Slashdot Mirror
EU ACTA Doc Shows Plans For Global DMCA, 3 Strikes
An anonymous reader writes "The European Commission analysis of ACTA's Internet chapter has leaked, indicating that the US is seeking to push laws that extend beyond the
WIPO Internet treaties and beyond current European Union law. The
document contains detailed comments on the US secret copyright treaty
proposal, confirming the desire to promote a 'three-strikes and you're
out' policy, a Global DMCA, harmonized contributory copyright
infringement rules, and the establishment of an international
notice-and-takedown policy."
More evidence that there is a real movement afoot for a global government with the goal of undermining the freedom and liberties of U.S. citizens.
I don't think this treaty would pass in the US Senate. I would forsee the unlikely coalition of far rightists and far leftists actually collaborating to defeat this, just as they actually have on some other things.
This is my sig.
Good thing we now have hand mounted flamethrowers. Now when they try to take us away for watching a clip with some random song we can burn them to ashes!
Down with the white-man based one world government!
New Economic Perspectives
All this will do is encourage LAN parties. That's how I get most of my music anyway. And videos? Rent once > Rip It > Done. Exchange at LAN parties.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
In the US even? I mean I know our politicians are bought and paid for, but wouldn't 3-strikes and you're cut off violate due-process? Granted I haven't read all the details, but it's a bit hard to when it's you know, hidden away from all.
Time to fire up the printer and send off more letters to the Congress critters.
No sig for you!!
On this point I am really saddened by the Obama administration. The 3-strikes-and-out is hugely unpopular including amongst artists. It is "lobbying for special interests" at its finest and really should not belong to the 21st century. There are already some countries who recognized access to internet as an opposable right.
I thought now there were progressives in the White House and in Senate ? Does nobody want geeks' votes anymore ? How many pirate party will be necessary in order for this madness to end ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Dear Rest-of-the-World:
I realize that you have already had to deal with an invasion of Iraq to eliminate imaginary "weapons of mass destruction" and a world-wide financial collapse (although, to be fair, you bear some of the responsibility for that one... after all YOU believed our our uncritical rating agencies). And we're still stumbling around on that ruining-the-planetary-climate issue. So I know it's a big favor to ask, but would you please, PLEASE restrain my country's insane leaders?
Thanks...
-- A Sane American.
So say you get kicked off the net - how do they enforce this? Just off the top of my head I can think of a dozen ways to browse the net semi-anonymously (coffee shop, library, college, neighbors wi-fi etc etc). Not to mention having internet access at work - does that mean I'd be denied employment world-wide for messing around on the net?
versus
millions of teenagers who are
1. technologically astute
2. media hungry
3. POOR
let them pass any goddamn law they want. who fucking cares?
its nothing more than damage to route around, like the internet was designed to do
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This IS funny.
ACTA is a fucking steaming pile of shit. A "trademark treaty" written by corporations, and intended only to protect the "copyrights" of said corporations.
A property right is a positive right: it gives you the freedom to use, sell, etc. something you own. These are rights governments must protect, by preventing activities (such as theft or vandalism) that would endanger them.
A copyright is an entirely negative right: it gives you no new freedoms, merely the ability to prevent others from something they would otherwise be allowed to do. It gives one individual (the copyright holder) full control of a whole market (the sale of their writing). This is a monopoly, something governments must protect us from.
Copyright is not a natural right, but merely an outdated invention from the era of the printing press. To call copyrighted works “intellectual property” corrupts thought, by subjecting those who want to replace the invention with a more effective one to nonsensical claims of “you’re stealing my property”.
-Aaron Swartz
By all means, let's get writing, mailing, whatever. Set up a petition, a FB group and spam our MP's silly. I'm just a little vague on who to reach. Anyone with experience got some contact info for the various member states (EU, Canada, NZ, etc etc)?
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
Politicians call it "strategically avoiding success."
By 2025 (at the current rate of advance sustained over the last 30 years) a TB of disk storage will cost about a penny. For $100, you will be able to buy a hard drive that will hold 2.5 *centuries* of HD video. While that might not be enough to hold all of mankind's copyrighted media, it will be more than enough to hold more media of whatever format will be in use in 2025 than a person could reasonably consume in their lifetime.
http://brownzings.blogspot.com/2009/11/disruptive-change.html
The point is, if we copyright any and every scrap of content produced, and maintain the same sorts of restrictions on such content that we enforce at the current time plus all the restrictions of the ACTA.... We will have no legal way to use a storage card we might get as a prize in a Cracker Jack box, much less a drive we actually buy.
