Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.(boingboing.net)
boingboing.net
Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html
288 comments
I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree. I depend for my livelihood on my -- aboveboard! -- Internet connection. Yet I also expect to be permitted to express a dissenting political opinion. This type of treaty gives authorities and anyone with a large legal team the instant ability not just to shut me up simply by accusing me of copyright violation - with no burden of proof - but to ruin me financially as well.
That is not democracy. Not even close.
Political dissent is not just something done by free Tibetans way off in the distance, and it's not the exclusive purview of dedicated activists who have the time to set up darknets. Political dissent is everybody feeling free enough to disagree with the powers that be. This really and truly endangers that, and it's incredibly, incredibly stupid for the American government even to consider it. That the Obama Administration is not only considering it, but actively supporting it by keeping the process secret for as long as humanly possible is profoundly disappointing.
That is not democracy. Not even close.
Political dissent is not just something done by free Tibetans way off in the distance, and it's not the exclusive purview of dedicated activists who have the time to set up darknets. Political dissent is everybody feeling free enough to disagree with the powers that be. This really and truly endangers that, and it's incredibly, incredibly stupid for the American government even to consider it. That the Obama Administration is not only considering it, but actively supporting it by keeping the process secret for as long as humanly possible is profoundly disappointing.
I agree with you almost entirely, but I feel there is no dichotomy here. There is room for several strategies to approach this treaty.
There is the need for dissent within in the political sphere for this treaty, and I'm certain that many activists will take this strategy up. There's also room for technological dissent; for citizens to develop strategies and technologies to mitigate the effects if this treaty does go into effect.
We're all in the same boat.
There is the need for dissent within in the political sphere for this treaty, and I'm certain that many activists will take this strategy up. There's also room for technological dissent; for citizens to develop strategies and technologies to mitigate the effects if this treaty does go into effect.
We're all in the same boat.
True enough; it's just that in technical venues one always has the feeling that people still consider the political process to be irrelevant, that the Internet has stopped the business cycle and so on. And it just keeps not being true.
> That is not democracy. Not even close.
Why is that not democracy? What does democracy have to do with it? I often see the word "democracy" used as if it means "freedom".
Why is that not democracy? What does democracy have to do with it? I often see the word "democracy" used as if it means "freedom".
Well, there are plenty of aspects to the notion of the participants in a society being its owners; that's what I lump together as "democracy", which is a shorthand for what America is supposed to be about - government by, for, and of the people and all that.
Since you can't have government by, for, and of the people without freedom, and you can't be free if you don't have power over the government, I don't feel too bad about conflating the two. Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free?
I guess, in a larger sense, I take it as given that a democratic and free society is a basic requirement for human progress. Do you think you'd get far with a startup in a less egalitarian society? You might, but the fact that your grandfather didn't know the right people's grandfathers is going to really weigh you down. It's only the basic assumption of equality of all people that make it possible for most to start anything new. And I do take it for granted that everyone here believes that starting new things is the way to go.
So, OK, we can posit an egalitarian, "free" society where only an elite have political power. I honestly don't believe that's an actual possibility - what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have?
Nothing.
This probably deserves a lot more thought and space than I can fit in this margin.
Since you can't have government by, for, and of the people without freedom, and you can't be free if you don't have power over the government, I don't feel too bad about conflating the two. Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free?
I guess, in a larger sense, I take it as given that a democratic and free society is a basic requirement for human progress. Do you think you'd get far with a startup in a less egalitarian society? You might, but the fact that your grandfather didn't know the right people's grandfathers is going to really weigh you down. It's only the basic assumption of equality of all people that make it possible for most to start anything new. And I do take it for granted that everyone here believes that starting new things is the way to go.
So, OK, we can posit an egalitarian, "free" society where only an elite have political power. I honestly don't believe that's an actual possibility - what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have?
Nothing.
This probably deserves a lot more thought and space than I can fit in this margin.
> "democracy", which is a shorthand for what America is supposed to be about - government by, for, and of the people and all that.
It's not at all clear that America was supposed to be about this, even if that is what they teach in schools today. However since it's not really relevant I won't argue the point further.
> Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free?
Many monarchies and similar governments throughout history have allowed more freedom for their citizens than today's democracies. Of course, no one is completely free under any of these governments (certainly not a democratic one).
> I guess, in a larger sense, I take it as given that a democratic and free society is a basic requirement for human progress...that make it possible for most to start anything new.
You really, really shouldn't take that as a given, especially that "democratic" part. It is understandable, though, that many people believe this -- considering it's essentially what has been taught in schools for the last century or so. Do you really believe enterprise did not flourish in the West until after the rise of democracy? That is not what history shows.
> what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have? Nothing.
Not that I want your hypothetical to come true, but it is worth considering that tax rates in monarchies were generally quite low (<10%), especially when compared to the tax rates in today's democracies. There are well-understood reasons for this if you are interested.
It's not at all clear that America was supposed to be about this, even if that is what they teach in schools today. However since it's not really relevant I won't argue the point further.
> Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free?
Many monarchies and similar governments throughout history have allowed more freedom for their citizens than today's democracies. Of course, no one is completely free under any of these governments (certainly not a democratic one).
> I guess, in a larger sense, I take it as given that a democratic and free society is a basic requirement for human progress...that make it possible for most to start anything new.
You really, really shouldn't take that as a given, especially that "democratic" part. It is understandable, though, that many people believe this -- considering it's essentially what has been taught in schools for the last century or so. Do you really believe enterprise did not flourish in the West until after the rise of democracy? That is not what history shows.
> what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have? Nothing.
Not that I want your hypothetical to come true, but it is worth considering that tax rates in monarchies were generally quite low (<10%), especially when compared to the tax rates in today's democracies. There are well-understood reasons for this if you are interested.
There are well-understood reasons for this if you are interested.
That's kind of where a link would go.
I can't tell whether you're a monarchist or a libertarian, but your overall stance appears to be out-and-out libertarianism. To which I can only say: show me one. Show me a successful stateless nation (Afghanistan is the only one that springs to mind), and I'll subscribe to your newsletter. In the meantime, I'm standing over here in the corner with Churchill. You know the quote.
The same goes for monarchy. Show me an absolute monarchy that stays a good place for more than a generation or two - long enough for the good king to die and his half-wit nephew to take over - and I might give you that one, too. In the meantime, the raging free-for-all that America started out being is a pretty good start on a system that takes the human reality, that political power does in fact and will always in fact exist, and guides society away from the feudalism that both monarchy and libertarianism necessarily approach.
Both monarchists and libertarians seem to think they'll be the ones in the 0.5% on top. The odds are against you.
I personally think America will totter back from this brink, as well, and clearly there are problems all around us. But to say that democracy itself is the root? No. You're going to have to be more eloquent.
That's kind of where a link would go.
I can't tell whether you're a monarchist or a libertarian, but your overall stance appears to be out-and-out libertarianism. To which I can only say: show me one. Show me a successful stateless nation (Afghanistan is the only one that springs to mind), and I'll subscribe to your newsletter. In the meantime, I'm standing over here in the corner with Churchill. You know the quote.
The same goes for monarchy. Show me an absolute monarchy that stays a good place for more than a generation or two - long enough for the good king to die and his half-wit nephew to take over - and I might give you that one, too. In the meantime, the raging free-for-all that America started out being is a pretty good start on a system that takes the human reality, that political power does in fact and will always in fact exist, and guides society away from the feudalism that both monarchy and libertarianism necessarily approach.
Both monarchists and libertarians seem to think they'll be the ones in the 0.5% on top. The odds are against you.
I personally think America will totter back from this brink, as well, and clearly there are problems all around us. But to say that democracy itself is the root? No. You're going to have to be more eloquent.
I get the impression that you've tried to pigeonhole me into a category that you're familiar with, and then responded to me based on that, instead of addressing my points directly.
> In the meantime, I'm standing over here in the corner with Churchill. You know the quote.
Yes, I know the quote, but I'm not sure you do. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=571797
> Both monarchists and libertarians seem to think they'll be the ones in the 0.5% on top. The odds are against you.
If this is what you believe, I doubt you are familiar with much of the work of either of those groups. Who said anything about the top 0.5%? Do you really think all of the bottom 99.5% in a monarchy were like chattel slaves, but today's bottom 99.5% are free as a bird? Please consider what I wrote earlier -- even the average citizen was more free in many non-democratic countries.
> In the meantime, I'm standing over here in the corner with Churchill. You know the quote.
Yes, I know the quote, but I'm not sure you do. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=571797
> Both monarchists and libertarians seem to think they'll be the ones in the 0.5% on top. The odds are against you.
If this is what you believe, I doubt you are familiar with much of the work of either of those groups. Who said anything about the top 0.5%? Do you really think all of the bottom 99.5% in a monarchy were like chattel slaves, but today's bottom 99.5% are free as a bird? Please consider what I wrote earlier -- even the average citizen was more free in many non-democratic countries.
I doubt there's an example of a monarchy anyone would seriously want to move to, but Medieval Iceland was a fine example of a funstioning anarchy: for longer than the United States has existed they had aterritorial, voluntary government by gothar (sort of kind of like chieftans, also sort of kind of like lawyers) who competed to provide people with governing services.
> I doubt there's an example of a monarchy anyone would seriously want to move to
You doubt that people wanted to move to the old European monarchies? Even if we're only talking about the present, I'm not a fan, but there are plenty of people who would love to move to the UAE.
You doubt that people wanted to move to the old European monarchies? Even if we're only talking about the present, I'm not a fan, but there are plenty of people who would love to move to the UAE.
I suppose you're right. I shouldn't have said "anyone." But I don't think there's any example of a good monarchy.
"Since you can't have government by, for, and of the people without freedom"
You can if the people don't want freedom--i.e. if the majority of the people want to oppress a minority. You don't have a free society if your 80% white state votes 70-30 to segregate the blacks, for instance.
If the people can be easily convinced to limit their freedom out of fear, you can also have an unfree democracy.
"and you can't be free if you don't have power over the government"
"Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free?"
This is actually questionable as well. Salutary neglect by a foreign imperial power successfully resulted in civil freedom in colonial America and in pre-1997 Hong Kong, for two. I suspect many of Britain's other colonies received similar treatment. The American Revolution was directly caused by a revision in Britain's policy of salutary neglect, but it's questionable 200 years later whether it really left us off any more free.
"So, OK, we can posit an egalitarian, "free" society where only an elite have political power. I honestly don't believe that's an actual possibility - what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have?"
As opposed to a democratic society where an envious populist movement taxes you at 99% of your income as soon as they think you have too much money and are becoming an elitist?
You can if the people don't want freedom--i.e. if the majority of the people want to oppress a minority. You don't have a free society if your 80% white state votes 70-30 to segregate the blacks, for instance.
If the people can be easily convinced to limit their freedom out of fear, you can also have an unfree democracy.
"and you can't be free if you don't have power over the government"
"Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free?"
This is actually questionable as well. Salutary neglect by a foreign imperial power successfully resulted in civil freedom in colonial America and in pre-1997 Hong Kong, for two. I suspect many of Britain's other colonies received similar treatment. The American Revolution was directly caused by a revision in Britain's policy of salutary neglect, but it's questionable 200 years later whether it really left us off any more free.
"So, OK, we can posit an egalitarian, "free" society where only an elite have political power. I honestly don't believe that's an actual possibility - what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have?"
As opposed to a democratic society where an envious populist movement taxes you at 99% of your income as soon as they think you have too much money and are becoming an elitist?
>"What does democracy have to do with it"
democracy = everybody gets a vote. If we where a democracy, I did not get to vote, because I was not allowed to see the text of the subject to make an informed decision.
Anyway, we are not a democracy we are a republic which is evident by the fact that I did not get a vote on the issue. The elected leaders did and this is the problem with a republic over a democracy, someone is doing the voting for you and after that someone has received your vote to put them their they tend to forget about the people that got them there.
democracy = everybody gets a vote. If we where a democracy, I did not get to vote, because I was not allowed to see the text of the subject to make an informed decision.
Anyway, we are not a democracy we are a republic which is evident by the fact that I did not get a vote on the issue. The elected leaders did and this is the problem with a republic over a democracy, someone is doing the voting for you and after that someone has received your vote to put them their they tend to forget about the people that got them there.
You seem to be confusing several different concepts. Most countries have representative democracy, rather than direct democracy. This is largely orthogonal to the issue of being a republic, which (in this context, and in over-simplified terms) simply means that there are certain things that even a majority vote can't achieve, as the majority is also bound by the Constitution (in an attempt to avoid the classic problem of two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner)
simply means that there are certain things that even a majority vote can't achieve, as the majority is also bound by the Constitution
Not really, even the Constitution is amendable by a super majority. You should have said a simple majority.
Not really, even the Constitution is amendable by a super majority. You should have said a simple majority.
You can't really have democracy without freedom.
Of course you can. Even mainstream commentators agree with me on this one; they have a term for it: "illiberal democracy" [1].
In any case, I would make the stronger point that you can't really have freedom with democracy.
