect the internet as we know it. Whatever you think about copyright infringement and downloading, it's a scary thought that rights holders could have sites blocked on the basis of a perceived violation of those rights. That has implications for a broad range of websites not normally even thought of as facilitating infringement.