And if people can carry around cheap storage sufficiently large to simply clone everyone's media libraries who they might meet, to sort out what they want later, who needs the Internet to "pirate"? (Thus what would be the real use of "Three Strikes"?)
When I write a joke, it is copyrighted. But jokes are so easy to repeat, and so hard to track that there isn't any way I can be paid for each time my joke gets retold. When media becomes easier to pass along than a joke, how can anyone require a payment for each retelling? There are other ways to be compensated, and the entertainment industry is going to have to learn to live with Moore's Law just like any high tech company does. Learn to leverage the efficiencies they gain with better technology to offset the loss of revenue that occurs as technology eliminates sources of income.
Live Concerts, Movie Theaters, endorsement deals, Shirts, and other value adds (plus who-knows what value adds might arise in the future) may be where the entertainment industry will have to go. Cheap (and I don't mean $10, or $5, or even $3) downloads of non DRM movies would bring in plenty of income from those that simply don't want to bother with other services.
Life is tough as technology takes away your income. But we are not going to kill the advance of technology, as much as the entertainment industry would like us to.
I thought the whole point of ACTA as a secret agreement was that it could be implemented by merely tweaking enforcement of existing law. I know of no element of US law that supports the 3 strikes notion. If Congress won't play ball, ACTA could fall apart no matter what the various international executive branches agree to.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
From http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frbigsis.html:
We tell ourselves that in America we are the Free People. I wonder whether we might not better be called the Obedient People, the Passive People, or the Admonished People. I doubt that any country, anywhere, has been so regulated, controlled, and directed as we are. We are bred to obey. And obey we do.
It begins with the sheer volume of law, rules, and administrative duties. Most of the regulation makes sense in isolation, or can be made plausible. Yet there is so much of it.
Used to be if you wanted a dog, you got a dog. It wasn’t really the government’s business. Today you need a dog license, a shot card for the dog, a collar and tags, proof that the poor beast has been neutered, and you have to keep it on a leash and walk it only in designated places. It’s all so we don’t get rabies.
Or consider cars. You have to have a title, insurance, and keep it up to date; tags, country sticker, inspection sticker, emissions test. Depending where you are, you can’t have chips in the windshield, and you need a zoned parking permit. You have to wear a seatbelt. And of course there are unending traffic laws. You can get a ticket for virtually anything, usually without knowing that you were doing anything wrong.
Then there’s paperwork. If you have a couple of daughters with college funds in the stock market, annually you have to fill out three sets of federal taxes, three sets of state, and file four state and four federal estimated tax forms, per person, for a total of twenty-four. This doesn’t include personal property taxes for the country, business licenses, tangible business-assets forms, and so on.
Now, I’m not suggesting that all these laws are bad. Stupid, frequently, but evil, no. Stopping at traffic lights is probably a good idea, and certainly is if I’m crossing the street. But the laws never end. Bring a doughnut on the subway, and you get arrested. Don’t replace your windows without permission in writing from the condo association. Nothing is too trivial to be regulated. Nothing is not some government’s business.
I wonder whether the habit of constant obedience to infinitely numerous rules doesn’t inculcate a tendency to obey any rule at all. By having every aspect of one’s life regulated in detail, does one not become accustomed to detailed regulation? That is, detailed obedience?
For many it may be hard to remember freer times. Yet they existed. In 1964, when I graduated from high school in rural Virginia, there were speed limits, but nobody much enforced them, or much obeyed them. If you wanted to fish, you needed a pole, not a license. You fished where you wanted, not in designated fishing zones. If you wanted to carry your rifle to the bean field to shoot whistle pigs, you just did it. You didn’t need a license and nobody got upset.
To buy a shotgun in the country store, you needed money, not a background check, waiting period, proof of age, certificate of training, and a registration form. If your tail light burned out, then you only had one tail light. If you wanted to park on a back road with your girl friend, the cops, all both of them, didn’t care. If you wanted to swim in the creek, you didn’t need a Coast Guard approved life jacket.
It felt different. You lived in the world as you found it, and behaved because you were supposed to, but you didn’t feel as though you were in a white-collar prison. And if anybody had asked us, we would have said that the freedom was worth more to us than any slightly greater protection against rabies, thank you. Which nobody ever got anyway.