[1] The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, Fareed Zakaria, Foreign Affairs, November/December 1997
In any case, I would make the stronger point that you can't really have freedom with democracy.
[1] The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, Fareed Zakaria, Foreign Affairs, November/December 1997
They'll just make encryption illegal. And record everything everybody does all the time. They never stop. Their objective is to take everything they can. As soon as this is passed they'll look into making even more restrictive laws. It will never stop, the only solution is to play their game and try and keep legislation from being passed, and get existing laws dismissed.
> It will never stop, the only solution is to play their game and try and keep legislation from being passed, and get existing laws dismissed.
"The only solution"? Not hardly.
Lampposts, rope, politicians. Some assembly required.
"The only solution"? Not hardly.
Lampposts, rope, politicians. Some assembly required.
have you seen modern riot control technology?
Dude, they have 50 years of tech advantage over the pitchfork wielders. We are truly fucked if the military and police do not mutiny
Dude, they have 50 years of tech advantage over the pitchfork wielders. We are truly fucked if the military and police do not mutiny
Have you seen what proportion of Americans own firearms?
If we are talking about treason - which hanging politicians from a lamp post would be - it won't be crowd control with tear gas and riot shields. It will be some police/military with guns vs citizens/police/military with guns.
Fortunately this law will not require that level of trouble. It is so draconian that it will not pass - so long as it is made public. The only way the government can control us is through secrecy. When something is so obviously against the public interest it won't be passed if enough people fight against it. The reason the Patriot act and others stood was because they just didn't effect enough people. If you start talking about losing your internet because your son posted a YouTube clip, voters will get mad.
If we are talking about treason - which hanging politicians from a lamp post would be - it won't be crowd control with tear gas and riot shields. It will be some police/military with guns vs citizens/police/military with guns.
Fortunately this law will not require that level of trouble. It is so draconian that it will not pass - so long as it is made public. The only way the government can control us is through secrecy. When something is so obviously against the public interest it won't be passed if enough people fight against it. The reason the Patriot act and others stood was because they just didn't effect enough people. If you start talking about losing your internet because your son posted a YouTube clip, voters will get mad.
Please stop assuming this is just about America. One of the reasons people are so worked up about this is that the US is trying to force its idea of expression control on the rest of the world.
Perhaps the rest of the world should find out who's supporting this (shouldn't be too hard) and perform a distributed denial of service by sending spurious copyright-notice takedown demands to all the ISPs hosting all their pages; especially revenue-oriented pages.
[deleted]
You've made it clear that you haven't been acquainted with modern riot control technology.
tear gas and shields is the OLD stuff. The new stuff hasn't been widely utilized, but it IS widely in place and police and military have been trained on it.
The purpose of these non-lethal riot control methods is to destroy the power of assembly without losing the hearts and minds of the masses.
LRAD is one of the most widely known riot control technologies that is totally TV-friendly. The TV can't even tell that it is being used - in fact unless it is used on you you don't even realize it is being used.
This can be deployed from all kinds of platforms that impersonalize it.
If the public doesn't complain about waterboarding they aren't going to complain about LRAD. And yet LRAD will totally destroy a peaceful demonstration.
You're right that we should be able to get former military and police on our side, but we better hope they mutiny and are able to steal technology.
tear gas and shields is the OLD stuff. The new stuff hasn't been widely utilized, but it IS widely in place and police and military have been trained on it.
The purpose of these non-lethal riot control methods is to destroy the power of assembly without losing the hearts and minds of the masses.
LRAD is one of the most widely known riot control technologies that is totally TV-friendly. The TV can't even tell that it is being used - in fact unless it is used on you you don't even realize it is being used.
This can be deployed from all kinds of platforms that impersonalize it.
If the public doesn't complain about waterboarding they aren't going to complain about LRAD. And yet LRAD will totally destroy a peaceful demonstration.
You're right that we should be able to get former military and police on our side, but we better hope they mutiny and are able to steal technology.
I don't think you've been acquainted with the business end of a large rifle. Shoot whatever ray you want at a large crowd of people, if it comes to treason I'll be with my brother and cousin at night in the woods with some high power rifles and shotguns. Considering both have been military trained I don't think we're too far behind the curve. I'm not the kind of person who believes in conspiracies or has a bomb shelter, but the patriot act made me think that maybe I'd use the gun in my house against the government just as easily as I would against someone breaking and entering. I'm not talking about carrying a gun to a rally, I'm talking about defending myself. Look at that nut job in Buffalo who took out a bunch of swat team members last year. He was crazy and it certainly was a terrible tragedy, but it shows that it IS possible.
Sometimes engineers forget not every problem has a technological solution. Picking the right out cropping of rocks to defend yourself from has more value than millions of dollars in tech if you can extract the right price from the people attacking you.
But if you are going down that road, it is just a matter of how many people you take out before they get you. I won't be getting that enraged about copyright law, ever. If they start infringing on my right to complain about the copyright law, then we're getting warmer but even then not so much. People over react to the problems we have today, when you start infringing on the average person's rights a lot more than this people like me who are generally calm and don't freak out about small infractions will start getting mad, and thats when it will boil over and either a political or violent adjustment to the direction of the country will happen.
Sometimes engineers forget not every problem has a technological solution. Picking the right out cropping of rocks to defend yourself from has more value than millions of dollars in tech if you can extract the right price from the people attacking you.
But if you are going down that road, it is just a matter of how many people you take out before they get you. I won't be getting that enraged about copyright law, ever. If they start infringing on my right to complain about the copyright law, then we're getting warmer but even then not so much. People over react to the problems we have today, when you start infringing on the average person's rights a lot more than this people like me who are generally calm and don't freak out about small infractions will start getting mad, and thats when it will boil over and either a political or violent adjustment to the direction of the country will happen.
There is a big difference between Al Qaeda style resistance and collective resistance. Sure, Hamas and Al Qaeda exist but... they are losing and they will inevitably lose.
They can hold out for a long time with their low tech, but they still take losses at a 50:1 ratio.
You have AR-15s but do you have UAVs? Do you have tanks? Do you even have nukes, for that matter, that ancient 60 year old tech?
You can't win as a collective which means you can't win. Unless you can deploy an army that will actually DEFEAT the opposing army you are talking about Hamas-style resistance. The Palestinians are not winning. They are conquered. It's already over. They are bad people to take advice from.
They can hold out for a long time with their low tech, but they still take losses at a 50:1 ratio.
You have AR-15s but do you have UAVs? Do you have tanks? Do you even have nukes, for that matter, that ancient 60 year old tech?
You can't win as a collective which means you can't win. Unless you can deploy an army that will actually DEFEAT the opposing army you are talking about Hamas-style resistance. The Palestinians are not winning. They are conquered. It's already over. They are bad people to take advice from.
>You have AR-15s but do you have UAVs? Do you have tanks? Do you even have nukes, for that matter, that ancient 60 year old tech?
You don't need any of this, In guerrilla warfare mechanized infantry (tanks) are really only good for expensive body armor and neither side could use nukes if they had them (you would just be bombing yourself). Utilizing either would cause to many civilian casualties and the nasty part of guerrilla warfare is that for each 1 killed their are 50 recruits that have seen family and friends die (hardcore). Once this happens you have one of three choices surrender, withdraw or genocide.
You don't need any of this, In guerrilla warfare mechanized infantry (tanks) are really only good for expensive body armor and neither side could use nukes if they had them (you would just be bombing yourself). Utilizing either would cause to many civilian casualties and the nasty part of guerrilla warfare is that for each 1 killed their are 50 recruits that have seen family and friends die (hardcore). Once this happens you have one of three choices surrender, withdraw or genocide.
I feel like we're going in circles.
1. You can't win through pacifism because of modern anti-protestor technology.
2. You can't win through conventional warfare because you have no collective ability to project power except through the incumbent government.
3. You can't win through guerilla warfare because guerillas never win wars. They just make life really suck for everyone.
1. You can't win through pacifism because of modern anti-protestor technology.
2. You can't win through conventional warfare because you have no collective ability to project power except through the incumbent government.
3. You can't win through guerilla warfare because guerillas never win wars. They just make life really suck for everyone.
>There is a big difference between Al Qaeda style resistance and collective resistance. Sure, Hamas and Al Qaeda exist but... they are losing and they will inevitably lose.
Isn't that what they said about the Viet Cong?
Isn't that what they said about the Viet Cong?
Who eventually did lose to an extent. By the '70s the war had moved into a more conventional phase with the NVA doing the majority of the fighting. When Saigon fell it was not to VC guerillas but NVA tanks.
Have you seen vietnam? They definitely didn't win anything from that war.
It sure is a hollow victory if your entire country and way of life is destroyed and all your descendants are horribly mutated, etc.
If winning means getting what Vietnam got, I'll take surrender and slavery.
It sure is a hollow victory if your entire country and way of life is destroyed and all your descendants are horribly mutated, etc.
If winning means getting what Vietnam got, I'll take surrender and slavery.
What happened to land of the free, home of the brave? Are you sure you're American?
Why would he be?
I don't mean to troll, and perhaps I missed the tongue-in-cheek element, but this kind of corny quote means nothing. Canada did not fight a war for the "land of the free" and is doing quite fine in its slavery to the British crown, thank you.
I don't mean to troll, and perhaps I missed the tongue-in-cheek element, but this kind of corny quote means nothing. Canada did not fight a war for the "land of the free" and is doing quite fine in its slavery to the British crown, thank you.
I totally disagree; your analysis is flawed. The reason movements like Al Qaeda will lose is because their ideology doesn't have the right support. When you try to sidestep the right to freedom this country was founded upon you are picking a fight that extends into the core of the people, including the intellectuals that made all that high tech weaponry possible. Also, our all-volunteer military is made up of our people - our brothers, cousins, sisters etc.
The intellectuals are pacified by their McMansions and $150,000 student debt.
Your brothers, cousins, and sisters don't understand what is wrong with censoring the internet. They think it's a good thing because they're afraid of pedophiles.
The whole point (as I explained) of modern non-lethal weaponry is that it can be used to enforce bad laws without causing a public uprising. Brothers, cousins, sisters, etc think waterboarding is okay because they watch too much 24. They think anyone who flees in pain due to LRAD is a pussy cause it's just like loud music.
Your brothers, cousins, and sisters don't understand what is wrong with censoring the internet. They think it's a good thing because they're afraid of pedophiles.
The whole point (as I explained) of modern non-lethal weaponry is that it can be used to enforce bad laws without causing a public uprising. Brothers, cousins, sisters, etc think waterboarding is okay because they watch too much 24. They think anyone who flees in pain due to LRAD is a pussy cause it's just like loud music.
You really think intellectuals would be content holed up in their McMansions while a struggle for liberty was raging in this country? And our family and friends which make up the military wouldn't know which side to stand on? I'm not talking about censoring some silly media, I'm talking about if it came down to the difference between liberty and tyranny, of infringing assembly and free speech.
>You really think intellectuals would be content holed up in their McMansions while a struggle for liberty was raging in this country?
WTF has been going on for the last 40 years? There has been an accelerating decline in liberty since about 1970.
Your sisters, cousins, etc have proven themselves to be easily manipulated idiots.
Intellectuals have proven themselves to be spineless lovers of comfort who will complain but never put anything tangible on the line.
WTF has been going on for the last 40 years? There has been an accelerating decline in liberty since about 1970.
Your sisters, cousins, etc have proven themselves to be easily manipulated idiots.
Intellectuals have proven themselves to be spineless lovers of comfort who will complain but never put anything tangible on the line.
pretty much. Do you really think we'd take our cheeto-stained hands off the keyboard and start shooting at people? I know I'm not ready to get shot for some abstract idea. Sure, I'd maybe spend some time and/or money, but I don't think anyone but the crazies would start shooting.
Besides, I think that shooting back is rarely effective in modern warfare; it's all about 'hearts and minds' these days, not about who can kill more of the other dudes.
Besides, I think that shooting back is rarely effective in modern warfare; it's all about 'hearts and minds' these days, not about who can kill more of the other dudes.
... It will be some police/military with guns vs citizens/police/military with guns
I agree that it won't get to that. but if it did, barring massive police/military mutiny, who do you think is going to win that one? If both sides have guns, I'd say it will likely be the side with more training, experience, body armour, huge ammo stock piles and armoured vehicles. Unless the majority of the police/military mutiny I don't think even the US civilian population with your ridiculous amount of guns could prevail.
I agree that it won't get to that. but if it did, barring massive police/military mutiny, who do you think is going to win that one? If both sides have guns, I'd say it will likely be the side with more training, experience, body armour, huge ammo stock piles and armoured vehicles. Unless the majority of the police/military mutiny I don't think even the US civilian population with your ridiculous amount of guns could prevail.
In equal numbers the military prevails.
I'm not worried about the police force. They have shotguns and pistols just like everybody else, and in most cases the enthusiasts have just as much skill as the police.
And the military is tiny, less than 1% of the population. About 50% of the population owns at least 1 gun, and most who own at least 1 own several. If they can barely secure Iraq, there is no way they will secure the USA.
