ACTA Internet Chapter Leaked — Bad For Everyone

roju writes "Cory Doctorow is reporting on a leaked copy of the 'internet enforcement' portion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. He describes it as reading like a 'DMCA-plus' with provisions for third-party liability, digital locks, and 'a duty to technology firms to shut down infringement where they have "actual knowledge" that such is taking place.' For example, this could mean legal responsibility shifting to Apple for customers copying mp3s onto their iPods." Adds an anonymous reader, "Michael Geist points out that the leaks demonstrate that ACTA would create a Global DMCA and move toward a three-strikes-and-you're-out system. While the US has claimed that ACTA won't establish a mandatory three strikes system, it specifically uses three-strikes as its model."

Comments

This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a much bigger threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could be.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[clang_jangle]

Indeed. Surely some people must be thinking it's getting to close to time to create some drones of our own to take out the corporatocracy. Not me of course, but "some people".

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[BountyX]

Too late already done.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[causality]

This is a much bigger threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could be.

I wish I could attribute the saying, but here is how I've heard it said: If your law requires a police state to enforce, then your law is a bad law.

The very fact that these meetings were held in secret was a dead giveaway that nothing in our interests is going on in there.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[CannonballHead]

But it's far less personally dangerous. Most people are not killed by the *AA nor by DMCA or ACTA. People ARE killed by terrorists (and war, etc). Thus it is most definitely a more personally dangerous threat.

And most people care more immediately about their personal welfare than their freedom, if it comes down to it.... I think.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Friend, it ain't done until corporations are no longer entities with rights superior to those of human citizens. And it probably will take a real, old-fashioned insurgency such as our forefathers performed.

--
Remember, it's not terrorism if it's by the people, of the people, for the people!

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[clang_jangle]

Got any figures on how many people are killed by terrorists in the US? According to this the total was sixteen in 2009. Don't know about you, but I feel pretty safe from terrorism here in the U.S..

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[CannonballHead]

Then be glad you live in the US which has a very strong and active military, still.

Other countries are significantly less fortunate.

I didn't say terrorism was a huge threat; but at the very least, the perceived physical threat of terrorism is significantly greater than the perceived physical threat of the RIAA.

Also, it would be interesting to know not just successful "terrorism" - however the statistician defines it - but the ones that were caught, as well. Those contribute to the perception.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Wowsers]

There's a difference between this ACTA treaty and terrorism? They both aim to control and / or destroy economic activity, and keep control of it in the hands of the few.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[haruharaharu]

I don't live in darfur, so I'm not concerned about being killed. As it stands, in the rich world, you stand a better chance of getting killed by traffic or the cops than terrorists, and by a wide margin.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[leadacid]

Is there any provision in American law that allows the government to sign secret treaties? I understand that they aren't expressly authorized to give up the authority given them by the people to another government, and that only a madman would think they could place their citizens under the control of a government they didn't elect, and thus that this is logically wrong, but is there even a spurious justification for it? How can you possibly have justice when your government is negotiating treaties you aren't allowed to see? How can the machinery of justice function when you can't know the laws? How can a person know what actions are forbidden, how can a lawyer defend them, how can people know which rights they no longer have, how can the police know who to imprison? Does any of this make any sense either from the viewpoint of a human being living in a society made for human beings, or from the point of view of a single cog in a machine that can't be understood and can't possibly function?

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[hairyfeet]

Welcome to the United Snakes home of the thief, only the thief is the mega corps stealing all our rights and leaving only the "freedom" to work for ever shittier wages while they try to find ways to offshore your job or bring in scabs so they can give themselves gold plated toilets.

Everyone said those survival nuts gearing up like it is fixing to be WW3 were just crazy, they don't look so crazy now, with that slippery slope turning into a roller coaster going straight down and your only choices being "Rich corporate ass kissing lawyer" A or B, now do they? Like the old saying "he who has the gold makes the rules" and they are gonna make damned sure they keep the gold and thus make the rules. Now that thanks to SCOTUS foreign corps and nationals can just openly buy any politician they want I expect the slide to be even quicker. Cue the Ayn Rand quote about everyone being criminals.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[maxume]

If that comparison actually has some meaning, we need to start getting rid of all the dogs, because they pose a bigger physical threat than ACTA.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Larryish]

If this looks like it will actually come to pass, stock up on ChiPods. As many as you can buy, buy them. When new hardware _requires_ DRM and locked-down transfer channels, those things will be golden.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Hurricane78]

Thank you Captain Obvious! You always keep me so well informed! ^^

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[HungryHobo]

You seem very quick to attribute the fact that terrorism is a trivial threat to the fact that the US has a very strong and active military.