Today, the Mommy State never leaves off protecting us from things I’d just as soon not be protected from. We must wear a helmet on a motorcycle: Kevorkian can kill us, but we cannot kill ourselves. Why is it Mommy
The little guy who sells bootleg dvds in order to support terrorism. Damn pirate bay have been cutting into his profits.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Just for curiosity's sake, could we ensure the following if these laws get passed?
Company A becomes convicted of copyright infringement 3 times
Company A loses permanent access to the internet
I'm sure that Time Warner, Sony, et. al. have all been convicted of copyright infringement at least 3 times. Can we have their access to the internet permanently revoked?
There are no far rightists or far leftists. Adopting political ideologies is just for people who don't want to raise money. If you want to be able to afford to run campaign ads, then the first thing you do is forget all that left/right stuff and just do whatever the corporations pay you to do.
to point out that their INTENT is malicious and requires vocal opposition
but i am merely pointing out that regardless of their intent, they can have no real world effect
the intent of an ant might be to eat you, but who cares: its just an ant
governments do plenty of vile things in this world. however, in this specific arena, they are paper tigers: all bark and no bite. it is in fact a chance to laugh at their absurdity and make fun of their ineffectualness. of all the evils they could be fighting: corporate nepotism, for example, they instead decide to focus their energies on cutting off a common citizen's internet access for the horrid crime of downloading a movie. a download that does not represent lost business, a download that represents the future of media distribution: media free, ancillary revenue streams the only source of profits for the artist, NO DISTRIBUTOR NEEDED
these are clueless old fools distressed at the death of a cash cow who think that the pre-internet media distribution model deserves defending, or could even be propped up. the future of distribution companies is hype and promotion for pop media, a business perhaps 1/100th or 1/1,000th of their previious market capitalization. oh well, who fucking cares, good riddance dinosaurs
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
All these comments and nobody even mentions Free Software? I guess slashdot is indeed visited by too many windoze lusers...
Read and learn http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/
Thank god they're following baseball rules. It could have been worse. It could have been cricket.
It seems when the only thing of value that the U.S. can produce is Britney Spears and her ilk, you've got to protect that to the fullest extent of the law. And if that doesn't work make some new laws. What the U.S. should be working on is a new business model. Three strikes and you're out. Nice analogy, another crooked game.
your random grandmother or soccer mom will lose their internet access for what leachers on their insecured wifi do or what their children's friends do
and all the while the real action will move further underground, further encrypted, steganographed, obfuscated, made sparse, and otherwise evolved to be more and more resistant to any sort of inspection, interception or even tracking
thank you, governments of the "free" west, for breeding the ultimate untraceable file sharing network due to your overzealous protection of your corporate executive friends in dead media industries. fucking blind fools
it does you no good, assholes, to be the losers in the game of technological progress, and not even know it
one should know when they are defeated
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1.)Boycot all copyrighted music, film, television.
2.)Teach the next generation that pop culture is for morons.
3.)Make your own entertainment for entertainment's sake-- freely.
As a self-employed game developer, I own the copyright on all the stuff I sell. While I can recognise the need for a unified global copyright system (and unified global laws on sales and export/import tax), my sales model assumes I can sell any given product for 10 years, and I would be perfectly happy if copyright durations were reduced to that. That said, 10 years may well be optimistic, and I doubt I would have any problems if it was reduced to 5 years. Anyone in a who must make their money back quickly is in the same boat — the rest of the profits are just "keeping score".
From what I've seen, this treaty is not going to make the world a better place, it's going to make it worse, especially given how little most people know about IP law (patent != copyright != trademark != database right != industrial design right != geographical indication != trade secret). Short duration IP-monopoly-rights are non-issues for rapidly moving industries, and shorter durations make it easier to move faster.
There will always be places that will say "no thanks" to this kind of stupidity for several rerasons:
1) They have some sense (rare but possible) :)
2) They don't like US.
3) Their laws wouldn't allow
4) Their Constitution wouldn't allow.
5) They don't want outsiders telling them how to do things specially if they can't do themselves.
6) All of above?
Scientia est Potentia
I work for DMCA, Inc. We supply and install commercial floor coverings. When I see news stories like this it just makes me cringe and wonder if there are geeky facilities managers out there that don't want to hire us because of the name.
Fuck you US. Christ its not enough to control despots, finance, global policing.
Now you want to make Europe and everyone else conform to how YOU see the world.