I'm not worried about the police force. They have shotguns and pistols just like everybody else, and in most cases the enthusiasts have just as much skill as the police.
And the military is tiny, less than 1% of the population. About 50% of the population owns at least 1 gun, and most who own at least 1 own several. If they can barely secure Iraq, there is no way they will secure the USA.
Well, they still kill something like 10-100 enemies for every soldier felled. I'm all for preventing it from getting to that point in the first place (not that I'm implying you are).
Side note: While I agree this particular article is relevant to HN, its starting to bring out the crazy a bit. Can we have a moratorium on political articles for a day or two to cool it off?
Side note: While I agree this particular article is relevant to HN, its starting to bring out the crazy a bit. Can we have a moratorium on political articles for a day or two to cool it off?
I totally disagree with a moratorium on anything that threatens liberty in the USA, especially when resulting discourse is among intellectual minds.
Um, I meant this article is okay, but we need to restore balance to the force afterword.
Guerilla warfare?
If the population collectively goes against their government there can be no doubt as to the outcome: The politicians lose.
Swat teams are only effective against small groups and individuals - they can't kill 300 million+ people.
Swat teams are only effective against small groups and individuals - they can't kill 300 million+ people.
This is not true, Guerrilla style warfare is one of the few styles of warfare where technical superiority does not equal a total advantage on the battlefield. The reasons being is that you general negate mechanized infantry and air superiority. Even the advantages of selective fire assault rifles are somewhat muted. The number one advantage in these situations is familiarity with the terrain. It was the deciding factor in the revolutionary war, Vietnam, Soviet / Afghanistan, and if something does not change US / Afghanistan. Time and time again some of the poorest nations beat the most powerful nation of that time by simply drawing them into a Guerrilla war.
You're missing the point. Guerillas don't win wars, at best they ensure that no one wins.
Tell that to Castro or Nguyen Huu Tho or Washington all of which won their struggles via guerrilla warfare. Note: I am not advocating the use of insurgency as a means of resolving political dispute, just pointing out that it does in fact win against superior numbers, resources and technology. To claim it does not ignores centuries of evidence to the contrary.
Washington won his struggles with conventional warfare combined with a shitton of direct military intervention from France. The role of guerrilla warfare in the American Revolution is popularly overstated.
If we are talking about Washington directly then yes he won his battle via conventional warfare but when we talk about the war that he symbolizes as the leader, there is little denying that guerrilla warfare is what disheartened the British troops and emboldened the militias and locals. The following article highlights how important small skirmishes and hit and run tactics where to the revolutionary war. http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1489
> have you seen modern riot control technology?
Yes I have. That's why I didn't mention riots. I also didn't mention massed assaults on govt installations.
There are ways to lose against a modern military. Don't use them. (BTW - If you think that tanks are decisive, you need to spend some time with Marines.)
Yes I have. That's why I didn't mention riots. I also didn't mention massed assaults on govt installations.
There are ways to lose against a modern military. Don't use them. (BTW - If you think that tanks are decisive, you need to spend some time with Marines.)
Tell me more about the Marines.
> Tell me more about the Marines.
Don't you know anyone in the armed forces?
The US Marines (I assume that other countries have similar forces) practice killing tanks with individual weapons. I assume that it's nasty work, but their slogan is something like "Killing tanks is easy and fun."
Tanks have problems in cities and other places with limited visibility and mobility. They can get stuck.
Yes, tanks can blow holes in walls and they have machine guns. However, if they're not moving fast, doctrine says that they require infantry support. I assume that that's because of vulnerabilities.
Militaries "leak" in civil wars, so some of the smaller weapons will be available.
Don't you know anyone in the armed forces?
The US Marines (I assume that other countries have similar forces) practice killing tanks with individual weapons. I assume that it's nasty work, but their slogan is something like "Killing tanks is easy and fun."
Tanks have problems in cities and other places with limited visibility and mobility. They can get stuck.
Yes, tanks can blow holes in walls and they have machine guns. However, if they're not moving fast, doctrine says that they require infantry support. I assume that that's because of vulnerabilities.
Militaries "leak" in civil wars, so some of the smaller weapons will be available.
Thanks for your write-up.
> Don't you know anyone in the armed forces?
No. I am a governmentally recognized pacifist. (That's true. You have to get that recognition if you don't want to serve in the military in Germany (and you happen to be male, healthy and educated).)
> Don't you know anyone in the armed forces?
No. I am a governmentally recognized pacifist. (That's true. You have to get that recognition if you don't want to serve in the military in Germany (and you happen to be male, healthy and educated).)
> No. [I don't know anyone in the armed forces.] I am a governmentally recognized pacifist.
Is there a connection between not knowing anyone in the armed forces and being a pacifist?
Is there a connection between not knowing anyone in the armed forces and being a pacifist?
Germany is the only connection between them. Proud members of the military are not very visible in modern German society.
What does "proud" have to do with it?
Are "not military" Germans are generally hostile towards members of their military? How about "recognized pacifists"?
How about police?
Are "not military" Germans are generally hostile towards members of their military? How about "recognized pacifists"?
How about police?
I just used "pround" to differentiate from the drafted grunts. I have the impression that members of the military are viewed as slightly nutty (in Germany).
> I am a governmentally recognized pacifist.
Ah, then you're willing to lie down in front of the tanks and "not cooperate", but if that doesn't work....
Ah, then you're willing to lie down in front of the tanks and "not cooperate", but if that doesn't work....
Could they really do this? HTTPS is pretty much vital to a major part of the economy now. I find it hard to see how they could word anything other than a blanket encryption ban in a manner which would prevent surreptitious use of the remaining systems.
Maybe I'm an optimist, but I really feel the cat's out of the bag here - technology will always trump legislation.
Maybe I'm an optimist, but I really feel the cat's out of the bag here - technology will always trump legislation.
One might say the same of air travel - yet a million people around the world are denied the right to fly because somebody in the government typed their name wrong on a form. Does anybody fix that? Find the person who cares. Hint: nobody cares.
This treaty will make the Internet just like today's air travel. Do you think technology will trump that?
This treaty will make the Internet just like today's air travel. Do you think technology will trump that?
Agreed, Furthermore since when has your opinion been traceable to your ISP? I don't post anything (well nearly anything) on an ISP-hosted account; its on a public forum, or a cloud server etc. Encryption, proxies, public fora, technology in general will make this a futile effort to police. The genie is out of the bottle, and this rumored 'treaty' is a cry by a desperate administration that is feeling powerless. They may as well say "we'll put serial numbers on the buggy whips! We'll regulate steam engines! That'll stop em!"
it would never be a blanket ban. there would be an escape valve of bureaucracy that only corporations could utilize
it has always been the case (utube takeoff, Meg Whitman & Co. would be happy to forget about the foundations of Skype [KaZaa] etc.)
...ever wondered how GOOG Books works?
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_int...
...ever wondered how GOOG Books works?
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_int...
ANd there will be murder in the streets, and fire will rain down, and dark times will come for all, and ...
This thread is most dramatic. Where is the demand for references I have come to expect from this forum? Folks, lets stop responding to emotional venting as if its fact.
Yes, I got modded down for daring to suggest a court would decide on a balance between right to privacy and right to protect ones works.
LOL! Court of HN says NO!
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=921446
LOL! Court of HN says NO!
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=921446
A second option is to get out of the first world. It's not so much that developing countries won't pass these laws, but rather that they'll have a somewhat tougher time enforcing them (if they even bother to try).
The only problem being that in the Third World, they won't just abrogate your Internet freedom; if they don't like what you say, they'll come and beat you with large blunt objects, or just kill you. America hasn't gone that far, and won't. It's just going to get really stupid for a while, and the folks in Washington are, as somebody once said, supposed to be smarter than me.
I'm aware. I'm thinking more along the lines of Brazil. Not first world, but it's not like we're talking about Somalia either.
Among the wealthy this is a very common line of thinking. Many rich people with foresight who are concerned buy land in South America and develop plans to quickly emigrate.
South America is the ideal expat location for those who can afford it.
South America is the ideal expat location for those who can afford it.
Point. Actually, Brazil would be a pretty good choice.
Or maybe they'll just do what Russia and China do and ignore the fuck out of any and all copyright shit.
I wonder if learning to read simplified Chinese and joining Q-Zone would be even more effective than joining a Darknet, at least for some types of speech--and they probably don't care what you say about Western governments on there, either.
Speaking as a small provider who gets these kinds of takedown notices, America is actually pretty good when it comes to political speech. Perhaps the best in the world. if you get a takedown for political speech, nearly any small provider would be happy to fight for you, because it's wonderful publicity. (I say small provider, because in order to fight for you, someone with enough authority to do so has got to see the takedown, and decide it is bogus. At large companies, the people reading the takedown often don't have authority to decide to fight or not. the same incentive applies, though, so if someone at a large corporation with authority saw a bogus takedown for political speech, they might make the same decision a small provider would.)
I know I'd be happy to defend original political speech against a bogus takedown notice... not because I'm patriotic or altruistic, but because the publicity would be priceless. this is America, and my customers are nerds; being at the center of some scandal where the feds were trying to shut down some opposing political viewpoint would be incredible, from a self-promotion standpoint.
America becomes a bad place when you want some kind of commercial speech (or when your 'political' speech is commercial... but even then, so long as it's clear you have a valid claim and are not just copying someone else's copywritten work, it's pretty easy to find a provider willing to fight for you in order to garner the positive publicity.)
I might be willing to stand up for political speech, but I'm going to cooperate with taking down customers who want to violate trademarks to sell knock-off goods (knock-off goods are fine, just don't violate trademarks.) I'm also not going to spend a penny defending people who want to share movies or other copywritten data. Right or wrong, that's not a fight I can win here in America.
I keep telling my customers this; if you want to say something politically controversial, do so here. if you want to copy the latest movies, etc... host in eastern Europe or china, and don't involve me.
I know I'd be happy to defend original political speech against a bogus takedown notice... not because I'm patriotic or altruistic, but because the publicity would be priceless. this is America, and my customers are nerds; being at the center of some scandal where the feds were trying to shut down some opposing political viewpoint would be incredible, from a self-promotion standpoint.
America becomes a bad place when you want some kind of commercial speech (or when your 'political' speech is commercial... but even then, so long as it's clear you have a valid claim and are not just copying someone else's copywritten work, it's pretty easy to find a provider willing to fight for you in order to garner the positive publicity.)
I might be willing to stand up for political speech, but I'm going to cooperate with taking down customers who want to violate trademarks to sell knock-off goods (knock-off goods are fine, just don't violate trademarks.) I'm also not going to spend a penny defending people who want to share movies or other copywritten data. Right or wrong, that's not a fight I can win here in America.
I keep telling my customers this; if you want to say something politically controversial, do so here. if you want to copy the latest movies, etc... host in eastern Europe or china, and don't involve me.
OK, this is a pretty good point. What worries me - probably groundlessly - is that iffy point where the political and the commercial overlap.
What if my political speech is about health care reform? It's not commercial, but it offends some pretty deep pockets - in that case, given enough lawyers (and there are always enough lawyers!), I worry that this kind of law could and would be used to shut me up. No burden of proof.
The DMCA has some fraud provisions that allow this kind of thing to be whacked, but I don't know the actual whack statistics.
Geeks don't like the government (right now) because there has been a successful couple of decades of anti-government propaganda. Would opposing Anthem be as good for your PR as that? I don't believe it would be. Yet Anthem is arguably a pretty dangerous actor in our current political sphere.
What if my political speech is about health care reform? It's not commercial, but it offends some pretty deep pockets - in that case, given enough lawyers (and there are always enough lawyers!), I worry that this kind of law could and would be used to shut me up. No burden of proof.
The DMCA has some fraud provisions that allow this kind of thing to be whacked, but I don't know the actual whack statistics.
Geeks don't like the government (right now) because there has been a successful couple of decades of anti-government propaganda. Would opposing Anthem be as good for your PR as that? I don't believe it would be. Yet Anthem is arguably a pretty dangerous actor in our current political sphere.
I agree that it is worrying. It's not a good law; the current situation is setup so that a risk averse hosting provider is likely to just take shit down when asked.
But what I'm saying is that while there is a pretty big downside to standing up to bullshit takedown notices, there is also a pretty big upside. Would I personally take the risk? heh. well, it would depend on how strong I thought the case was. But probably; Like many entrepreneurs, I'm something of a glory hound and I have a moderate-to-high risk tolerance. My expectation would be that it wouldn't go to court. see what happened with ralph lauen and bong-boing:
http://boingboing.net/2009/10/06/the-criticism-that-r.html
On the other hand, I do get a whole lot of obviously legitimate takedown notices. I've had several cases of some company selling knock off designer stuff who not only used the trade mark without permission, but who copied the legitimate website wholesale.
I mean, I know jack about designer clothing, and I think knock-off goods are perfectly legitimate, but I think it's pretty important to protect trademarks.