On a related note I have a rock here which keeps tigers away.
I have this rock and I don't see any tigers.

Have you considered comparing the US to countries which do not have a large and active military.
Even better try comparing it to countries which have no standing military.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[rtb61]

In this case there is a weapon with which to legally terrorise the RIAA, MPAA et al, the creative commons. Simply swap to that model for all your creative needs. Don't buy their content, tell everybody else not to buy their content, shun those that do suck up to their content as being lame arsed. At the very least drop cable TV as a start it sets a terrible precedent of renting content and it's owners are the antitheses of shared content.

It really is insanely stupid to pay them to steal your rights, to force you into working in poverty and, to corrupt you government. A sustained political effort is required to shake things up, a shift from a two party system to a three or more party system (they don't need to win, they just need the balance of power, greed by the majority powers means they can never work together).

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[shutdown -p now]

When the new hardware will require DRM, it will simply not play any non-DRM'd content; nor will you be able to acquire any - stores will be prohibited from selling it, and all countries hosting stores that will ignore the restrictions will be firewalled off the rest of the "civilized world".

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Ltap]

Just remember - Captain Obvious is never a villain. So, no matter how often he shows up, he always helps.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

the thief is the mega corps [who are trying to] bring in scabs so they can give themselves gold plated toilets.

Hahahaha! Bwahahahaha! Scabs with gold-plated toilets? Classic.

Yep, I'm sure that's why they work a low-paying job during a strike: because they don't have to.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Tuoqui]

You'd be able to help out best by joining your local Pirate Party.

Pirate Party Canada
Pirate Party International - Find your own country's here.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The very fact that these meetings were held in secret was a dead giveaway that nothing in our interests is going on in there.

Our interests != What we want. I think you were referring to the latter.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[biryokumaru]

I think he was referring to the management as getting the gold-plated toilets, or parachutes as the case may be.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[MindlessAutomata]

On the contrary, this is the result of democracy. The aims of democracy, the intended goals and functions of democracy, are just not what people think they are. Democracy is good on paper but in practice reality reveals its flaws. You can talk about how a democracy would work in a bubblegum dream world all you like, it doesn't change the fact that democracy is always some sort of tyranny.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[biryokumaru]

I would posit that more peoples lives are ruined by the direct action of the RIAA than terrorists in the United States.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Oh yeah. Probably.

*sheepish grin*

I'll just shuffle off now...

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[GaryPatterson]

Whilst the motives of the pirate party are generally okay, they're all but a gauranteed failure due to their ridiculous name and single focus. Few voters will put a tick next to "Pirate Party" on their ballot form, just from the name alone.

It'd be infinitely better to get real political parties onboard with the ideas than play around with joke parties that will never have the power to implement their ideas. Sadly many nations are stuck in faux democracy two party politics where voters get to choose the lesser of two very similar evils.

Failing that, at least change the name to appeal to the more general population. Something like "Reform Party." Something that isn't trivial to twist in the voters minds. Something that's not setting the party up to be easily demonised into irrelevance.

It's up with "The Gimp" for 'worst name ever' award. It's hard to think of a worse name for a political party, although rural canola producers one day might come up with the "Farmers for Rape" party. I live in hope.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[GaryPatterson]

Why would you feel safe? The terrorists have already caused your country to cower in fear, installing detectors at airports, ramping up people's paranoia and generally screwing you over.

On top of that, you've spent hundreds of billions on wars, one to hit back at them, the other being an unrelated military adventure.

They won years ago. Few people have been killed, but your country is terrified of them and acts accordingly.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Eskarel]

Every form of civilization leads to some form of tyrrany because a group of people cannot exist where everyone gets everything they want. If you think you've found a system wherein there is no tyrrany then either your deluded or you are the tyrant.

The purpose of democracy is to try and ensure that as much as possible tryanny and therefor the power of the tyrants is spread out over as many people as possible. In theory in a correctly working democracy any given action is wanted by more people than is any other option. Does this mean that it's always wanted by everyone? Of course not, and sometimes the results are worse than an individual tyrant, but while it's sometimes worse than an enlightened benevolent dictator, it's a hell of a lot better than the opposite.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[garg0yle]

Now that thanks to SCOTUS foreign corps and nationals can just openly buy any politician they want I expect the slide to be even quicker.

