Secret Copyright Law Reported

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

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

No, it's over. You're not on the side of the angels with this one, ethically, morally or rationally. Read FREE by Chris Anderson, look at the essays of Lawrence Lessig and Cory Doctorow, watch the talks by Eben Moglen, take a walk on the wild side at a torrent site or scene blog. Your way of thinking is dead. Game over. It was fun having this silly little debate with you and the other head-in-the-sanders, but you lost ten years ago. You lost when the first text file was sent across a BBS. You lost when Fraunhoffer invented the MP3 algorithim. You lost when DVDJon broke the CSS encryption on commercial DVD's. You lost because nobody is listening to what you have to say on the greater web. You lost because society has changed and is no longer in step with you and your ideas.

Moan, whail, pound your chest and support all the fascist laws you like, but it's over. There's no going back. Now every creator has a choice; accept the realities of the digital age, or consign themselves to the scrapheap of the fading analog reality.

Good luck trying to sell anything on the web when you're calling your audience thieves

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Barcey

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.

It's really no different to the telephone company logging all your phone calls, which has happened for many, many years. The important thing is that the information can only be handed over by the phone company on receipt of a court order, which is precisely what ISPs will be required to do under the proposed British legislation, for example. As long as there are adequate legal safeguards in place, I have absolutely no problem with this, personally.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's really no different to the telephone company logging all your phone calls, which has happened for many, many years. The important thing is that the information can only be handed over by the phone company on receipt of a court order, which is precisely what ISPs will be required to do under the proposed British legislation, for example. As long as there are adequate legal safeguards in place, I have absolutely no problem with this, personally.

You really think we have the technology in the UK to monitor every single connection? To then take the data from those connections (must be in the mutliples of TB's per hour) and filter through them for IP content? Then identify, without any doubt (which is impossible) if that content breaks some IP law that might not even be valid in our country. We can't even institute a simple database for the NHS without screwing up. Apart from all the 'this is a compltely fascist idea that goes against freedom, privacy and the expectation of non-restricted communication' there's also the fact that the idea is completely dumb. Seriously dumb and won't work, can't work on any level.

ACTA is laughable and can never be properly enforced. Unless you want to house about 1/3 the population in IP prisons.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's really no different to the telephone company logging all your phone calls, which has happened for many, many years. The important thing is that the information can only be handed over by the phone company on receipt of a court order, which is precisely what ISPs will be required to do under the proposed British legislation, for example. As long as there are adequate legal safeguards in place, I have absolutely no problem with this, personally.

Do you think there will be "adequate legal safeguards"?
The British government is already misusing anti-terrorist legislation.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Do you think there will be "adequate legal safeguards"?

Having read the draft legislation; yes, I do. There's been a lot of "scare-mongering" about it, but it does appear to offer entirely adequate safeguards.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

No, it's over. You're not on the side of the angels with this one, ethically, morally or rationally. Read FREE by Chris Anderson, look at the essays of Lawrence Lessig and Cory Doctorow, watch the talks by Eben Moglen, take a walk on the wild side at a torrent site or scene blog. Your way of thinking is dead. Game over. It was fun having this silly little debate with you and the other head-in-the-sanders, but you lost ten years ago. You lost when the first text file was sent across a BBS. You lost when Fraunhoffer invented the MP3 algorithim. You lost when DVDJon broke the CSS encryption on commercial DVD's. You lost because nobody is listening to what you have to say on the greater web. You lost because society has changed and is no longer in step with you and your ideas.

Moan, whail, pound your chest and support all the fascist laws you like, but it's over. There's no going back. Now every creator has a choice; accept the realities of the digital age, or consign themselves to the scrapheap of the fading analog reality.

Good luck trying to sell anything on the web when you're calling your audience thieves

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

'I give you Kenny C ladies and gents. HIs witty retorts and banter are lighting up the forums like Las Vegas on New Year's Eve. Don't worry. He'll be here all week (we also have a special on the Lobster, two-for one, so hurry)."

[kennyc]

Mojoe, please stick to the topic at hand instead of commenting on individuals.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Mojoe, please stick to the topic at hand instead of commenting on individuals.

That only happens for those people who reply with a comment instead of an emoticon. Swings and roundabouts, swings and roundabouts.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

That only happens for those people who reply with a comment instead of an emoticon. Swings and roundabouts, swings and roundabouts.

The LOL was FOR your comment which is laughable.

As I said if it were settled as you seem to think it is, we wouldn't be here discussing it now would we.

You also seem to think it's a win lose situation which it's not.

I and many others (as indicated by postings above) think you and those who steal others property without their permission are unethical and I call it what it is thievery.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The LOL was FOR your comment which is laughable.

As I said if it were settled as you seem to think it is, we wouldn't be here discussing it now would we.

You also seem to think it's a win lose situation which it's not.

I and many others (as indicated by postings above) think you and those who steal others property without their permission are unethical and I call it what it is thievery.

You don't get to comment now, silly billy. If you lower the debate to a single laughing emoticon, then there is no debate and you're not worthy of replies. You lose. You lost already by making an Ostrich argument. So, you know, ta-ta, don't let the door hit you on the way out

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Having read the draft legislation; yes, I do. There's been a lot of "scare-mongering" about it, but it does appear to offer entirely adequate safeguards.

And how, pray tell, is it that you get to read drafts of secret treaties? Personally, from what little info there is on ACTA, most of the parties involved with drafting the treaty are pro-IPR, which sort of implies that if you have access to it, you've likely also pro-IPR. Given your post history, the latter doesn't seem unlikely, but the question is why they would give you access.
In any case, I'm afraid it comforts me very little to hear you say "there appear to be entirely adequate safeguards;" considering your opinion on HADOPI-1, which you also felt was "fair", while it was resoundingly rejected by the constitutional court. Odd, that.
Still, I'm curious what information you base your opinion on, seeing how you so strongly assert that you've read drafts.

[pshrynk]

Let's all of us keep to the topic at hand, please.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

And how, pray tell, is it that you get to read drafts of secret treaties?

No, you misread my post. I was talking about the anti-piracy legislation which the British government is going to introduce in the current session of Parliament.

It's called the "Digital Economy Bill". Link to it here

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Let's all of us keep to the topic at hand, please.

Thank you sir.