But what I'm saying is that while there is a pretty big downside to standing up to bullshit takedown notices, there is also a pretty big upside. Would I personally take the risk? heh. well, it would depend on how strong I thought the case was. But probably; Like many entrepreneurs, I'm something of a glory hound and I have a moderate-to-high risk tolerance. My expectation would be that it wouldn't go to court. see what happened with ralph lauen and bong-boing:
http://boingboing.net/2009/10/06/the-criticism-that-r.html
On the other hand, I do get a whole lot of obviously legitimate takedown notices. I've had several cases of some company selling knock off designer stuff who not only used the trade mark without permission, but who copied the legitimate website wholesale.
I mean, I know jack about designer clothing, and I think knock-off goods are perfectly legitimate, but I think it's pretty important to protect trademarks.
Excellent point. People have become accustomed to an unfettered flow of media and information. They're not just going to throw their hands up and go back to the pre-napster days of walled media gardens.
Excuse my (regrettable) cynicism, but people were accustomed to various other things as well and I don't recall their even bothering to throw up their hands in the post 911 Patriot Act regime when they were taken away.
The things that were taken away were not things most people think they need. Most people assume they will never be suspected of a crime, and they are usually right, so why bother getting upset about "rights"?
The internet is different. It's something people use and rely on every day. If encryption is outlawed, there are no more cell-phone networks, online banking, online shopping, credit card transactions, wifi, etc. Most people are not going to be too happy about that.
Censoring the Internet or going after file-sharers is also not going to work. IPv4's "keyspace" of unique addresses is too small; as soon as disconnections become legal, bittorrent clients will start forging the UDP source IPs. (Some ISPs have egress filtering, but does every ISP on the entire planet? If not, then anyone can make it look like you are sharing a file anytime they want.)
To make this treaty take effect in the US as written, the Constitution will have to be rewritten. Politicians are much too lazy for that, so I am not worried.
The internet is different. It's something people use and rely on every day. If encryption is outlawed, there are no more cell-phone networks, online banking, online shopping, credit card transactions, wifi, etc. Most people are not going to be too happy about that.
Censoring the Internet or going after file-sharers is also not going to work. IPv4's "keyspace" of unique addresses is too small; as soon as disconnections become legal, bittorrent clients will start forging the UDP source IPs. (Some ISPs have egress filtering, but does every ISP on the entire planet? If not, then anyone can make it look like you are sharing a file anytime they want.)
To make this treaty take effect in the US as written, the Constitution will have to be rewritten. Politicians are much too lazy for that, so I am not worried.
> To make this treaty take effect in the US as written, the Constitution will have to be rewritten. Politicians are much too lazy for that, so I am not worried.
Don't be so sure. It's not like they don't ignore the Constitution when they feel like it.
Don't be so sure. It's not like they don't ignore the Constitution when they feel like it.
some may wish to consider disruptive technologies which will render treaties such as this irrelevant.
It's only irrelevant if you don't mind breaking the law. If you are trying to be a law abiding citizen the ability to avoid being caught is itself irrelevant.
It's only irrelevant if you don't mind breaking the law. If you are trying to be a law abiding citizen the ability to avoid being caught is itself irrelevant.
[deleted]
And that will mean that we've got good darknets for real criminals to use, whilst people doing nothing wrong cover for them.
If this report is accurate, this treaty would be the biggest threat to the startup business that I've seen.
How can we tell if it's accurate?
How can we tell if it's accurate?
The involved governments have refused to disclose to their own citizenry the contents of the treaty they're negotiating "for us". That leaves us with only leaks to work with. This is all the accuracy you get, as long as our governments can get away with such gross abuses.
It doesn't matter what they negotiate, treaties do not become US law. See, for example, Medellen v. Texas:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/Mede...
"We conclude that neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions."
If they want this to become law in the US, they will have to follow the usual process. If they want criminal sanctions without trials, as the treaty proposes, the Constitution will have to be rewritten. (The fact that enforcing these laws will be technically impossible is another annoying issue.)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/Mede...
"We conclude that neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions."
If they want this to become law in the US, they will have to follow the usual process. If they want criminal sanctions without trials, as the treaty proposes, the Constitution will have to be rewritten. (The fact that enforcing these laws will be technically impossible is another annoying issue.)
It doesn't matter what they negotiate, treaties do not become US law.
Your link does not support that claim. What the link says is that some treaties are self-executing. Those are automatically US law. Others are not self-executing, and require legislation to be passed. The ruling is that the Vienna convention is not self-executing, and therefore needs legislation to come into effect.
Whether this particular copyright treaty would be self-executing depends on a court ruling on the details of the treaty. Given that lawyers are involved in drawing it up, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them design it to be self-executing in the USA. As for the Constitution, I'm so used to seeing attempted and actual end runs around it that I wouldn't be confident that it will stop them from enacting the copyright rules they want.
Your link does not support that claim. What the link says is that some treaties are self-executing. Those are automatically US law. Others are not self-executing, and require legislation to be passed. The ruling is that the Vienna convention is not self-executing, and therefore needs legislation to come into effect.
Whether this particular copyright treaty would be self-executing depends on a court ruling on the details of the treaty. Given that lawyers are involved in drawing it up, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them design it to be self-executing in the USA. As for the Constitution, I'm so used to seeing attempted and actual end runs around it that I wouldn't be confident that it will stop them from enacting the copyright rules they want.
You're wrong- treaties are not only law, but they trump the constitution. Your link involves a technicality in a particular treaty, not treaties in general.
"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" is the usual money quote.
"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" is the usual money quote.
They don't "trump" the constitution so much as they are co-equal with it.
"Trump" usually has the meaning of supersede. I think the GP quote makes it clear ratified treaties supersede other provisions of the constitution - "shall be the supreme Law of the Land" seems pretty clear.
No, that's my point--ratified treaties don't supersede the Constitution, and a careful reading of the Constitution doesn't allow for them to.
Most countries require ratification of treaties by the representatives of the people. Is this not so in the US?
According to a Freedom House report (http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=463), only about 50-60 countries can be classified as "democratic" or "free", so I think saying "many" countries instead of "most" would be more appropriate.
No, our treaties are ratified by representatives of corporations. Corporations buy reps and those reps vote for laws proposed by the corporations.
No, we require it of the Senate. (sighs)
Yes I think it is 2/3rds of the senate.
Really, the only way I know how to make a living is online. This would definitely change things.
But the more I think of it, I believe we'll be alright. Those in the web space have a certain scrappiness to them. I've always disliked rules and bureaucracy. That's why I'm here, and not in a Fortune 500 or jerking off politicians.
I find a way to scoot around bullshit rules now, and I'll scoot around them if this is passed.
Most people I know and work with have one thing in common: their job is to make disruptive technology that people love. Rules or no rules, nothing can stop them, as long as they have the best interest of the user in mind.
Nothing can change that.
But the more I think of it, I believe we'll be alright. Those in the web space have a certain scrappiness to them. I've always disliked rules and bureaucracy. That's why I'm here, and not in a Fortune 500 or jerking off politicians.
I find a way to scoot around bullshit rules now, and I'll scoot around them if this is passed.
Most people I know and work with have one thing in common: their job is to make disruptive technology that people love. Rules or no rules, nothing can stop them, as long as they have the best interest of the user in mind.
Nothing can change that.
If they want this to become law in the US, they will have to follow the usual process. If they want criminal sanctions without trials, as the treaty proposes, the Constitution will have to be rewritten.
Anyone with a 6th grade reading level can see this is true. However, the courts apparently don't have this degree of understanding.
See, for example, the SCOTUS decision in US v Emerson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Emerson ). This case involved the so-called "Lautenberg Amendment", which forever denies access to firearms to anyone who has been the target of a restraining order in a domestic dispute. You'll note that such a restraining order does not involve any sort of due process. Nonetheless, the Court ruled that Dr. Emerson was not deprived of his 2nd Amendment rights.
Anyone with a 6th grade reading level can see this is true. However, the courts apparently don't have this degree of understanding.
See, for example, the SCOTUS decision in US v Emerson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Emerson ). This case involved the so-called "Lautenberg Amendment", which forever denies access to firearms to anyone who has been the target of a restraining order in a domestic dispute. You'll note that such a restraining order does not involve any sort of due process. Nonetheless, the Court ruled that Dr. Emerson was not deprived of his 2nd Amendment rights.
Yes, but it's a lot easier to pass the "WTO 2009 Compliance Act" than the "Copyright Act of 2009". For starters, they'd bundle the copyright stuff with a pile of other trade stuff, and it'd be cast as "fulfilling our trade obligations", not "giving crazy rights to Disney and friends".
The government no longer works for its citizens. It is a completely separate organization from whatever the citizens create. Their laws do not apply unless they use force. Simple as that.
I'm going to just install FreeNet now and setup some encryption software now...
I'm going to just install FreeNet now and setup some encryption software now...
Gross abuses? Because its being written in secret? The US Constitution itself was written in secret! That fact alone does not make this a bad thing- but it is certainly something to be concerned about- and I'm certainly very concerned about the alleged contents of this treaty. We can only hope that once it becomes public, Congress will be convinced by public outcry not to ratify it.
starting a new country is in a completely different category.
i'd agree with "gross abuses" since this is a treaty being crafted in secret, with special "access" given to certain interested parties... basically the government isn't working for the good of the people, but for the good of a few large companies and the detriment of the people.
these are the people that thought the CD would destroy their business. then they thought the DVD would destroy their business. these are the people that want you to pay every single time you watch a movie that you own. they fill the airwaves with Creed and Linkin Park. they don't understand technology in the least. fire probably scares them. and they will be the ones "updating" our copyright law.
i'd agree with "gross abuses" since this is a treaty being crafted in secret, with special "access" given to certain interested parties... basically the government isn't working for the good of the people, but for the good of a few large companies and the detriment of the people.
these are the people that thought the CD would destroy their business. then they thought the DVD would destroy their business. these are the people that want you to pay every single time you watch a movie that you own. they fill the airwaves with Creed and Linkin Park. they don't understand technology in the least. fire probably scares them. and they will be the ones "updating" our copyright law.
"Gross abuses? Because its being written in secret? The US Constitution itself was written in secret! "
Why do you think that was? Do you think those reasons apply now?
Why do you think that was? Do you think those reasons apply now?
Because the Founders were concerned that if early drafts were circulated they would be shut down before they got very far- and they wanted to be able to change their minds freely without looking like they were flip flopping. Yes- those same circumstances clearly apply to politics today!
Uh,
The situation that applies today is the treaty is being negotiated in secret in order to ratified in as much secrecy as possible and with the hope that once that's done, it can enforced as quietly as possible and the repressive parts of it may be used to make that silence mandatory as well.
-- Contrast this to the US constitution, which involved long and difficult demand before ratification.
The situation that applies today is the treaty is being negotiated in secret in order to ratified in as much secrecy as possible and with the hope that once that's done, it can enforced as quietly as possible and the repressive parts of it may be used to make that silence mandatory as well.
-- Contrast this to the US constitution, which involved long and difficult demand before ratification.
the EFF seems to think so, that's scary enough for me
I have strong doubts this could ever be implemented, simply because reality works against it.
Sure, they can try and criminalize half of the internet in one fellow swoop - but that won't change how we do things. There would be a few lawsuits thrown out by sane judges and that's it.
Sure, they can try and criminalize half of the internet in one fellow swoop - but that won't change how we do things. There would be a few lawsuits thrown out by sane judges and that's it.
There are a lot of laws that are selectively enforced.
This will give power to easily attack ISPs, and force them to secretly wiretap and censor in order to stay in business.
This will give power to easily attack ISPs, and force them to secretly wiretap and censor in order to stay in business.
Easily. It has already been passed as a law in France. And is under discussion in the entire EU. Therefore we conclude by analogy.
> How can we tell if it's accurate?
We can't, but the fact that they're keeping it secret strongly suggests to me that there's some very nasty stuff in it.
As I usually point out on these occasions, one way to stop these anti-freedom laws is to organise politically -- you can find your national Pirate Party at http://www.pp-international.net/
Don't let them take away our internet.
We can't, but the fact that they're keeping it secret strongly suggests to me that there's some very nasty stuff in it.
As I usually point out on these occasions, one way to stop these anti-freedom laws is to organise politically -- you can find your national Pirate Party at http://www.pp-international.net/
Don't let them take away our internet.
If this is real, I'd go further it's the end of the Internet pure and simple.
Yes, free and open Internet we knew will cease to exist in near future, this is reality we Internet citizens have to face.
The free internet will only die if people are too lazy and apathetic to fight for it.
The Pirate Party already has two representatives in the European Parliament, and we've only been in existance since 2006. If we continue to fight, and if people who care abt these issues join us, we'll win. I fully expect that by 2020-2025, the Pirate Party's core beliefs will be the received wisdom throughout the developed world.
The Pirate Party already has two representatives in the European Parliament, and we've only been in existance since 2006. If we continue to fight, and if people who care abt these issues join us, we'll win. I fully expect that by 2020-2025, the Pirate Party's core beliefs will be the received wisdom throughout the developed world.