This is the sort of stuff that mad everyone really not give a shit when your ecconomy collapsed. Dont shit in your own backyard, OR any one elses.
So I RTFA and read the source linked in TFA and something isn't matching up. He's inferring an awful lot from an awful little. Is there a (semi-reputable leaked)copy of the orig document floating around that he is basing some of these claims on? Because the EU Summary is very vague and doesn't necessarily lead to the harshness of the provisions he's outlining. I'm not saying his interpretation is in any way not sound, but it also seems to be the extreme end of things.
Describe a credible system in which anyone can copy anything without restriction but there is still sufficient incentive for people to produce and share high quality work in the first place
Assurance contracts. The author specifies a bounty amount, fans pledge money, and if the sum of pledges meets the bounty amount, the author is contractually bound to publish the work under a free license.
I seriously doubt we'll here anything negative on the mainstream media about ACTA.
I share this doubt. The only major TV news outlet that's not MAFIAA-owned is PBS. All the rest share a corporate parent with an MPAA member: NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC are with Universal Studios, ABC is with Disney, CBS is with Paramount in National Amusements, and Fox News is with 20th Century Fox in News Corp.
Blame the corrupt entertainment industry that lobbies our lawmakers into betraying the very people who elected them.
One can't get elected without the exposure that the news media offers. Look at how the press buried Ron Paul, for instance. I'd blame the lack of separation of news media and fictional entertainment: NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox News are all owned by MPAA members.
It starts with RFID chips being implanted into everyone, which is then used only for convenience (like purchases) and then slowly becomes more and more integrated into everyday life.
I can think of six hundred sixty-six reasons why an implanted charagma like that won't fly. When you get millions of Christians exercising their First Amendment right not to take the mark of the beast, a parallel underground economy will flourish. The IRS does not want that.
these clowns only help us to popularize the free-as-in-freedom art. I agree: let them pass more copyright laws if they so desire. Unlike with patents, nothing of value will be lost.
It's a lot like patents. If the big music publisher can establish a coincidence between a song you wrote and a song that was on the radio in the past couple decades, the big music publisher can sue you and win. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music.
All of this the evil influence of the USA **AA lobbyists over the rest of the world.
Although the US empire is faltering they still continue their evil agenda.
We all know what the DMCA has brought to the world. Now it will be de-facto the same for the rest of the world outside the USA.
Of course this is not done through a democratic process....
but media distributors have been imposing a tax on our cultural exchange between artist and consumer for a long time. before they were a necessary evil, now they are unnecessary
so the point is not that you should be despondent over the loss of certain freedoms, but you should celebrate at the vast extension of freedom of expression, of cultural exchange, that the internet creates. of course the dinosaur will fight that, and in its death throes take out many innocents with the flinging of its tail
but make no mistake: the dinosaur may be powerful, but it IS dying, most certainly
too bad it doesn't know it has been made extinct
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I know of no element of US law that supports the 3 strikes notion.
Look at what 17 USC 512(j)(1) says about repeat infringers.
The US by no means has exclusive domain over this madness, the content industry exploits corruption wherever it is. Witness the 3-strikes law, which we don't even have yet in the US.
It's not called three strikes, but see my other comment
In fact, I think the Free Software movement should write an application to detect pirated closed-source software.
GNU Genuine Advantage? Sounds like a bad joke. No wait, it is.
Now is the time to start financing the guys who work on the TOR and Freenet protocols
No sig for the moment.
just like saying 'people like you are as much problem as those pesky aristocrats. you are unashamedly breaking the law, which makes you the poster boy for royalists when they are pushing for ever more extreme measures' in 1789 in france, where the most important humanitarian revolution of human history was happening, in order to create the framework of the modern society we live in.
no. excuse me sir, but idiots like you are the real problem. you confer way too much importance to 'laws', and refrain from breaking them even if they are WRONG and UNJUST. even if not to give cause to the oppressors. therefore, the very oppressors who pass those laws and maintain them are able to maintain the status quo and resist justice.
well done. revel in your passivism. its as if he wasnt a poster boy, they wouldnt push for those extreme measures anyway.
Read radical news here
Just as radiohead garnered more than 1 m in just a few hours, open source projects that are actually useful and revered by the public also gets donations to fuel their progress.
its as simple is it gets. if what you do benefits me $1, i pay $1. if it benefits me $50, i may pay $32 because it is as much as i can pay. but, i pay.
the current copyright and patent systems are however, are designed to monopolize an idea or a product, and push it from any price the monopolizer wants.
there is nothing competitive or free in it. or just.
i dont respect the laws that enforce an unjust system. doing so, is my basic human right.