If it were that easy to buy public opinion, we'd all be drinking New Coke.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Entropius]

A bigger threat to the idea of the Pirate Party in the US, or any like-minded party, is our ridiculous two-party system. It doesn't matter what you call it, no third party has a chance in the US because of the way the system is constructed.

Piratpartiet did decently in Sweden...

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[FiloEleven]

I am an adult. I can be responsible for my own interests. I recognize that what I want is not always what is best for me, and I act on that recognition through self-control. When I fail, I accept the responsibility.

Any group of men who thinks they know my interests better than I do can speak with me and try to convince me that this is so, but it is I who makes the final decision. Provisions decided in secret without public knowledge or consent will result in nothing but more lawlessness. Anyone who approves this agreement clearly shows that he does not represent me.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[dwillden]

Even if this is finalized, and the US trade representative and the President sign the treaty, it still has no force of effect unless and until the Senate Ratifies it. Which I find very unlikely.

And the Supreme Court (which in its current make-up is currently not likely to allow such a blatant assault on our freedoms) can reject it as well.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[flyneye]

Democracy is the bigger threat to freedom than terrorism ever was.

I smell a bloody world revolution on the horizon.
Immense changes at the next big U.S. election at the very least.
I kinda suspect both Democrats and Republicans won't like the outcome.
Well f**k 'em they're both worn out anacronisms and too corrupt for their own good.

This is a good example of why the whole world should just burn down the present "governments" and start over from scratch.
Just one example mind you. How many more can you think of in a couple minutes?

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[nebaz]

Are you sure? They passed the DMCA, without much fanfare.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[mux2000]

Strike one.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Virtual_Raider]

They are trying (and getting away) with this crap so they can pull disgustingly immoral tricks like Disney is doing. I saw the most sickening book yesterday:

"Disney's Alice in Wonderland", based on the movie by Tim Burton and the screenplay by whomeverthefuck. No mention of Caroll whatsoever. This is your new future. I hope you've never been too fond of Eurasia...

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[hairyfeet]

Thank you. And for those that labeled me a troll? Come out to middle America and see for yourself. our towns are nothing but corpses. Walled up store fronts, half the houses are abandoned, folks living out of their cars, whole towns just walked away from. Just in the two mile daily walk around my town I passed boarded up building after boarded up building, tons of for rent and for sale signs that have sat so long they have faded, the only reason my home town isn't completely dead is because it has a college. Those towns nearby that don't have a college? look like something out of an "after the apocalypse" movie.

It is actually pretty simple folks. You can't pay for two wars and bailouts of thieving bankers without taxes, and kind of hard to tax the unemployed. If the fed were to release REAL numbers, instead of their bullshit numbers where they drop all those whose benefits ran out, or who gave up because there simply isn't any work to be had, we would probably be looking at close to 30% unemployment and rising. They can talk about their "positive" indicators all they want, the jobs aren't coming back, they've been offshored to places were they can poison the workers into an early grave and dump toxins out the back door.

From driving through middle America and seeing the vast wastelands I personally think we are gonna have a depression that makes the 30s look like a joke. And I don't think it will go nearly as meekly, do you? We are a hell of a lot more mean than they were back then, and a hell of a lot better armed. We'll see how nasty things will get when it takes a basket of money to buy bread, with the way they are printing money at the fed probably won't be too long. China will only put up with buying our worthless dollars for so long before they just switch to the Euro and say fuck us. When that happens it is gonna get nasty folks, you mark my words.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[grimdawg]

On the other hand, terrorists actually kill actual people. With actual bombs.

You're comparing virtual apples with physical oranges, and ignoring the fact that you can only eat one of those for lunch.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[cgenman]

A: Why the hell are treaties private? Shouldn't they be by law public documents?
B: This seems like a shortsighted reaction to a serious problem that the lawmakers don't understand. It also seems like the kind of shortsighted reaction that happens around the world hundreds of times each day. We'll survive.

It looks like it creates:
  * Punishment for companies who know that their products are being used for copyright infringement, ALA Pirate's Bay, and don't try to stop it.
  * Takedown procedures for Trademark Infringement, which are pretty standard.
  * Country of origin needs to decide on a punishment for "knowingly and materially aiding" infringement, such as setting up an FTP site for music sharing.
  * DMCA's retarded and technologically retarding restriction on picking digital locks on copyrighted content. We in the US have lived with this particular joy for years.