I think there are a lot of other big threats to startup businesses. Not all startup businesses depend on user generated content. Startups that make software or other products that aren't used and/or contributed to by essentially anonymous internet users don't have much to fear from this.
On the contrary, there are lots of startup businesses on the content creation side of the equation that could benefit from this legislation due to the increased risk and difficulty of pirating and distributing copyrighted works.
On the contrary, there are lots of startup businesses on the content creation side of the equation that could benefit from this legislation due to the increased risk and difficulty of pirating and distributing copyrighted works.
I create original art. When I have to work on distributing, I'm hampered by copyright law. I don't benefit from it. It harms me. Directly.
I've seen artists have their work infringed by others working for large corporations, and their ability to have something done about it quashed by a corporation wielding copyright law (see, for example, Timbaland vs. tempest)
Addendum: it looks like someone (someones?) is going around in this thread blanketing it in votes in favor of stricter copyright. Slightly creepy.
I've seen artists have their work infringed by others working for large corporations, and their ability to have something done about it quashed by a corporation wielding copyright law (see, for example, Timbaland vs. tempest)
Addendum: it looks like someone (someones?) is going around in this thread blanketing it in votes in favor of stricter copyright. Slightly creepy.
I can't see how it was quashed by a corporation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Timbaland_plagiarism_contr...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Timbaland_plagiarism_contr...
Well it required quite a bit of internet support and hostile publicity for the case to move one bit. Which goes on to prove that the copyright laws by themselves weren't providing protection for Tempest.
pg, this is an uncommonly hysterical and poorly thought through response, for you. Has someone hacked your account?
You can tell it's accurate for the US because the DMCA has codified those provisions here for the better part of a decade.
You can tell it's accurate for the US because the DMCA has codified those provisions here for the better part of a decade.
It's hard to justify the right for people to break copyright law.
At the same time, I can see how startups that are depending on the safe harbor clause to host copyrighted material to attract users would be upset with the rules of the game changing.
At the same time, I can see how startups that are depending on the safe harbor clause to host copyrighted material to attract users would be upset with the rules of the game changing.
The concern I see being voiced is less about protecting copyright, for which many protections already exist, and more about implementing a level of regulation/protectionism that is out of step with what is usually just a civil complaint. True, criminal penalties do exist in US for certain instances of willful copyright infringement, but it is still overwhelmingly an area where there must be a plaintiff for any litigation to occur.
It is appropriate to treat copyright infringement in the same way one treats the international opium trade?
It is appropriate to treat copyright infringement in the same way one treats the international opium trade?
It is appropriate to treat copyright infringement in the same way one treats the international opium trade?
yeah, if you are: the RIAA or MPAA a news organization that doesn't want anyone blogging about the truthiness of your reporting a politician receiving money from these groups a politician wanting to censor certain information
i don't like that you merely have to be accused of infringement for bad things to happen. it'd be like getting accused of being a communist in the '50s. this feels like a big step towards global authoritarianism.
yeah, if you are: the RIAA or MPAA a news organization that doesn't want anyone blogging about the truthiness of your reporting a politician receiving money from these groups a politician wanting to censor certain information
i don't like that you merely have to be accused of infringement for bad things to happen. it'd be like getting accused of being a communist in the '50s. this feels like a big step towards global authoritarianism.
That's because it is a big step towards global authoritarianism. My wife is Hungarian, born in 1966 like myself, and she's deathly afraid of expressing political dissent in public venues like the Internet. That's what we're proposing to make the law now - that fear. Makes it ever so much easier to keep control, you see.
It is very hard for Americans to comprehend the idea of blatant oppression by the government as Americas always had a gentler approach to oppressing it's citizenry. I have quite a few friends from eastern European origin and it is always peculiar when you get into a discussion about the government with them and their voice immediately drops into whisper. After all of these years thy still have it in the back of their mind that someone from the party could be listening. Pretty creepy stuff if you stop to think about it.
Well, I have a story about that, from 2005. We were in Hungary (oddly enough) and were watching a show in which you could SMS in stuff from your phone and it would scroll across the screen, and some of it was political in nature.
My then-12-year-old daughter said, "So I could say, 'Bush is an idiot' and it would show up on the screen?" (Yeah, my politics is always pretty obvious.)
I laughed and said, "Sure could!"
She thought it over and said, "But would my name be on it? Maybe that wouldn't be a good idea."
I realized at that point that it was safer to express political dissent at that time in freaking Hungary than in the United States of America, and that my daughter knew that. Talk about a blow-your-mind situation.
My wife will talk anybody's ear off about politics face-to-face, and she has entirely radical opinions for our venue of Indiana. But if it's on the record? No way. She says we just don't need that kind of trouble.
My then-12-year-old daughter said, "So I could say, 'Bush is an idiot' and it would show up on the screen?" (Yeah, my politics is always pretty obvious.)
I laughed and said, "Sure could!"
She thought it over and said, "But would my name be on it? Maybe that wouldn't be a good idea."
I realized at that point that it was safer to express political dissent at that time in freaking Hungary than in the United States of America, and that my daughter knew that. Talk about a blow-your-mind situation.
My wife will talk anybody's ear off about politics face-to-face, and she has entirely radical opinions for our venue of Indiana. But if it's on the record? No way. She says we just don't need that kind of trouble.
I've been going down this list, voting up things that seem interesting. And suddenly I thought "Bloody hell, I'm using my real name to criticise the government on the internet". And obviously, I've decided that I have no problem with that. But I'm a white, middle class, middle aged businessman, and a British subject rather than an American citizen. And I still thought it.
America's stupid "War on Drugs" has devastated large parts of the world. Is an equally stupid, and, more laughably, even more doomed to failure "War on Copyright" going to wreck the Internet and possibly freedom itself?
And this is Obama? Who was supposed to be the good guy?
America's stupid "War on Drugs" has devastated large parts of the world. Is an equally stupid, and, more laughably, even more doomed to failure "War on Copyright" going to wreck the Internet and possibly freedom itself?
And this is Obama? Who was supposed to be the good guy?
Many sectors of the law have been this way for awhile. It only takes an anonymous accusation for the FBI or DEA to raid your house, destroy it, seize your possessions, and never return them. You may only spend a few nights in jail but you'll never get your stuff back.
People have already been conditioned to accept this stuff as "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear."
People have already been conditioned to accept this stuff as "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear."
very true.
and lets not forget they have incentive to act of any accusation since they get to seize a bunch of property and fund their department... i've heard that police departments in some places send the swat team for everything since they can seize whatever they want.
I think it is more along the lines of people being afraid that their users might break copyright law.
For instance: my website allows users to upload profile pictures. From the sound of this, if one of them were to upload a copyrighted picture, _I_ am liable. My website is small right now, so monitoring this is feasible...if it gets much larger, I would need to hire a team of people just to police it.
Obviously, if somebody says "Hey, Ryan, user $foo has uloaded picture $bar, would you mind taking it down?" I will, but if this is the way boingboing is making it sound...it won't be that easy.
For instance: my website allows users to upload profile pictures. From the sound of this, if one of them were to upload a copyrighted picture, _I_ am liable. My website is small right now, so monitoring this is feasible...if it gets much larger, I would need to hire a team of people just to police it.
Obviously, if somebody says "Hey, Ryan, user $foo has uloaded picture $bar, would you mind taking it down?" I will, but if this is the way boingboing is making it sound...it won't be that easy.
The threat is not that startups wouldn't be able to infringe copyright law. The threat is that startups would have to carry the burden of policing copyright law.
The cost of doing that may be prohibitive, and the vulnerability to frivolous claims by bigger competitors would mean that any startup dealing with user generated content would have to employ lawyers at all times.
If phone companies were liable for crimes coordinated over their networks, telephony would not exist.
The cost of doing that may be prohibitive, and the vulnerability to frivolous claims by bigger competitors would mean that any startup dealing with user generated content would have to employ lawyers at all times.
If phone companies were liable for crimes coordinated over their networks, telephony would not exist.
Imagine the postal system being held responsible for mail bombs.
It's hard to justify the right for people to break copyright law.
Considering that copyright isn't a natural right in the first place, I don't see the problem.
Considering that copyright isn't a natural right in the first place, I don't see the problem.
Just as a data point -- it is an inalienable human right, at least as defined by the UN.
Article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
(Not that this by any means justifies or demands anything like the copyright regime we have now, let alone this ridiculous power-grab extension of it. And people are of course free to waive their rights at any time.)
Article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
(Not that this by any means justifies or demands anything like the copyright regime we have now, let alone this ridiculous power-grab extension of it. And people are of course free to waive their rights at any time.)
The UN Declaration of Human Rights is a horrible document. It convolutes Negative and Positive Rights, and this is just a ridiculous one. How does a right like this work? If I write a book do I get royalties and exclusive rights to it forever? If I discover a new scientific law should I get royalties for anything invention that uses it forever? It just doesn't make sense, the sooner we get rid of copyright and to a large extent patents the better the world will be.
The UN is doomed to failure because of its twin, conflicting, missions.
On one hand, it aims to safeguard the freedom and dignity of people throughout the world. Doing so sometimes requires using force against oppressive governments.
Yet on the other hand, the UN seeks to protect the sovereignty of the world's nations. How can it protect the sovereignty of a nation against whom it is fighting due to its other mission?
When its soul is built on two mutually contradictory ideals, it can never be anything but a schizophrenic wreck with at least one of those ideals (and more likely, both of them).
On one hand, it aims to safeguard the freedom and dignity of people throughout the world. Doing so sometimes requires using force against oppressive governments.
Yet on the other hand, the UN seeks to protect the sovereignty of the world's nations. How can it protect the sovereignty of a nation against whom it is fighting due to its other mission?
When its soul is built on two mutually contradictory ideals, it can never be anything but a schizophrenic wreck with at least one of those ideals (and more likely, both of them).
Agreed, I have many problems with the UN. I think that it should be broken up into two main bodies.
1. All the traditional non profit work: WHO, UNICEF, etc -- focus on that and leave the politics out. 2. Political function -- it votes on nothing, and merely serves a forum for countries to discuss issues; all treaties are then signed between those countries the UN is not involved.
1. All the traditional non profit work: WHO, UNICEF, etc -- focus on that and leave the politics out. 2. Political function -- it votes on nothing, and merely serves a forum for countries to discuss issues; all treaties are then signed between those countries the UN is not involved.
"should I get royalties for anything invention that uses it forever?"
It says your interests are entitled some protection, but doesn't specify method or compensation.
I find it rather disturbing when someone wants to throw away the UN Declaration of Human Rights because it protects some interests that are against yours.
It says your interests are entitled some protection, but doesn't specify method or compensation.
I find it rather disturbing when someone wants to throw away the UN Declaration of Human Rights because it protects some interests that are against yours.
I want to throw it out, because I don't believe it matters. I think it is a bad document, and it all it does is cheapen the notion of human rights. Of course I agree that some of the rights it outlines are correct, but the document on the whole is a mess.
Here are some examples: Article 23, Article 24, Article 25, Article 26, Article 27, Article 30.
I think it's goals are good, I think they overreached.
Here are some examples: Article 23, Article 24, Article 25, Article 26, Article 27, Article 30.
I think it's goals are good, I think they overreached.
But enforcing that law means breaking an other inalienable human right; that of privacy. And I'd say that law is more important.
Actually, the right to privacy isn't entirely guaranteed (nor is it a law; it is however, generally guaranteed by law). Your right to privacy can easily be suspended if there is reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime, for example, so that a search for evidence can take place.
As a later commenter said, the real point is that the human rights as declared in 1948 were no different (in form and style) to the treaty under discussion here. It was a group of countries getting together to decide the standards in which governments agree to treat their citizens- and each other.
It should also be noted that many of the articles there are broken or ignored- and this treaty seems to ignore Article 6: "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." which would be suspended given some of the leaked terms.
As a later commenter said, the real point is that the human rights as declared in 1948 were no different (in form and style) to the treaty under discussion here. It was a group of countries getting together to decide the standards in which governments agree to treat their citizens- and each other.
It should also be noted that many of the articles there are broken or ignored- and this treaty seems to ignore Article 6: "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." which would be suspended given some of the leaked terms.
Can't believe you had 0 on this. Great comment.
It's for the courts to decide that balance, our opinions on the merits are irrelevant
The second amendment falsifies this statement. The only reason our opinions are irrelevant, is because of complacency and the inevitable slide towards tyranny that every world power faces as it ages. The government feels no threat from the people and therefore feels comfortable in selling our freedoms to the highest bidder. If the populous where not so complacent or indoctrinated then our leaders would think twice before leveraging our rights against us. This is a simple concept that the founding fathers understood all to well. They knew the constitution was a piece of paper and that individuals in the government would always look at it as such.
complacency and the inevitable slide towards tyranny
Look, I just don't agree with you that we are inevitably sliding towards tyranny.
If you struggled like I do to consider that the Man could organise His way out of a paper bag, let alone subjugate us all with tyranny, you might chill out on some of these issues.