Read radical news here
for i have already posted in this discussion and cant use my points.
Read radical news here
the studio that produces a movie ALREADY makes profit most of the time in just the first day of screening of the movie. in a week, they go over 25% or 50% of their costs or more depending on the movie.
why the FUCK they should be able to continually make more money on the SAME product, despite they made a product and sold it for up to 50% profits in the first week of its operation already ? why the fuck should i continue to pay to see the same movie, if its to be on dvd, online or whatever ?
are car factories allowed to keep charging you on the car you buy ? every time ? without rendering you a new service/addition with it, or without giving you a new car ?
explain me, why the FUCK should content industries should be slighted favorably in that regard. and why the fuck should production industries, who produce and sell products ONE TIME to a customer, should have to keep producing a product every time they need to make a sale ?
please now, stage is yours ....
Read radical news here
Darn it all !
Just moved to California, finished lining and filling the moat, ordered the laser/shark combo and already shot my first IRS suit for trepassing.
And it's only NOW you tell me ?
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
internet is already a basic human right. it is THE means to access information. the 'pathetic' articles you reach on wikipedia by just typing a query to google can be only composed with days of work in a local library without the internet.
more over, most of the communication, and even governmental services are increasingly being conducted over the internet. therefore, being cut from internet is no different from being banned from government offices, services, and buying newspapers and watching tv, in some european countries.
its probably also why these stupid acta law wont pass in europe. Finland already guaranteed internet access (4mbit, if you call that basic) as a basic human right. no treaty will be able to overcome it.
Read radical news here
the 'other side' was the side which pumped SO many executive decisions and various bills to give way more power to the president than the senate and congress has already. little short of dictatorship.
they didnt hesitate from violating the constitution. and y ou think they would care about 'democrat majority' in the senate. oh go fuck off.
if you have forgotten, it was the 'other side' which prepared and cooked acta already.
Read radical news here
There are things out there that are more dangerous than this proposed treaty.
I'm just having trouble figuring out what those things are.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
and no country in the world has the power to push anything to china, due to their huge market. u.s., its even a joke - chinese government virtually is the owner of us government now, due to the huge bonds it holds. if they just let go of the amount of dollars they hold, us economy will go sooo down that it may not be able to recover in decades.
i really look forward to see those neocon dipshits take that acta to china.
Read radical news here
Though ACTA was started before Obama, Obama is the reason it is gaining momentum and preparing to engulf us.
Obama has a long record of helping huge Corporations and creating wealth for them - not just Health Insurance Companies.
Obama really believes that locking down peoples freedoms to protect Corporate profits and Business Models is right and good.
No doubt Obama was anticipating this Treaty when he hired lawyers from the RIAA to work in the Justice Department. They will be needed to sentence and imprison us when the treaty is rammed down our throats.
Enjoy yourself - we are now living in the good old days of the Internet in the US.
It's not the two party system that is the problem it's something that both parties (and even hypothetical 3rd parties) have in common: greed.
Our politicians are almost all for sale to the highest bidder - typically rich Corporations with agendas that will usually harm Americans.
For a million dollars or more the politician becomes the full time servant of their new Corporate masters and stops serving the Citizens.
Note that this problem is insolvable since the politicians would have to approve of any solutions!
As far as support for the MAFIAA, it all depends on how much cash they have doesn't it?
If internet piracy goes away, people will move to phyiscal media.
You see there isn't a respectable IT firm anywhere in a developed nation that doesn't have a bit of a 'Swap Club', sharing pirated material by USB drives, SD cards and cheap terabyte class drives around the office. Back in the day they shared stuff on CD-R because the internet was rubbish. Now these things are now ubiqutous, inexpensive and expendable. Terabyte range drives are less than 10c per gig for a while now, if you find a good deal.
What happens when these things inevitably become alot smaller and alot cheaper?
What really scares me is what might be done to try to control this form of piracy.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
If only we seize it.
Don't give me hyperbole about our culture being locked away. Don't give me bullshit about how many Linux ISOs you download over bittorrent.
What's being locked away isn't our culture. What's being locked away is a bought and sold-out culture that we deluded ourselves into believing was our own. Rather than create culture, we, like our parents before us, feed like pigs at the trough on the culture sold to us by corporate conglomerates, willfully, knowingly, and happily, with shit-eating grins.