Quite frankly, this seems pretty close to "let's take US law and get people to apply it across the EU." Having lived with these problems for years, they weren't the end of the world here and they won't be the end of the world abroad. Taking steps towards international regulating bodies might be the first steps towards the end of spam, reduced botnets, phishing, international domain squatting, and other problems with the network right now. Pragmatically speaking, it probably just means that when Microsoft stops making the Xbox and we all try to get our purchased games off of it, we'll have to go to Russian or Chinese websites to figure out how, rather than ones hosted in Sweden. Oh, and anyone saying anything against Symantec in Europe will be hit with frivilous trademark takedown requests, which should last for 6 months or so until the ISP's just start using their discretion.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[mpe]

It'd be infinitely better to get real political parties onboard with the ideas than play around with joke parties that will never have the power to implement their ideas.

I recall some 20 years ago journalists tried (and failed) to see if the public could tell the difference between some policies taken from manifestos and the daftest ideas they could come up with. Even "real" political parties often turn out to be bad jokes.

Sadly many nations are stuck in faux democracy two party politics where voters get to choose the lesser of two very similar evils.

Which often need to be called "The Thieves and Liers Party" & "The Liers and Thieves Party" were normal "truth in advertising" laws applied :)

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[mpe]

A: Why the hell are treaties private? Shouldn't they be by law public documents?

What do those involved have to fear???

* Punishment for companies who know that their products are being used for copyright infringement, ALA Pirate's Bay, and don't try to stop it.

Does that include Microsoft :)

Taking steps towards international regulating bodies might be the first steps towards the end of spam, reduced botnets, phishing, international domain squatting, and other problems with the network right now.

In which case there would be no need to keep anything secret... Another thing it probably won't do is outlaw DRM, even though DRM encourages piracy.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[colonelquesadilla]

As much as I hate to admit it, I think the better thing to do right now would be stock up on food, ammunition if you are so inclined and other things that might become scarce. The intellectual property thing is a very strange development, but basically the US has no more material exports. We are gambling that we will be able to monetize IP long term, thereby closing our trade deficit without producing physical goods. It could go well, if we monopolize the world engineering market without having to build anything here and still get the profits we'll be insanely rich. Somehow I don't think it'll work out that way, especially the way our currency is doing.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[7-Vodka]

Wow, did you buy it big time.

New coke was a way to piss off people enough to get them to beg for classic coke back. It was reverse psychology at it's finest and coke sales flew through the roof when they re-introduced it.

You proved the reverse of your own point. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[techno-vampire]

Which often need to be called "The Thieves and Liers Party" & "The Liers and Thieves Party" were normal "truth in advertising" laws applied :)

Currently, it could well be said that the two parties in the US are being run by the Nuts and the Creeps. I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[BlueStrat]

Any group of men who thinks they know my interests better than I do can speak with me and try to convince me that this is so, but it is I who makes the final decision. Provisions decided in secret without public knowledge or consent will result in nothing but more lawlessness. Anyone who approves this agreement clearly shows that he does not represent me.

Well, good luck with that "making the final decision" when you have an administration official saying things like; "We tend to agree with Mao, that power comes mainly from the barrel of a gun." That doesn't bode well for the lifespan of anyone who gets in the way of their agendas.

They don't really care about you, a citizen, or what you want or even what's best for you or America (because people are too stupid to see how right *they*, as the elite, are). They have their own plans, and you don't even make it onto the bottom of the list. You and others like you who may disagree are obstacles to be silenced and defeated by whatever methods are the easiest and most expedient, as the ends justify the means.

The way things are trending around the world, it won't be long until a person will have more individual freedom in Russia or China than in America thanks to the Progressives in both the Republican and Democrat parties (McCain, Hillary, and Obama have all declared themselves to be Progressives). Get ready for the Progressive Oligarchy of America, delivered fresh to you each day from the barrel of a gun.

Strat

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[ArsenneLupin]

This is a much bigger threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could be.

Worse than that, it could actually cause some terrorism. Wanna snipe around some MPAA or RIAA parking lots?

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[ultranova]

Currently, it could well be said that the two parties in the US are being run by the Nuts and the Creeps. I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.

If either of them had the nuts to stand up to their corporate overlords, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[FriendlyLurker]

Sad but true. On the bright side (For those controlling the reigns that is), all those unemployed poor people sure do make great soldiers for the war machine. Willing ti sign up too, since they have little hope to do anything else. No surprise that military recruitment officers are overwhelmingly in the poor zones of America.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[hairyfeet]

Yeah, they are gonna have a bit of a problem with that seeing as how street gangs have learned and are now using the US military as their own training camp. Each one the military teaches goes home to teach a dozen gang members, how long until the gang bangers are better at it? After all, the gang bangers have more reasons to fight, not only money but drugs power and turf.