Not every battle is worth fighting to the steps of Capitol Hill for, and well, in my opinion this Copyright stuff will get sorted out okay. There are big players on both sides of the argument. I cannot imagine Google being too happy about this Treaty.
Look, I just don't agree with you that we are inevitably sliding towards tyranny.
If you struggled like I do to consider that the Man could organise His way out of a paper bag, let alone subjugate us all with tyranny, you might chill out on some of these issues.
Not every battle is worth fighting to the steps of Capitol Hill for, and well, in my opinion this Copyright stuff will get sorted out okay. There are big players on both sides of the argument. I cannot imagine Google being too happy about this Treaty.
The Man is very competent he just has different goals from you. His goals are to maximize his own individual profit.
You may wish to improve the world or something, but The Man is just a collection of self-interested people responding to economic pressure.
You may wish to improve the world or something, but The Man is just a collection of self-interested people responding to economic pressure.
But 27.1 says:
Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
Which is directly in opposition to copyright. UDHR seems to stand on the fence on this issue.
Which is directly in opposition to copyright. UDHR seems to stand on the fence on this issue.
Obviously getting rid of copyright would have a devastating effect on innovation and creativity.
Really? I have read many great books that where never in any way protected by copyright. Honestly, writers are compensated for around 30-40% of the content I read and the only advantage I see is a slightly higher quality of copy editing.
On a more serious note, for profit content is less innovative because it's targeting the widest audience possible. Walking around a book store you can find a lot of bland tasteless garbage to fit even the most snobbish pallet. But, there are other approaches. Wikipedia is a perfect example of what happens when you separate the content creation process from direct monetary gain as is Hacker News and a thousand other places that you never really think about.
PS: I don't care one way or the other, but suggesting that copyright is vital for innovation and creativity is just silly.
Edit: NM, I missed the sarcasm on that one.
On a more serious note, for profit content is less innovative because it's targeting the widest audience possible. Walking around a book store you can find a lot of bland tasteless garbage to fit even the most snobbish pallet. But, there are other approaches. Wikipedia is a perfect example of what happens when you separate the content creation process from direct monetary gain as is Hacker News and a thousand other places that you never really think about.
PS: I don't care one way or the other, but suggesting that copyright is vital for innovation and creativity is just silly.
Edit: NM, I missed the sarcasm on that one.
suggesting that copyright is vital for innovation and
creativity is just silly
You realise there are no CC licenses without copyright. That anyone can take my published work and reprint it as their own without any attribution.
Copyright has been much abused by big business, but that's capitalism at work, we shouldn't disavow people of the rights to an interest in the results of their labour.
Copyright only works as a contract between creators and the public. We're doing our part by protecting rights of content creators via the treaties and laws but we are being denied our part of the contract - having works enter the public domain in a timely fashion.
Copyright IMO needs fixing not removing.
You realise there are no CC licenses without copyright. That anyone can take my published work and reprint it as their own without any attribution.
Copyright has been much abused by big business, but that's capitalism at work, we shouldn't disavow people of the rights to an interest in the results of their labour.
Copyright only works as a contract between creators and the public. We're doing our part by protecting rights of content creators via the treaties and laws but we are being denied our part of the contract - having works enter the public domain in a timely fashion.
Copyright IMO needs fixing not removing.
"You realise there are no CC licenses without copyright. That anyone can take my published work and reprint it as their own without any attribution."
That's the natural state of things. Changing the social relationship between artist and fan, unilaterally for a whole society as copyright has done, better have some darn good reasons. I am not convinced it's worthwhile.
That's the natural state of things. Changing the social relationship between artist and fan, unilaterally for a whole society as copyright has done, better have some darn good reasons. I am not convinced it's worthwhile.
Well historically copyright was created (Statute of Anne) to empower authors to retain rights of reproduction for a limited period so that they could profit from their work over and above any profits made by mere printers. Prior to that works remained hidden from the public domain or were bought by publishers outright who agreed amongst themselves not to interfere with one anothers monopoly right to reproduce the work - this was largely a technological restriction, there was [virtually, save transcription] no self-publication.
I still believe that encouraging people to create works by ensuring they have a limited monopoly on commercial exploitation in return for eventual expansion of the public domain is worthy and workable.
If you create a communist society then I can see how copyright is not needed, in the current climate of commerce where I am in Europe (at least) complete dissolution of copyright IMO is to the public detriment.
One simple example might be how to finance a proper dictionary, or indeed any academically rigorous reference work, without allowing the creators of the work the chance to profit from it? How would that work, in say a capitalist society, under your regime?
I still believe that encouraging people to create works by ensuring they have a limited monopoly on commercial exploitation in return for eventual expansion of the public domain is worthy and workable.
If you create a communist society then I can see how copyright is not needed, in the current climate of commerce where I am in Europe (at least) complete dissolution of copyright IMO is to the public detriment.
One simple example might be how to finance a proper dictionary, or indeed any academically rigorous reference work, without allowing the creators of the work the chance to profit from it? How would that work, in say a capitalist society, under your regime?
If no one wants a dictionary, then no one will pay for it to be written. That's the same now as under my regime. My idea is, if someone wants a dictionary, they would either write one or pay someone to write one. It's still pretty capitalistic. The same people pay for it, there's just more haggling and risk involved.
The first copy I sell as the commissioner of the dictionary could be the last - an alternative printer can buy that copy and produce a far-far cheaper copy (no production costs except blind reproduction). He will have the market and I will have nothing but bankruptcy.
How many people will pay a few million dollars for a dictionary to be made and then allow copies to anyone else? Copies will be sold with contracts for very high prices and with no chance of entering the public domain except by breach of contract.
How many people will pay a few million dollars for a dictionary to be made and then allow copies to anyone else? Copies will be sold with contracts for very high prices and with no chance of entering the public domain except by breach of contract.
> Copyright has been much abused by big business, but that's capitalism at work
Rubish, copyright is completely incompatible with capitalism: copyright consists of government granted monopolies.
Rubish, copyright is completely incompatible with capitalism: copyright consists of government granted monopolies.
The "capitalism at work" part is the manipulation of copyright to prevent works from entering the public domain. The motive is corporate profit: ensuring those with property retain it and any worth it can generate despite a socialist contract agreeing to give up that property after a certain period.
That is not "capitalism at work", that is rent seeking and one of the many very common forms of government failure.
Just because the motive of something is profit, it doesn't mean it is capitalism, the motive of taxes is also profit (for special interests), but that doesn't mean they are capitalism at work.
Just because the motive of something is profit, it doesn't mean it is capitalism, the motive of taxes is also profit (for special interests), but that doesn't mean they are capitalism at work.
The stated motive of taxes is usually the public good; if it's profit for special interests then you're probably talking of fraud.
I still contend that the pressure by corporations to increase copyright terms in order to maximise the profitability of held IP assets is "capitalism at work". It is sustained holding of IP away from the public domain preventing others from using that IP [for profitable production]. Smells like capitalism to me.
I still contend that the pressure by corporations to increase copyright terms in order to maximise the profitability of held IP assets is "capitalism at work". It is sustained holding of IP away from the public domain preventing others from using that IP [for profitable production]. Smells like capitalism to me.
Obviously?
Actually no... sorry. I forgot my own blog post on this topic. In particular, not much may change on the web if we get rid of patents and copyright:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=920911
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=920911
Prediction: the treaty at the moment is deliberately bad in order to provoke outrage and allow parties to the talks to negotiate a "better" compromise.
So, say, "three strikes" will get thrown out or, more likely, modified to include an appeal process, and anticircumvention provisions will quietly get ratcheted up as the other side of the "compromise".
So, say, "three strikes" will get thrown out or, more likely, modified to include an appeal process, and anticircumvention provisions will quietly get ratcheted up as the other side of the "compromise".
upvoted for political realism rather than the kneejerk reactions that politicans have been taking advantage of for centuries.
Here's Wikileaks' coverage:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_int...
Maybe it's worth toying with the idea of setting up a private ISP—a pre-emptive underground? This situation is absolutely ridiculous.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_int...
Maybe it's worth toying with the idea of setting up a private ISP—a pre-emptive underground? This situation is absolutely ridiculous.
As I understand it, you'd still have to buy transfer from a tier 1 provider, who'd cut you at the first sign of pressure from the federal government. Logistically, how would one go about doing this?
You could start another internet. Wouldn't be very useful at the beginning, though.
I don't think you guys get that this law affects how you provide access to a communications network. It doesn't matter if you have your own service provider or network, you are still going to have to comply with the laws. The entire point of this treaty is to hold the provider accountable for how people use their services.
Well, what if this new network has no notion of provider ?
I mean, would it work with a peer-to-peer network ?
sure, how are you going to link computers together?
the only way that i can see this working is a NCLB improvised device-to-device network, which is actually a great idea that the tech giants are terrified of because they want to keep their proprietary lockdowns on everything
the only way that i can see this working is a NCLB improvised device-to-device network, which is actually a great idea that the tech giants are terrified of because they want to keep their proprietary lockdowns on everything
Encrypt everything, and disguise it as public domain work?
Works great until encryption outside of "safe harbor"-approved banking sites is outlawed.
We'll have to steganographically-encode our data in a nearly infinite set of exchanged lolcat jpegs.
That coverage looks like it is from an earlier leak of the same negotiations. Look at the date.
There are much better solutions to deal with these issues without trying to turn ISP's and Website administrators into the second-string secret police!
I know it's a real problem and does deserve attention. But it's one thing if some guy is trying to sell millions of digital copies of the latest Madonna video from some motel in Eastern Europe, but it's quite another if someone uses a few snips of songs in a video he's doing for YouTube!
I've experienced PERSONALLY what I would consider a smart approach and a dumb approach on this.
I did some 30 second little YouTube videos to promote a thing I'm doing... and in a couple of them I used snippets from a couple of popular songs... I'm fairly naive and didn't think much of it because I wasn't selling the videos, but I was promoting my thing (fortunately very benign so that wasn't an issue)! Though it could be a fair concern...
Anyway, to make a long story short...
Their YouTube algorithms or whatever found 'em and did their robot "thing"... but here's the interesting surprise!
On one (with a clip for a Barbara Streisand song) they just added a little button to the bottom of my video identifying the song with a link for purchase! I was fine with that and so were they!(it was Sony) A smart approach!
But for the other, with a great guitar clip from Jeff Beck, they just stripped the audio from my 30 second video... which I suppose was in a way fair... but all that ended up happening is I had a useless video... and they lost an opportunity for some sales... I forgot the publisher on that one... but it was a damn good video!
This obviously doesn't cover all issues but the point is that there are much wiser approaches that this abominable plan.
But politicians are like very stupid carpenters. They only understand hammers... so everything becomes a nail to be pounded into the ground.
I know it's a real problem and does deserve attention. But it's one thing if some guy is trying to sell millions of digital copies of the latest Madonna video from some motel in Eastern Europe, but it's quite another if someone uses a few snips of songs in a video he's doing for YouTube!
I've experienced PERSONALLY what I would consider a smart approach and a dumb approach on this.
I did some 30 second little YouTube videos to promote a thing I'm doing... and in a couple of them I used snippets from a couple of popular songs... I'm fairly naive and didn't think much of it because I wasn't selling the videos, but I was promoting my thing (fortunately very benign so that wasn't an issue)! Though it could be a fair concern...
Anyway, to make a long story short...
Their YouTube algorithms or whatever found 'em and did their robot "thing"... but here's the interesting surprise!
On one (with a clip for a Barbara Streisand song) they just added a little button to the bottom of my video identifying the song with a link for purchase! I was fine with that and so were they!(it was Sony) A smart approach!
But for the other, with a great guitar clip from Jeff Beck, they just stripped the audio from my 30 second video... which I suppose was in a way fair... but all that ended up happening is I had a useless video... and they lost an opportunity for some sales... I forgot the publisher on that one... but it was a damn good video!
This obviously doesn't cover all issues but the point is that there are much wiser approaches that this abominable plan.
But politicians are like very stupid carpenters. They only understand hammers... so everything becomes a nail to be pounded into the ground.
This is a better article:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/
To: The profit mongering companies with lobbyists and idiotic politicians who cause legislation like this to be created.
We'd like our internet back now.
Sincerely,
The Compter Scientists, the group of people who invented the internet.
We'd like our internet back now.
Sincerely,
The Compter Scientists, the group of people who invented the internet.
The problem is not companies that are "profit mongering" (whatever that means). It's companies with obsolete business models that are willing to destroy the more dynamic parts of the economy in their fall.
I was attempting to get at the destructive themes associated with the phrase "war monger". To be more precise, I was trying to describe companies that don't mind destroying innovation in order to make profit. My language was too loose, but I think we're both coming from the same place.
But won't much stronger copyright enforcement allow these companies to survive?
History doesn't offer much encouragement. New technology is often opposed by existing interests that are threatened by it, but I can't think of a lot of examples where they've succeeded in holding it back for a significant time.
Japan retreated from the gun (and the outside world) for several centuries. Without an outside world to break in, they might still be there.
And China put the brakes on all innovation.
Much of Europe shies away from a lot of genetic manipulation.