We have, and always have had, the power to define culture ourselves, and to keep that culture free, but we haven't, because most of us are sellouts, and most of us don't have the will to pass up the slop in the trough.
I dare you to stop the hypocritical bullshit. I dare you to define your own culture:
http://creativecommons.org/
Its Good Cop / Bad Cop and both have similar goals or must give in to the same masters.
Some people pick the bad cop and some pick the good cop while some realizing they are both "bad" choose neither and just get what the rest decide upon. Its TRUE that the modern GOP has been hijacked by horrible people and it SHOULD be clear that they have been the bad cop of the pair for over a generation. Unfortunately, we have many Stockholm syndrome types as well as just plain suckers who confuse the bad cop with the good cop.
The hope of those who choose the good cop is that there will be a progression over the long term for the better; but this hope I think is largely unfounded and is just that-- wishful thinking. When it comes down to it, the good cop has most of the same goals but won't most as fast or be as painful; possibly throw you a bone or two while still screwing you in the end.
I choose the lesser of two evils; but not out of some dellusion that the good one is actually good-- just slightly better. It won't change until the citizens become ACTIVE and start THINKING in majority numbers - and are willing to back it up with force since we'd soon find out just how much democracy we have when we choose to actually use it.
Join a credit union or keep taking it in the ass.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Step 1: Spend 10/20/30 or more years studying and playing with zero financial stability and eventually be able to write music that other people like.
Step 2: Hire other people to make stuff completely unrelated to your primary abilities, that your audience may not want
Step 3: Profit
Result: You will have pretty much voted for the Brittany Spears of the world as our musical greats. So that old meme just isn't the answer.
Now it seems, on top of everything else relating to copyrights and patents, many totally messed up, why now push our corrupt and broken system on to the rest of the world?
where is the correctness of this? why does the world want to have to deal with the policies, that obviously don't seem to work at all in the U.S. make the world have to deal with this junk to put it mildly, at least before this junk was created the world had more freedom in this realm of topic,
whats next some one decides to copyright the national anthem, any other thing that belonged to everyone not just to a hoarding, pigheaded person. What is the world coming to.... (bangs head on wall) Why? Why?
What will this lead to possible war in the future caused by the unrest, and troubles of the world, with all the current issues stacked on top ?
Will this lead to more civil unrest, and the world loosing more confidence, just causing everyone problems because the U.S. is now pushing more laws on the rest of the world, enforcing the rest of the world, will we loose more allies, and trust, but of course we will?
How can these government be able to enforce these new regulations? you can't its just to big of a task more money getting waisted on enforcing an impossible task of multiple countries, let me guesss, the music industry is behind it.
How many more of these regulations will they create, how far will they go before they just go to far take away more rights of the peoples of this world?
When will it come to mass civil unrest?
I see the point of this, cut down on piracy, but what is the government doing, yes its good they are cracking down on piracy but shouldn't individual countries enforce no piracy laws on a country by country basis? not by a complete coverage.
Isn't there a flaw in this great plan, enforcing this compeletly, is like just dropping money into a vast black deep hole with no bottom, money just getting poured waisted on a task no one country or countries can stop, after all there are several billion people in the world and there are only so many governments, theres no way to enforce this.
Why are we spending time on resources on a problem that will always be there, and no way to stop it.
Couldn't each country, be responsible to keep piracy under control in their own country. Multiple countries working together is a great thing yes, but when faced with a task as large as what the U.S. has in mind isn't it way way way to big a task to complete it?
A broad single method to stop piracy in the world 3 strikes and your out, I can't see it working for the rest of the world, each country is different, each country has their own government and each government work in their own way, no single plan can work with total success, The only thing that can prevent piracy, is if every country creates and uses their own method of piracy prevention, after all more ground can be covered if there are many seperate methods, as every country isn't exactly like the U.S. how could this single method work, after all you can't stop it unless every country in the world were to use this soul method, and I mean EVERY COUNTRY in the world, which would never happen
I predict this won't work at all, billions of people millions of acts of internet piracy every day, it can't be stopped, only with every country in the world, including china, among many others,
besides, our system is a failure, a joke, and companies, and people abuse the system in this country, don't bring it apon the rest of the world, let them stand a better chance and let them handle their own problems.
In Soviet Russia, Jokes get you!
