News story from Declan McCullough of CNet News on the ACTA treaty:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20003005-38.html
Supposedly the "three strikes" language has been removed, but there's still language about ISPs being responsible for not policing their systems for copyrighted material.

"....
Both the Obama administration and the Bush administration had rejected requests from civil libertarians and technologists for copies of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA.
...."

I generally dislike conspiracy theories, and I don't think that there's one here.

But I'll be damned if I don't think that both parties art pushing us towards less freedom and towards more control. And once they gain one control they start with another.

Of course it's for our own good. When will it become illegal to be 3 pounds over weight? Absurd? Of course.

But that's what happened in the US with seatbelts. First they said "Not wearing a seatbelt will not be a primary offence. The police will not be able to ticket you just for that. They must have another valid reason to pull you over."

Years later they made it a primary offence.

"The European Union published the draft text of ACTA on its Web site on Wednesday, along with a statement from EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht saying concerns about the document's sweep were "unfounded.""

This is like saying "Don't look behind the curtain, Dorothy." or the old story about The Camel's Nose In The Tent (http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html).

Hopefully I'll be dead before the Brave New World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World) is completed.


"Relax, it really is for your own good." Marquis de Sade

"No thanks, can you untie me and let me free?"

Hmmm... immunity from lawsuits would be granted to Internet providers "disabling access" to pirated material and adopting a policy dealing with unauthorized "transmission of materials protected by copyright."

So, ISPs that want to avoid the possibility of lawsuit will inspect every packet going through their servers? And they will keep on hand a complete registry of the world's copyrighted works, in order to identify what's not a legitimate copy?

I am endlessly fascinated by the concept that "copyright infringement" can be identified by software, or even a discerning individual.

[I]
Of course it's for our own good. When will it become illegal to be 3 pounds over weight? Absurd? Of course.


And being old? And ugly? Luckily this does not apply to you and me, yet.

But that's what happened in the US with seatbelts. First they said "Not wearing a seatbelt will not be a primary offence. The police will not be able to ticket you just for that. They must have another valid reason to pull you over."

Years later they made it a primary offence.




Iron hand in a velvet glove.

Bad example, seatbelts are a health and safety issue.

Iron hand in a velvet glove.

Snail brain diving a tank???

Bad example, seatbelts are a health and safety issue.

So is being over weight, drinking more than a few ounces of wine, any amount of hard liquor, changing the radio station (except by voice command), talking to a passenger, climbing ladders, walking down stairs. And a great many other things.

Lets talk of children - children drowning in buckets (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/5006.html) or Preventing Child Drownings (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/359.pdf).

"Each year, nationwide, about 300 children under 5 years old drown in swimming pools, usually a pool owned by their family. In addition, more than
2,000 children in that age group are treated in hospital emergency rooms for submersion injuries."

And even if you remove or outlaw all common possibilities, will that protect everyone? Not really.

"7-Year-Old Boy Critical After Being Found Hanging From Clothing Hook at School (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327408,00.html)"

Coat hooks are also commonly used by children to commit suicide.

We can never do enough to protect everybody. We can only do the best we can. But it will never be enough.

Back to the point. It looks like the governments will keep trying to nail down every possibility on copyright laws.

The music industry removed DRM from music and I started spending money.

But if they force DRM on all ebooks I'll just give away my Sony and stop buying ebooks.

So is being over weight, drinking more than a few ounces of wine, any amount of hard liquor, changing the radio station (except by voice command), talking to a passenger, climbing ladders, walking down stairs. And a great many other things.


We can't outlaw stupid people, but we can outlaw dangerous behavior such as speeding, running red lights, or drunk driving.

We can't outlaw stupid people, but we can outlaw dangerous behavior such as speeding, running red lights, or drunk driving.

(This is all getting a little off subject, but thats ok with me. The subject ,to me, is how people in power want to regulate and contol more and more of our daily life. The ACTA is just one more aspect of that encrochment as I see it.)

I'm with you on that.

I've read where people with a long list of drunk driving have had their drivers license revoked, and they still drive.

They should be locked away for a few years and then monitored 24 hours a day for a few more years.

"Doing harm", and the need to protect the public. That is the question you bring up.

A long time ago I was an EMT in a large hospital. I have seen more broken bone and seriously damaged body parts than I want to remember.

And where did all of this mayhem occur? The ski slopes.

So lets prohibit downhill skiing. And then cross country skiing. and then....

There will be people who know what is best for you.

There will be people who know what is best for you.