[deleted]
Temporarily, it will allow certain parts of these established corporations to continue with their current model and still have some sort of revenue. Eventually, they will die. Whether or not something like ACTA will prolong or hasten their death (due to backlash) I'm unsure.
In some cases, the shift to digital content has shaken business models in a way that is not recoverable and has nothing to do with the enforcement of copyright. Newspapers are mostly examples of this.
The old world of media had a price for each viewer/reader of various mediums. The new world of media also has a price too and the old price doesn't apply. Readers are now usually worth substantially less then they were. An online news impression is worth less than a print one. In parallel, the democratisation of the web has created additional competition that has taken away some eyeballs, especially in the juicy parts of the business (eg classifieds). The effect of aggregators as competitors is an example of the type of effect that hurts them and is related to copyright somehow. This last is a very small & insignificant part of why they are failing.
In some cases, copyright enforcement might theoretically recover some or all of their revenues. Music is an example of this. If people couldn't pirate music, they would probably buy more of it. The move to digital probably affects sales somehow, but it is not necessarily negative. Film, TV, Books etc. are also examples of these cases.
The first type of company has business models made obsolete by technological & cultural changes. The second kind have business models that fail because the lost the ability to enforce copyright. Companies of the first kind usually think that they are of the second. Both types of companies would be happy if the Internet just went away.
The old world of media had a price for each viewer/reader of various mediums. The new world of media also has a price too and the old price doesn't apply. Readers are now usually worth substantially less then they were. An online news impression is worth less than a print one. In parallel, the democratisation of the web has created additional competition that has taken away some eyeballs, especially in the juicy parts of the business (eg classifieds). The effect of aggregators as competitors is an example of the type of effect that hurts them and is related to copyright somehow. This last is a very small & insignificant part of why they are failing.
In some cases, copyright enforcement might theoretically recover some or all of their revenues. Music is an example of this. If people couldn't pirate music, they would probably buy more of it. The move to digital probably affects sales somehow, but it is not necessarily negative. Film, TV, Books etc. are also examples of these cases.
The first type of company has business models made obsolete by technological & cultural changes. The second kind have business models that fail because the lost the ability to enforce copyright. Companies of the first kind usually think that they are of the second. Both types of companies would be happy if the Internet just went away.
At what cost? Of course you can dictate that anything MUST survive by fiat if you want, but when does it stop being worth it? They're imposing quite a heavy inefficiency on an expanding portion of the economy, for what is, in absolute terms, not that great a benefit. The old-school media companies just don't have that large a turnover, all told. They just have glamour on their side.
To: The profit mongering companies
I believe the preferred nomenclature is "profiteering gluttons".
I believe the preferred nomenclature is "profiteering gluttons".
someone's been watching 'Hackers'
Haha
I did "The Hacker's Manifesto" for a speech contest in high school...it was just funny and a bit painful when that movie came out.
I did "The Hacker's Manifesto" for a speech contest in high school...it was just funny and a bit painful when that movie came out.
Bitching about it accomplishes nothing. I doubt there's anybody here who thinks this is a good thing, and even if there were, that sort of language persuades nobody.
The smart thing to do is to write your congressman, and get people together to protest.
Anybody here have any experience with politics and know what we could do to stop this?
You are right: bitching does nothing, yet writing our representatives is almost as bad. I interned for a certain senator a while back—all the letters that people sent in were recorded as tallies in a system, and the responses were typed up by office staff. By the way: most of the letters which were sent in were spam—the same letter with different signatures.
I think calling might be considered more effective. It shows that you are willing to invest enough time and actually make your concerns heard. I think they might weight calls like TV networks. Your 1 call counts as 1,000 people who wouldn't care to call. Of course the most effective thing to do would be to befriend your congressman personally.
On a larger scale, organizing a sort of free internet seal of approval for all representatives could be even more powerful. If representatives know that voters would be more likely to vote for candidates with the seal of approval, then they might be persuaded to earn that seal.
On a larger scale, organizing a sort of free internet seal of approval for all representatives could be even more powerful. If representatives know that voters would be more likely to vote for candidates with the seal of approval, then they might be persuaded to earn that seal.
Sometimes others find the words better than I can, so I sign a generic form letter to my member of Parliament. It's not really spam. It's heartfelt.
Edit: I just wanted to add that while generally I agree that writing letters has little to no effect, I think it's important for people to start DOING something. If it starts with writing letters, maybe the upshot will be that people are embolded to participate in bigger future actions, like taking part in demonstrations and more when the time comes. Cynicism and defeatism aren't the right starting attitudes for a fight. Just my two cents.
Edit: I just wanted to add that while generally I agree that writing letters has little to no effect, I think it's important for people to start DOING something. If it starts with writing letters, maybe the upshot will be that people are embolded to participate in bigger future actions, like taking part in demonstrations and more when the time comes. Cynicism and defeatism aren't the right starting attitudes for a fight. Just my two cents.
Spam? My signature is valuable, even if attached to a petition. Shame on you.
so there's no point in ever crafting a nice letter? good to know.
Protesting does nothing.
edit: I'm specifically talking about in-the-streets-marches kind of thing.
edit: I'm specifically talking about in-the-streets-marches kind of thing.
Then what? It's better than complaining on a website where everybody agrees with you. I'm going to do something. We've got to do something. The situation's bad enough as it is.
I agree with you. If the entire tech community was up in arms about this (assuming the treaty is really as bad as this article says), I think politicians would notice. They are not all in the pay of the movie business. The more neutral ones might wake up if it appeared the treaty was going to do net damage to the US economy.
From the wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War )
"According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.[3]"
Protests don't seem to have a very good track record.
"According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.[3]"
Protests don't seem to have a very good track record.
I'm not just (or even) talking about people taking to the streets. If this report is accurate, the treaty would hurt VCs, and VCs aren't powerless.
should this prove to be true, this is an excellent opportunity for [google | yahoo | microsoft | apple | facebook | any other major tech company that relies on people making things with computers] to petition against this with their ad dollars in a very vocal manner. being the first to rally people against this seems like it'd be far more culturally relevant in the long term than spending the money on a superbowl ad and billboard campaign saying "my brand is good".
does the EFF lobby?
if not, maybe what we need an organization to lobby on our behalf.
maybe a new startup could somehow do this? i don't know how it would get the money to do so...
if not, maybe what we need an organization to lobby on our behalf.
maybe a new startup could somehow do this? i don't know how it would get the money to do so...
Destroy them, fund the competition. Boycott any company that encourages the use of DRM. Pirate their products and distribute them via encrypted, untraceable networks like TOR, or plain old sneaker-net. Support individuals and companies who avoid DRM, who treat their users with respect, and who distribute their works directly, etc.
I don't know. We're probably fucked.
If you believe you can stop this by writing to your congressperson or protesting: why do you think this is being done in secrecy? Obviously, they are fully aware nobody is going to like it. It will be enacted regardless.
That being said, I would still like to do as much as I can to prevent it, or in the case that it's enacted, circumvent it or corrupt it to the point of uselessness. At this stage, I don't think there's much we can do just yet. We also can't be sure this report is accurate.
If you believe you can stop this by writing to your congressperson or protesting: why do you think this is being done in secrecy? Obviously, they are fully aware nobody is going to like it. It will be enacted regardless.
That being said, I would still like to do as much as I can to prevent it, or in the case that it's enacted, circumvent it or corrupt it to the point of uselessness. At this stage, I don't think there's much we can do just yet. We also can't be sure this report is accurate.
We find a silly case under this law that would've been legal previously, then get a few hundred thousand (or more) people to download it, willingly putting the content up in violation all at once. Civil disobedience isn't the best choice necessarily, but it can work quite well in situations like this.
[deleted]
You could always create a worm that installs utorrent and starts downloading any popular file going.
Once the worm is in the field then how will they tell who are real pirates or hapless victims?
Once the worm is in the field then how will they tell who are real pirates or hapless victims?
I think the more conscionable peaceful protest would be to wardrive around your town and download various torrents through any and all wifi APs that you can access.
This wouldn't require violating anyone else's machines, but would have much the same effect. (presenting the ISP with the prospect of cutting off a huge percentage of their customers, i.e. revenue)
This wouldn't require violating anyone else's machines, but would have much the same effect. (presenting the ISP with the prospect of cutting off a huge percentage of their customers, i.e. revenue)
Yes but that requires serious logistics to do on a massive scale, furthermore peaceful was never a caveat. People are saying "what can we do? what power do we have?". As programmers we could do that. I'm not saying that is the right choice.
It only took a handful of lunch counters and a handful of busses.
With today's media, it certainly wouldn't take more than a handful of towns. Most of us probably have enough people in our personal social graph to pull it off.
With today's media, it certainly wouldn't take more than a handful of towns. Most of us probably have enough people in our personal social graph to pull it off.
Protesting might be a first step, but what really counts is organizing. The Pirate Party started in 2006 and now has a man (and maybe soon a woman) in the European Parliament and active parties in a dozen countries. I know some people are skeptical to the whole phenomenon, but that's mostly because they don't understand where it came from. I'm not saying that starting a political party is the right thing to do in the US, but organizing and getting heard probably is.
Most protests do nothing, but at a certain point protests can bring down governments. That's why the Tienanmen square massacre happened and why the more recent Iranian election protests were violently stopped.
What effect would this have on the US economy?
To: The Compter Scientists, the group of people who invented the internet.
Hey, maybe you could invent some technology which actually provides some privacy and security instead of all this 80's tech?
Sincerely,
The Users, the group of people who use the Internet on a daily basis.
Hey, maybe you could invent some technology which actually provides some privacy and security instead of all this 80's tech?
Sincerely,
The Users, the group of people who use the Internet on a daily basis.
Everything needed to achieve a high level of security and privacy on the internet has already been invented. If you're looking for a reason why reality doesn't reflect this, you'll have to look at some other force besides the researchers.
I'm glad to hear all solutions has been found. Still, last time I checked researchers actually had a lot of influence on the evolution of the Internet.
Edit: What I'm really saying is that if there would have been an implemented, 'universal', solution that takes civil liberties into the digital world, then it would be much harder to take these liberties away. I really don't think most politicians understand neither technology nor the fact that they are in effect infringing civil liberties like anonymity protection, freedom of expression and secrecy of letters. Who's to blame for this? Probably no one and everyone, still sad to see though.
Edit: What I'm really saying is that if there would have been an implemented, 'universal', solution that takes civil liberties into the digital world, then it would be much harder to take these liberties away. I really don't think most politicians understand neither technology nor the fact that they are in effect infringing civil liberties like anonymity protection, freedom of expression and secrecy of letters. Who's to blame for this? Probably no one and everyone, still sad to see though.
Still, last time I checked researchers actually had a lot of influence on the evolution of the Internet.
The last time you checked must have been in the 80s then. If researchers still controlled the development of the internet, would we be having a debate about net neutrality?
Politically I agree with you, but you vastly overestimate the power of researchers.
The last time you checked must have been in the 80s then. If researchers still controlled the development of the internet, would we be having a debate about net neutrality?
Politically I agree with you, but you vastly overestimate the power of researchers.
Maybe I should put my location (Sweden) in my profile and hopefully it's just the cultural differences that make you come across as arrogant. I do think there are some organization (ISOC, "IETF", IAB) who might not share your opinion and I guess the last time I checked was back in 2005 when DNSSEC was first implemented for the .se TLD.
No, it's not a cultural difference, I can be a bit abrasive. It's not anything directed at you, just frustration that researchers don't have a more direct pipeline for getting things done. I definitely wasn't going for arrogant though, so sorry about that.
Sweden rocks as far as a lot of privacy issues go. Sweden (along with a couple other countries) were early adopters for DNSSEC. I wish we could be more like Sweden; the US is not so quick. Verisign (a for profit company) wont deploy DNSSEC on .com and .net until 2011. By contrast domains administered by the US government and a non profit (.gov and .org) are supposed to have it done by the end of this year. I think these differences illustrate nicely the point I was trying to make. Security can sometimes take a back seat on the priorities list, and even the US government and a non profit are far behind countries that choose that make it a priority.
Sweden rocks as far as a lot of privacy issues go. Sweden (along with a couple other countries) were early adopters for DNSSEC. I wish we could be more like Sweden; the US is not so quick. Verisign (a for profit company) wont deploy DNSSEC on .com and .net until 2011. By contrast domains administered by the US government and a non profit (.gov and .org) are supposed to have it done by the end of this year. I think these differences illustrate nicely the point I was trying to make. Security can sometimes take a back seat on the priorities list, and even the US government and a non profit are far behind countries that choose that make it a priority.
The mechanism is wide open for abuse. If this regime comes to pass, I would expect different groups to be issuing bogus takedown notices against competitors...
Imagine if PETA activists started nailing the public IP's of meatpacking companies with allegations of copyright infringement...
or imagine that you're in the middle of a complex court fight and your law firm, and most of your lawyers home and mobile ips are shut down in a coordinated attack...
