Secret Copyright Law Reported

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The underlying purpose of ACTA is to provide a way to all corporate copyright holders a single way to control all I.P. access, under rules that they can easily control. Corporation are immortal, because even when they fail, other corporations take over their assets. They want their I.P. to be immortal as well. Since law and custom don't permit that, They are "boiling the frog slowly" to get their long term goal.

Good point. Ironically, today we see another reason why we should all worry about this treaty, and its long-term repercussions:

Comcast seeks support on Hill, Street

A few more of these, and flat-rate streaming a la Netflix, or services like Hulu, will be a thing of the past, replaced by $5 per DRM-ed movie, self-distracting in 24 hours.

And with Comcast monitoring your connection for "pirating," your choice will be either to pay up, or whistle in the dark.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

... So if you can get lots of people to write their representatives, it might do something (US policymakers seem to be the main force pushing the treaty), ...

Not sure about that. The New Zealanders and the French already jumped on the surveillance and 3-strikes thing, the Brits seem to be wobbling on the edge of the precipice too....

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The problem is that nobody knows what's in ACTA, so we can't really have a meaningful discussion about it. The only reports are either pure speculation, or based on an analysis of the content, not the actual content.

Well, the leaks posted should give enough fodder for a more focused discussion, instead of beating a dead horse and debating the black, the gray and the white, of downloading a Grateful Dead bootleg.

How about instead trying to identify key representatives, who may need an email or a letter?

[Greg Anos]

Sorry about the incoherence of the last post. Sometimes the fingers don't go as fast as the brain....

The sad thing is it won't work, in the long haul. Why? Ok, you cut off the internet. There's still the Snailnet and the Sneakernet. and nobody is going to be able to stop the sneakernet...

(Snailnet - mailing an SD chip from one person to another.)

(Sneakernet - meeting somebody and swapping a disk or an SD, or similar)

Hmmm....just how detectable is a micro SD chip?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

As I said before, in one case the grey is directly relevant to the point of the argument, in the other case it is irrelevant to the point of the argument.

In one the grey is directly relevant to you and in the other it is irrelevant to you.

That is the only difference.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[llreader]

I suppose I am just stupid, but I can't take this whole thing seriously. These draconian measures are just going to make everyone engage in criminal activity, like prohibition. I expect most people will just get used to "stealing" if staying on the good side of the law is just too oppressive.

As someone who is hopefully going to be selling a book here soon (proceeds to charity), it is somewhat depressing, since it would be nice to see if people would pay for it, but I do understand how this happens. You can't fight common sense with nonsense, at least not for very long, and you can't make your public your enemy.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by llreader

I suppose I am just stupid, but I can't take this whole thing seriously. These draconian measures are just going to make everyone engage in criminal activity, like prohibition. I expect most people will just get used to "stealing" if staying on the good side of the law is just too oppressive.
...

It's clearly already happened and increasing. Just look at some of the comments in this thread or any of the "copying is not stealing" discussions. There is less and less sense of ethics and doing what is right and more and more a sense of entitlement and "it's legal if I don't get caught" attitude. A very sad commentary on society.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It's clearly already happened and increasing. Just look at some of the comments in this thread or any of the "copying is not stealing" discussions. There is less and less sense of ethics and doing what is right and more and more a sense of entitlement and "it's legal if I don't get caught" attitude. A very sad commentary on society.

Yes, and I am sure if someone steals ideas from one of these proponents of "free sharing of all human knowledge" at work (hey, they put them on their computer and that makes them just 0s and 1s, right?) they will suddenly feel that THAT is stealing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by llreader

I suppose I am just stupid, but I can't take this whole thing seriously. These draconian measures are just going to make everyone engage in criminal activity, like prohibition. I expect most people will just get used to "stealing" if staying on the good side of the law is just too oppressive.

Sorry, but what is "oppressive" about the concept of "don't download copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder"? Nobody is ever forced to do so - if they choose to do it it's their choice, and they really can't complain about the idea of being punished if caught.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, but what is "oppressive" about the concept of "don't download copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder"? Nobody is ever forced to do so - if they choose to do it it's their choice, and they really can't complain about the idea of being punished if caught.

Harry, it seems to me it's something of a concept/mindset thing. That too I think you can garner from the various threads on the topic. It's almost like once something it available (regardless of conditions surrounding that availability) it is acceptable to do anything you want with it, no strings attached.