Lucky you that are discussing this!

In Italy, the approach is now reversed. It does not matter what is prohibited, for your safety, for other people profits, or for whatever purpose.

Here, in Italy I mean, the idea that is winning is that are allowed only the things that are specifically allowed. Otherwise they are prohibited by default.

We are also lucky. We have developed, in the course of many centuries, a diffused and pronounced disrespect for any kind of rules. Climate, good food and encouraged laziness, have made law enforcing ineffective, so we can happily do what we want.:thumbsup:

News story from Declan McCullough of CNet News on the ACTA treaty:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20003005-38.html
Supposedly the "three strikes" language has been removed, but there's still language about ISPs being responsible for not policing their systems for copyrighted material.

There was a legal case over just that. AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) sued iiNet (Australia's third largest ISP) over this very issue as well as accusing them of facilitating privacy.

AFACT's case was shredded by the presiding judge and iiNet were awarded four million dollars in court costs.

Now, AFACT are appealing the case, though the judge made it pretty cut and dried.

The entertainment industry refuse to revamp their outmoded, obsolete distribution practices and instead force lawsuits on people accused of copyright violations. Now they are attempting to force ISP's to do the police work for them. AFACT thought they were on a winner here. Pick a big target that would not be able to afford a long legal case, make a legal precedent out of them and the other ISP's including the biggest ones would fall in line. They were proved wrong.

The ACTA draft agreement should have the utmost scrutiny applied to it. Good on the EU for doing so.

Interesting times....

The "ACTA draft agreement" sounds like the old joke about the camel being a horse designed by a committee.

ACTA started as an anti-counterfeiting agreement, but now it's been distorted by Big Media to help prop up their old/ancient businessmodels. And just watch, the big publishing houses will offer their support of ACTA as well.

Instead of criminalizing their consumers, they should think of ways to innovate. But litigation is the easiest for them, as they can bully people into paying them their lunch-money.

Definitely. I did notice that AFACT are already bleating about not getting the support they hoped via ACTA to force ISP's to cut off users on AFACT's unproven accusations.

This will also spill over into the appeal case they are engaged in against iiNet after Judge Cowdry spanked their botty soundly. I am sure they hoped to have more pressure to bear via that direction.

Eviscerated:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/near-final-acta-text-arrives-big-failure-for-us.ars

This portion is especially interesting (bold emphasis is mine):

DRM. The tough rules against DRM have been watered down. ACTA signatories have to outlaw DRM circumvention, but there's a huge caveat; this only applies to DRM which restricts acts not authorized by rightsholders "or permitted by law." That last caveat is huge, and aligns ACTA more with the older WIPO Internet Treaties than with the DMCA. This language would appear to allow DRM circumvention when the resulting use is a legal one.

Sadly, when it comes to tools for doing the circumventing, these are broadly banned, even where some limited uses might be legal. This appears to set up a situation in which an ACTA signatory could allow people to bypass DRM to make backups or exercise fair use rights, but could not allow distribution of the tools to help them do it.

Sadly, distribution of the tools to circumvent DRM appears to still be banned even if the use of them is not. Curious conflict. At least, people who need to circumvent DRM to be able to shift and/or back up digital media (where copying is otherwise legal) may finally be able to legally so so.

its better than that if the ISP had to enforce copyright since the last update to the copyright act in the US gave copyright protection to unpublished unregistered items. soooooooooooo how do you know somethings copyrighted only when someone sues you.

My understanding is that copyright attaches when the work is created, regardless of notification, symbols, etc.

Bad example, seatbelts are a health and safety issue.

No, it is a perfect example.

And I will make decisions regarding my health and safety. Not government!

My understanding is that copyright attaches when the work is created, regardless of notification, symbols, etc.

True, but no court will recognize it unless it has been legally registered.

We have developed, in the course of many centuries, a diffused and pronounced disrespect for any kind of rules. Climate, good food and encouraged laziness, have made law enforcing ineffective, so we can happily do what we want.:thumbsup:

That sounds like Mexico :D

Sadly, distribution of the tools to circumvent DRM appears to still be banned even if the use of them is not. Curious conflict. At least, people who need to circumvent DRM to be able to shift and/or back up digital media (where copying is otherwise legal) may finally be able to legally so so.
It's an intentionally legal catch-22. It's like telling your kid that they can play with the neighbor across the street, but they can't cross the street to get there. It's their way of saying, "See? We allow you to circumvent DRM legally." even though they actually don't.