Should be interesting when it all collapses, but they may come to regret teaching all those poor how to use all those nice big guns.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[hitmark]

and you can be damn sure that disney corp will fight until the bitter end to make sure their interpretation of the story never enters public domain...

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Genda]

Excuse me, that wasn't the terrorists... Hundreds of thousands of Americans protested in streets all over the nation, demanding Washington stop the action, think out a logic plan of response, and deal with a small group of criminals, who represented a small but violent organization, responsible for blowing up a group of buildings and killing several thousand people, in one city, in one state in this country. Instead, our government, and corporate friends of that government, saw this as an opportunity to whip the nation into a frenzy, shake a scary, scary Iraqi scarcrow at all of us, and go "booga, booga, booga!!!" The majority of good Americans, who have been trained since Kindergarten to trust and obey their government without so much as a single contemplative neuron firing, swallowed the WMD swill provided them without so much as a proper belch, and did as they were told. While these cynical, evil men sold out their country, the world at large, and for all intents and purposes, the foreseeable future. The mess we see today is that aftermath of the party these pigs had at our expense.

Tonight on 60 Minutes, there was a story, about a planes being flown by Blackwater. The planes flown by Blackwater had developed a reputation for being piloted by folks who were carelessness, reckless, unprofessional, and dangerously under-skilled. One of these planes crashed into a mountain in Afghanistan. A witness, mentioned that while speaking with the CEO of the company, the man in charge was utterly dumbfounded... he said "Did you listen to the black box recorder? The idiot flight crew was screwing around, joking about TV shows, then WHAM, flew straight into a mountain." The widow of an Officer being transported and who died in the crash, began proceedings to sue Blackwater... Blackwater never even said we're sorry. Whoops, it seems we screwed the pooch??? What they did do, was tell her, "Because we're contracted by the government, we are the government, therefore you can't sue us." Then they said "Since the accident happened in Afghanistan, you have to deal with us under Afghani law (which states business owners can't be held liable for gross negligence.) Then finally they said "There is no evidence that we did anything wrong, and in fact it was the Army Officer on the plane who was responsible for the crash... he must have done something to precipitate the disaster." Since then there have been more incidents of near disasters, and just this week, the Army awarded Blackwater with new and extended flight contracts. If this doesn't tell you the whole damn thing sucks like a Dyson Upright Vacuum, you are heavily medicated, or have serious perceptual limitations.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[secondhand_Buddah]

I disagree. This is the result of the lack of democracy. When you vote, you hand over your veto power to your local congressman and hope that he has your best interests at heart, which he invariably does not. Our failure to participate democratically at all levels within our societies world wide has caused this problem.
Until we properly restore our participation we will continue to be be screwed over time and time again, with the screws getting tighter each time, as your local friendly congressman signs off on bills designed to extract more tax dollars from your pocket.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Yea, like the zone free dvd player that you not allowed to sell (yes really) that i have on the shelf. Mod chipping is not hard to get done either, and technically illegal....

The fact remains, it will be possible to do, it will be done. And what does 3 strikes and your out mean with "iPods" anyway. You need a mp3 player permit?

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Jurily]

China will only put up with buying our worthless dollars for so long before they just switch to the Euro and say fuck us.

Saddam tried that, but he didn't have a big enough army to pull it off. I hope China does.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Ezel]

Always remember that if it weren't for the name Pirate Party none of you would talk about the party at all.
The name helps bring more attention to it than it scares away stiffies.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[scruffy]

Now that thanks to SCOTUS foreign corps and nationals can just openly buy any politician they want I expect the slide to be even quicker.

If it were that easy to buy public opinion, we'd all be drinking New Coke.

But a lot of people do seem to be drinking Bud Light.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[mcgrew]

Come out to middle America and see for yourself. our towns are nothing but corpses. Walled up store fronts, half the houses are abandoned, folks living out of their cars, whole towns just walked away from.

I'm in Springfield, IL. You would expect the seat of state government to be pretty recession-proof, but it's bad here even. Much worse than 1986 when I was having trouble finding work.

It is actually pretty simple folks. You can't pay for two wars and bailouts of thieving bankers without taxes, and kind of hard to tax the unemployed.