Imagine if PETA activists started nailing the public IP's of meatpacking companies with allegations of copyright infringement...
or imagine that you're in the middle of a complex court fight and your law firm, and most of your lawyers home and mobile ips are shut down in a coordinated attack...
I had a conversation similar to this topic with a friend this weekend, but about net neutrality. I contended that certain restrictions put on the internet would be so obtuse that there is no way they could be enforced -- this seems like one of them.
I'm not sure PETA would do that, because they're a legitimate organization that could have action taken against them. But that's an interesting point: if every IP address was reported, how do they enforce or verify it?
Personally, they can pry my internet from my cold dead hands.
I'm not sure PETA would do that, because they're a legitimate organization that could have action taken against them. But that's an interesting point: if every IP address was reported, how do they enforce or verify it?
Personally, they can pry my internet from my cold dead hands.
PETA may be a legitimate organisation, but the people involved may well have friends who perform actions which, while it is obviously impossible to condone them, your honour, do support their cause.
Right but the take down notices would require that you own some IP to allege infringement upon and have the resources to actually produce a non-frivolous legal missive.
I really doubt this is going to be some grand populist legal tool.
I really doubt this is going to be some grand populist legal tool.
I think you missed the part where the takedown happens without the need to prove anything. And it's easy enough to gin up something. Also most activist groups generate a fair amount of media content. Content which is likely to be monitored by the people most likely to be in their sights.
And if someone mildly technically knowledgable gets involved you could really cause trouble. Imagine the havoc that could be wreaked by AT&T disconnecting Verizon. Or shutting down Dreamhost.
Instant disconnection on accusal is a recipe for stupid things.
Hell, someone would probably set up a linkbait news posting to a webpage that they claim is protected ip and have a script issue automatic disconnect requests to everyone who views the target page.
And if someone mildly technically knowledgable gets involved you could really cause trouble. Imagine the havoc that could be wreaked by AT&T disconnecting Verizon. Or shutting down Dreamhost.
Instant disconnection on accusal is a recipe for stupid things.
Hell, someone would probably set up a linkbait news posting to a webpage that they claim is protected ip and have a script issue automatic disconnect requests to everyone who views the target page.
Hell, someone would probably set up a linkbait news posting to a webpage that they claim is protected ip and have a script issue automatic disconnect requests to everyone who views the target page.
sounds like a good way to shut down supporters of XYZ cause
sounds like a good way to shut down supporters of XYZ cause
> I think you missed the part where the takedown happens without the need to prove anything.
Or, in fact, come from the people it claims to come from.
Or, in fact, come from the people it claims to come from.
Cory Doctorow, Michael Geist, and the EFF are three pretty credible sources. Nevertheless, something doesn't feel right about this. My guess is someone's leaking a draft or a proposal in an attempt to influence the negotiations, probably someone who knew it would kick up a shitstorm. As well it should.
I'll go out on a limb and predict nothing much comes of this.
Edit: after reading more about it, I learned that ACTA is a treaty process that's been going on for years. It's hard to see how something this draconian ever gets ratified in all these countries.
I'll go out on a limb and predict nothing much comes of this.
Edit: after reading more about it, I learned that ACTA is a treaty process that's been going on for years. It's hard to see how something this draconian ever gets ratified in all these countries.
This.
I don't know who is running the show but obviously this leak has ulterior motives of some kind. The elites are always planning further lock down on their slave populations, it's really just a question of whether the public is sufficiently conditioned to accept it at some particular moment.
I don't know who is running the show but obviously this leak has ulterior motives of some kind. The elites are always planning further lock down on their slave populations, it's really just a question of whether the public is sufficiently conditioned to accept it at some particular moment.
ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability.
DMCA is the new DOS
DMCA is the new DOS
As I read it this is no longer about Copyright any more; it is about certain government positioning themselves, their lawmakers and their major companies into a situation where they wish to control the internet.
This is a bad thing.
I am a supporter, generally, of the idea of copyright (it needs a review, sure) but this is just silly...
This is a bad thing.
I am a supporter, generally, of the idea of copyright (it needs a review, sure) but this is just silly...
Thank Biden for this.
Seriously, he has been a long time friend of the content industries. Ever since he was nominated I've been looking for something like this to happen.
Seriously, he has been a long time friend of the content industries. Ever since he was nominated I've been looking for something like this to happen.
ACTA has been in negotiation for years. This is nothing new.
It's been through six rounds of negotiation (a few days each round) across two years. Not really twisting in bureaucratic hell, the way your emphasis on 'years' paints it.
And the fact that all these insane provisions have survived five previous rounds of negotiation certainly shouldn't provide any comfort.
And the fact that all these insane provisions have survived five previous rounds of negotiation certainly shouldn't provide any comfort.
I could imagine this coming from any administration and any congress in my lifetime. Very little has changed no matter how often the parties swapped, and no matter how pretty the speeches were. The content industries continue to be powerful lobbyists, to our detriment.
We are constantly relearning the lesson: don't trust politicians. Democracy is a machine for serving concentrated interests at the expense of the general well-being
Hopefully our champions will stop this. However, there will be no idealistic debate behind the scenes on the topic of what constitutes the public interests. There will only be politicians silently weighing what is in their own personal interest. As it always has been, and as it always will be.
We are constantly relearning the lesson: don't trust politicians. Democracy is a machine for serving concentrated interests at the expense of the general well-being
Hopefully our champions will stop this. However, there will be no idealistic debate behind the scenes on the topic of what constitutes the public interests. There will only be politicians silently weighing what is in their own personal interest. As it always has been, and as it always will be.
I'm a little late to the party here, but a lot of people are obviously angry about this. Skimming the comments, it looks like a lot of 'end-of-the-internet' speculation.
Not if we can help it. If you're in the U.S., please write your representatives and let them know how dangerous this is. This is still a country ruled by its people, for its people. Even if this is a hoax, it will let your elected officials know copyright law is a serious issue in their district, and hopefully treat it as such.
Find out who your reps and senators are at this link, and write! http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Not if we can help it. If you're in the U.S., please write your representatives and let them know how dangerous this is. This is still a country ruled by its people, for its people. Even if this is a hoax, it will let your elected officials know copyright law is a serious issue in their district, and hopefully treat it as such.
Find out who your reps and senators are at this link, and write! http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Well, sooner or later the Internet will go the way of radio and TV: megacorps only. Once there's a critical mass of people using a medium who don't really care about it, and just consume what's available, it is only a matter of time.
The question is, what comes next. Maybe it's mesh networks, maybe private satellites, maybe something else entirely. Of course, the new network will initially be slow, and for geeks only. Then there will be explosive growth. Then it will be regulated into oblivion. And the cycle will repeat itself.
The question is, what comes next. Maybe it's mesh networks, maybe private satellites, maybe something else entirely. Of course, the new network will initially be slow, and for geeks only. Then there will be explosive growth. Then it will be regulated into oblivion. And the cycle will repeat itself.
I see this as a perfectly logical next step: the demands eventually grow outrageous enough that it's all just begging for a huge backfire.
The potential difference between the old fashioned copyright business and the new wave is growing. In order to keep things balanced as the new wave is gaining more energy the old business must expend an equal amount of energy to compensate for this change.
That's why when old structures are breaking they first resist until the last straw, and then come down collapsing.
The potential difference between the old fashioned copyright business and the new wave is growing. In order to keep things balanced as the new wave is gaining more energy the old business must expend an equal amount of energy to compensate for this change.
That's why when old structures are breaking they first resist until the last straw, and then come down collapsing.
I am dubious that such language will appear in any kind of treaty in the future.
I'm not calling BoingBoing a liar, but I find it hard to believe that the U.S. is going to pass laws or engage in treaties that destroy some of its greatest companies. Either these provisions are misunderstood, they are proposed amendments that nobody thinks will be in the final language, or they are interpretations by folks looking to sabotage the negotiations. If I had to guess I'd say the latter, but that's just intuition.
My call based on one article? Flame bait for nerds.
Show me some more sources and we'll see if this develops into something worthy of all the yelling and shouting.
Even if this is true -- multi-source, people. It's much too easy for "leaks" to be more manipulative in nature when the internet is one big echo chamber.
I'm not calling BoingBoing a liar, but I find it hard to believe that the U.S. is going to pass laws or engage in treaties that destroy some of its greatest companies. Either these provisions are misunderstood, they are proposed amendments that nobody thinks will be in the final language, or they are interpretations by folks looking to sabotage the negotiations. If I had to guess I'd say the latter, but that's just intuition.
My call based on one article? Flame bait for nerds.
Show me some more sources and we'll see if this develops into something worthy of all the yelling and shouting.
Even if this is true -- multi-source, people. It's much too easy for "leaks" to be more manipulative in nature when the internet is one big echo chamber.
I think it's enough of a reason to build community networks. You are just connected to friends over wifi and they are connected to some other friends. As long as it stays distributed enough that would be ok.
You have to expect it will be bad if they won't even say what is in it because doing so would "threaten national security".
They must think everyone is an idiot if they will believe that.
They must think everyone is an idiot if they will believe that.
they'd be right to think that.
so, i'm curious, what are the best arguments for this?
the reason i ask is that it seems like the rules, as they currently exist, are valid on paper but illegitimate in practice. is it really worth it to extend the illusion of copyright protection to the rest of the planet knowing full well that it's got little hope of succeeding? or is there a way to argue that the system, as it works in the U.S. is a success?
the reason i ask is that it seems like the rules, as they currently exist, are valid on paper but illegitimate in practice. is it really worth it to extend the illusion of copyright protection to the rest of the planet knowing full well that it's got little hope of succeeding? or is there a way to argue that the system, as it works in the U.S. is a success?
Whenever you see legislation that is massively in opposition of common sense and the well-being of a people, just think to yourself, jacuzzi full of money.
OK, to rephrase the question, what will the people accepting the jacuzzis full of money use as arguments?
"Sorry, can't hear you, busy soaking in my jacuzzi full of money."
This is hopefully some huge hoax. But if it isn't it should (and deserves to) create and real worldwide firestorm.
This cannot stand and they can't possibly be stupid enough to try to make it stand!
But beware their "fallback" positions! And the devil is in the details. They may just feel that by putting out such an outrageous proposal they can fall back to a merely disgusting and slimy one.
This cannot stand and they can't possibly be stupid enough to try to make it stand!
But beware their "fallback" positions! And the devil is in the details. They may just feel that by putting out such an outrageous proposal they can fall back to a merely disgusting and slimy one.
I wonder what happens if the 'infringement' occurs over an open wifi network, how can one be made accountable if anyone can use your connection? Even if they enforced it by a hardware fingerprint or something, laptops can be stolen, and who the hell is going to enforce no open wifi networks!? The outrage!
That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger
Is there a confusion between an ISP and a Web site here? I've never heard the term "ISP" applied to companies that just run Web sites.
Is there a confusion between an ISP and a Web site here? I've never heard the term "ISP" applied to companies that just run Web sites.
How do they expect to make other countries adopt US-style takedown rules?
I think the time is ripe for some creative destruction.
I hope this will be on major news channels ASAP.
Okay, this one reeks of Classic American Arrogance (as in on the part of the Government). You guys can enforce whatever stupid policy you want within your country, but what makes you think you can get all other countries to join with you???
I hardly think you will be able to convince 10 countries to sign that treaty.
I hardly think you will be able to convince 10 countries to sign that treaty.
The internet, startups, and the values favored by most people in this thread are even more Classic American than the tendencies you deride. The US is complex. The US government is complex. Angry reductionism sheds no light.
So the freedom of the world now depends on the European Union, which we know is corrupt. Is there any way to buy shares in whatever method media giants use to bribe European politicians?
You obviously haven't been paying attention, then. Internationally there is a ton of support among governments and industries for measures like this to be taken; the general lack of support among the public hasn't been very relevant.
Yeah, I wasn't reading fully. Frankly I'm stunned that there is this much support, even from Asian countries, whom I thought would not like adopting something as restrictive as this.
[deleted]
Maybe vote it up on Reddit[1], that might spread some awareness, or submit it to Slashdot.
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/a0nnp/secret_cop...
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/a0nnp/secret_cop...
I'd also Twitter bomb it. Make it a trending topic so it can show up on CNN. :)
This post has more momentum and is getting more attention.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/a0o98/obama_admini...
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/a0o98/obama_admini...
Stupid title, as ACTA predates the Obama administration.
This seems like speculation. Also, completely out-of-line with Obama's support of net neutrality and a poorly timed economic disaster.
Lets organize a network strike: Drop all net activity (specially e-commerce) for a day to send a message that we all have a say in this matter.
fuck the US Government ! Screwing it up for the rest of us again.
thanks very much
thanks very much
I can't help to start a facebook group "Stop Obama Administration to destroy Internet". I see there are a lot of ACTA related groups already formed. All groups should join together if the content is confirmed.
If this treaty goes through it very well could be the harbinger of the widespread adoption of darknets, better censorship-resistant networks, and even more creative use of cryptography and networking technologies.
Rather than trying to affect legislative change (which is a viable strategy too), some may wish to consider disruptive technologies which will render treaties such as this irrelevant.