There is NO way you will ever see a "unified global laws on sales and export/import tax".
That would be in conflict with several constitutions and face huge national sovereignty issues without even thinking about the problems involved with adjusting for "local" needs and flexibility.
There is a reason there is no common tax rate/system in the US, European countries or any other part of the world. Different circumstances, different needs!
If you want to sell your products in the future you will [still] have to adjust your business for each geographic region of the world. There might be fewer regions to adjust for; The European Union [and European friends], the US/NAFTA, some South American block, the African Union, possibly a Gulf Union in the Middle East, maybe some Asian block(s) [if possible] and last but not least China.
I declare this a decleration of war against the whole internet!!!!!!
It can't be allowed
IF THIS PASSES
It will be the end of the modern age as we know it
The internet will never ever be the same
People will live in fear of loosing access to the internet
People who loose access to the internet will be done, everything they worked for will disappear
The world will never be the same
Governments will be hated more than ever
IF THIS PASSES
It can start a chain reaction leading to a nightmare possibility mass civil wars
It can start a chain reaction leading to the worst nightmare of all nightmares World War III which will be the end of humanity as we know it, YES ITS POSSIBLE!!
It will be the end to humanity as we humans have known it
Few to none are ready to handle any nightmare which this will bring when it passes
Does anyone here want their country to have no ally if one of these nightmares occurs?
Many will be unfairly, and victimized prosecuted, because they were tricked, or used, or had their identity stollen then used for nefarious purposes making them the law breaker, even though they had the identity stollen
Can you accept the fact that you may loose your access to the internet the life line to the world?
Are people ready to go back to the stone age?
IF THIS PASSES
do you want to have your identity stolen then be convicted because the person who stole your identity had infringed copyrights.
many many americans, and people of this world will loose possibly their only happieness
copyright trolls, will have a iron grip on the world
do you really want the governments of this world to spend billions enforcing this when the money could be surely used to improve life, save lives, and keep our future generations from paying the for the massive debts our current generations have created?
this will start a new worse chapter in the history of mankind
WE MUST STOP IT, ITS A DECLERATION OF WAR AGAINST THE INTERNET!!!!
TIME TO USE THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
OUR FIRST ADMENDMENT AS AMERICANS, AND ANY OTHER RIGHTS THAT ANY OTHER CITIZEN AROUND THE WORLD HAS
People, anyone who knows, any leaders, or people who wield power and influence in the government, people who hold high positions in any of the governments of power, the time to act is now!!!!
Petitions, protests, letters, emails, speach, media, every method to halt it must be used- no violence we don't want our efforts to spiral out of control, nor inoccent people to get hurt, or others as well.
Freedom of information act, time to use.
THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE MUST BE HEARD!!!!!!
DO NOT LET GOVERNMENTS TAKE AWAY ONE OF THE MOST VALUED RESOURCES ON THE PLANET!!!!!
Action is neccessary to stop the nightmare from taking our lives away.
Do not let this pass!!!!!!!!
Okay, under the current copyright system, how does a new artist get started this way, when he doesn't have any fans yet? Are consumers expected to start paying money to random people on the off-chance that they produce a good result?
Under the current system, a songwriter writes a song and has a recording artist record the song. Then the label that manages the songwriter and recording artist buys ad time on radio stations to promote the song and, indirectly, the album that the song is on. (Payola is still legal in the United States as long as something like "Paid for by Warner Bros. Records" precedes the play.) Copyright prevents other recording artists from "covering" (recording and publishing their own performances of) the song without paying and prevents motion picture authors from using the song.
so it would seem that having some physical venue (e.g., theaters) where you can charge for seats and eyeballs works much better
I don't understand exactly what you mean. For one thing, it's an antitrust violation for a movie distributor to own theaters. U.S. v. Paramount, 334 U.S. 131 (1948). For another, without copyright, studios would have to rely on trade secret law to keep independent theater operators from showing telesyncs in their own cut-price theaters.
I know he's being funny, but I won't be at all surprised if at some point they did want to implant us with 'Identity Chips' under the guise of fighting terrorism or whatever monkier they decide to use at the time.
[Baseball is] certainly not a game very much played around the rest of the world (US, Japan... anywhere else other than on US bases in other countries?)
It's not popular in the Czech Republic or the French Republic, but it is popular in the Dominican Republic. Still, I thought strikes were a good thing for anyone throwing a ball, be it in baseball or bowling.