I know that's oversimplifying the spectrum of thought and law and ethics of the matter, but it seems to me that really that is the core of it.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It's clearly already happened and increasing. Just look at some of the comments in this thread or any of the "copying is not stealing" discussions. There is less and less sense of ethics and doing what is right and more and more a sense of entitlement and "it's legal if I don't get caught" attitude. A very sad commentary on society.

This answer reads to me as if you didn't bother to read any of the arguments about "copying is not stealing". Nobody said it's legal or moral, they only said it's not stealing, but copyright infringement. Which is still immoral, and often illegal (sometimes only violating civil agreements).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

This answer reads to me as if you didn't bother to read any of the arguments about "copying is not stealing". Nobody said it's legal or moral, they only said it's not stealing, but copyright infringement. Which is still immoral, and often illegal (sometimes only violating civil agreements).

Here we go again.... It IS stealing. It IS theft in an ethical and moral sense. If you insist on only allowing legal definitions you are simply avoiding the truth and attempting to justify the theft.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

This answer reads to me as if you didn't bother to read any of the arguments about "copying is not stealing". Nobody said it's legal or moral, they only said it's not stealing, but copyright infringement. Which is still immoral, and often illegal (sometimes only violating civil agreements).

I am under the impression a lot of people in this thread said copying is moral (since "nobody gets hurt" and files are only "0s and 1s", so their arguments go) and that any attempt at stopping them from freely copying (some even mentioned posting copies) is "oppression". Only one member used this specific word, but many expressed similar ideas.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Here we go again.... It IS stealing. It IS theft in an ethical and moral sense. If you insist on only allowing legal definitions you are simply avoiding the truth and attempting to justify the theft.

I'm sorry, but legal definitions do matter. it's the difference between cold-blooded walking up and shooting somebody (murder) and a soldier shooting an enemy charging at him (permissible act of war, during combat). In both cases, one person shoots another...

How can you accurately describe the difference between taking a physical item, of which there is only one of them, and making an unpermitted copy of an existing object, after which the one object now becomes two items. it's a different act with different results. For descriptive clarity, the two different acts each need a separate name. You may want to treat them as same level of legal severity, but you need to clarify the difference between the two acts.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, but what is "oppressive" about the concept of "don't download copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder"? Nobody is ever forced to do so - if they choose to do it it's their choice, and they really can't complain about the idea of being punished if caught.

It's not about copyright. It's about peoples right to privacy and how these "measures" would have to be implemented.

The average Canadian would be outraged if you told them that Canada Post was going to start logging every piece of mail they received and where they sent mail so that third party companies could analysis the data and look for suspicious activity. They would be more outraged if told that Canada Post was going to start opening their private mail to look for illegal activity.

What has been leaked is not only allowing internet service providers to do this but to force them to do this.

There has always been a line between personal rights and freedoms and the needs of law enforcement. People draw the line at different points and scare tactics are used to convince people that they need to give up more privacy. "We need to do this to fight international terrorism. We need to do this to capture pedophiles."

Not many people are going to buy the argument that we need to do this to protect copyright. If ACTA was debated rationally it would go nowhere which is I'm sure why all the secrecy.

If these laws were implemented it would be a futile waste of tax payer money trying to implement impotent laws that would cause great inconvenience but for the most part wold be ignored. It would be more futile then laws against marijuana.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Here we go again.... It IS stealing. It IS theft in an ethical and moral sense. If you insist on only allowing legal definitions you are simply avoiding the truth and attempting to justify the theft.

NO it is not stealing. You can repeat that forever and a day, but you're wrong.

Stealing - deprivation of an item

Copying - the reproduction of an item


It's not a hard concept to grasp. They're two different acts. But I fear I may as well be trying to throw a javelin made out of custard when it comes to any kind of logical (not emotional) debate with you. I'll just leave you and the rest of the head-in-the-sanders as lost causes, quaint antiques of a time gone by. The argument is over for most people. Copying does not mean theft, sharing does not equate to a capital crime punishable by lethal injection, your morals and ethics are no longer relevant.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

NO it is not stealing. You can repeat that forever and a day, but you're wrong.

Stealing - deprivation of an item

Copying - the reproduction of an item


It's not a hard concept to grasp. They're two different acts. But I fear I may as well be trying to throw a javelin made out of custard when it comes to any kind of logical (not emotional) debate with you. I'll just leave you and the rest of the head-in-the-sanders as lost causes, quaint antiques of a time gone by. The argument is over for most people. Copying does not mean theft, sharing does not equate to a capital crime punishable by lethal injection, your morals and ethics are no longer relevant.

pot-kettle. Far from over at this point. You're right about ethics not being hard to grasp, unfortunately some chose to ignore them.