Slashdot Mirror
Leaked ACTA Treaty to Outlaw P2P?
miowpurr writes to tell us that a draft of the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) has been posted on Wikileaks. Among others, Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow has weighed in on the possible ramifications of this treaty. "Among other things, ACTA will outlaw P2P (even when used to share works that are legally available, like my books), and crack down on things like region-free DVD players. All of this is taking place out of the public eye, presumably with the intention of presenting it as a fait accompli just as the ink is drying on the treaty."
can someone come along and say "you can serve", and "you can request", and keep and monitor that separation? seems rather daunting
otherwise, if the status quo is two way traffic flow, p2p traffic can be obfuscated in such a way that it is hard to detect and hard to isolate from "acceptable" traffic
so i think all these laws do is breed stronger p2p apps
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Can we gather a list like this and ask candidates to comment on it, like the groups interested in abortion or taxes or the environment do? Or is that outside the scope of
"Who is really behind ACTA? Follow the money:
Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)[4]
Top four campaign contributions for 2006:
Time Warner $21,000
News Corp $15,000
Sony Corp of America $14,000
Walt Disney Co $13,550
Top two Industries:
TV/Movies/Music $181,050
Lawyers/Law Firms $114,200
"
Can we outlaw these groups from the internet? kthx
Bono. Gee no surprise there. The dammed tree should have gotten them both.
Fundamentally, the problem is dealing with sociopaths without reducing the freedoms of the majority of decent folks. How do you let decent folks participate in self governance, and give them freedoms, without ceding control to the sociopaths?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Nah. HTTP has too many legitimate uses and has been around for too long. It's much easier to attack the fringe first. After all, most people will agree that the majority of P2P sharing infringes on someone's copyright. Whether or not this is fair use is another argument. So by taking out the things with the most illegal use, they get people accustomed to having protocols be made illegal. So when the big media companies create a new protocol, call it "Guaranteed Information Delivery Protocol", or something equally fuzzy, all other protocols will be slowly phased out, as "illegal things" could happen on them. Of course, with GIDP, you'll never have to deal with something scary and illegal like child pornography. Only our nice and safe news/entertainment will be available to you. And how I wish that someone could prove to me that these are just the paranoid ramblings of a /.er.
Cynical Idealist
When I was in school, we were taught about Francis Cabot Lowell, who heroically copied machine plans in England to use in the US for textile mills.
England was so worried that their monopoly on their mill technology would be taken that they would search ships, cargo and passenger for hidden plans.
Fortunately for the US, Lowell memorized the plans and was able to build his own plants in the New World. His business was the beginning of the industrialization of the New World. Without which, the United States would have continued to be merely agrarian in nature. Does anyone know if they still teach this lesson in gradeschools, or was it killed when they started teaching kids to respect copyrights more?
It's clearer if you quote the whole thing:
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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
It doesn't say treaties trump the constitution, or even are peers of it. It says that the hierarchy is Constitution -> Federal law -> Treaties -> state law.
It's even clearer in article III section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
Treaties themselves have no power internally without enabling legislation. Congress is not obligated to pass enabling legislation, to make it conform to the actual treaty language if they do pass it, or to refrain from repealing it. Courts can strike the enabling legislation (or any attempt at direct application of treaty language to the international activity of US citizens or entities) for unconstitutionality, interpret it into impotence, or set up impossible enforcement roadblocks, as easily as they do the same to federal law.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I think you hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what they want to do. The elites have for so long controlled the media and have been in the exclusive position to be able to propogandise the public and control inforation flow. Since the development of the internet, we have seen for the first time true freedom of speech for the masses, where we dont only have it on paper, but people are actually able to use it without having a lot of money and resources. Previously, media was easy control , and it by definition had to be large corporations in order to reach large numbers of people. Now anyone can publish information that can be accessed by anyone else. This terrifies them, since their goal, being power hungry and really seeing the planet as something to be controlled rather than a place where people can control themselves and live in freedom. They have for years trying to find ways to shut down the internet and control it.
And while I would be happy to vote for an Independent that had even the tiniest of snowballs chance in hell,I just don't see us getting a real third party anytime soon. Not unless we can get someone like Ron Paul or Jessie Ventura to run and build up a buzz. But that is my 02c,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
It appears to be focused on IP issues and s/w updates and the like w/should not be affected. This next part is of more concern to me:
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
The government only represents the people when the people vote. Guess which age group is least likely to vote? It's exactly the same age group that's most likely to use P2P and play WoW.
99.999% of politicians aren't politicians because they love helping people and doing the right thing. They're in it for the money and the power. As far as politicians are concerned, people who don't vote don't exist. Non-voters have no say in whether the politicians keep their cushy jobs, so why cater to them when they can cater to actual voters and keep their jobs? If you ignore politicians, the politicians will ignore you.
Even if the corporations are buying off politicians left and right, the voters are still ultimately responsible for continually re-electing the corrupt politicians.
It's really hard to feel bad about all of this political bitching when the people most upset are also the ones least like to vote.
Maybe not