They're talking of a "jobless recovery", which is a REAL insult to working people. The uber-rich and the corpo rats are doing ok, isn't it time to start taxing people who actually have money? If anyone spouts any "trickle down economics" bullshit I'll consider them a liar or a fool. No tax break will make a company build a new facility or hire new workers; the only thing that will do that is demand for their product. No tax burden will stop them from opening a new facility or hiring new people if there's profit to be made from it. Give the poor and middle class tax breaks and they'll spend the money, and the demand for goods and services will have the rich hiring and opening new facilities.

Don't tax the workers who are creating the wealth, tax the fat cat who controls it.

Funny how Illinois is supposedly a blue state, yet we have a flat income tax. I pay the same 3% as someone making a hundred million dollars a year, while the sales tax is twice that and hurts working people, while the rich who don't have to spend anywhere near as much of their income get off nearly scott-free.

They can talk about their "positive" indicators all they want, the jobs aren't coming back, they've been offshored to places were they can poison the workers into an early grave and dump toxins out the back door.

Where someone can rent an apartment for $50 a month and buy a meal in a restaraunt for a dollar. It seems our corporate-owned government wants the US to become a third world country.

I personally think we are gonna have a depression that makes the 30s look like a joke. And I don't think it will go nearly as meekly, do you? We are a hell of a lot more mean than they were back then, and a hell of a lot better armed.

No, I disagree with the bolded part. They were a LOT meaner back in the thirties, and even in the fifties whenI grew up everyone had firearms. My dad (who was born in 1931) doesn't even own a gun now and hasn't for decades, and he used to be an avid hunter. I doubt my grandfather ever went without owning a firearm. Things that would have you in jail today were normal back then. In the thirties, people cheered bank robbers. We may see that again.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[mpe]

Currently, it could well be said that the two parties in the US are being run by the Nuts and the Creeps. I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.

That's easy you just see which is tyhe first lot to "bolt" :)

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[d34dluk3]

Disregard this guy. He's clearly a proponent of the Ninja party. I can't imagine his Sensei will be pleased that his post was visible though...

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[jollyreaper]

It's up with "The Gimp" for 'worst name ever' award. It's hard to think of a worse name for a political party, although rural canola producers one day might come up with the "Farmers for Rape" party. I live in hope.

Media consultants will tell them that "Surprise Sex" tests better than "rape" in most demographics.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Culture20]

If anyone spouts any "trickle down economics" bullshit I'll consider them a liar or a fool. [...] No tax burden will stop them from opening a new facility or hiring new people if there's profit to be made from it.

i.e. the corporations pass the tax on to the customers. Trickle, trickle.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[LateArthurDent]

they're all but a gauranteed failure due to their ridiculous name...it's up with "The Gimp" for 'worst name ever' award. It's hard to think of a worse name for a political party

For as long as a name has any significance AT ALL to people, instead of the issues the candidates stand for, representative governments are a failure.

If you try to cater to idiots by naming things "reform party" or "patriot party" or "blue skies and warm feelings party" you're just doing the same every other fucking party is doing: manipulating the voters. That makes you part of the problem. Do you want to make a difference? Teach people, especially kids, to be objective thinkers. When we change the way people approach candidates through education, then we'll have real change, and the name of a party won't matter.

For that matter, I hope you're not one of those idiots who don't use the GIMP because of the name. I don't use the GIMP because the interface sucks (I hear they're working to improve that lately), but the name has nothing to do with it.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Culture20]

FWIW, classic coke in the USA no longer uses cane sugar, it uses HFCS (however the "jewish passover" coke does have cane sugar). I'm too lazy to figure out when exactly they switched to HFCS, but they certainly did, so in a way classic coke is not back. Some people claim there's a difference in taste.

There is, and a difference in texture too. I'll drink Pepsi Throwback (made with Cane Sugar) or Jones Soda Cola before Coke Classic with HFCS.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[eth1]

Worse than that, it could actually cause some terrorism. Wanna snipe around some MPAA or RIAA parking lots?

Worse? I'm not quite getting how snipers in *AA parking lots would be making things WORSE...

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Culture20]

just this week, the Army awarded Blackwater with new and extended flight contracts.

How did they do that? I thought Blackwater changed its name to Xfinity and became an internet provider.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[snowraver1]

Woosh... See Rapeseed

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[BlueStrat]

Ooh, an "Offtopic" mod! I must have angered a Progressive with mod points.

Typical reaction from a Progressive, though; rather than debating on the facts and merits, where they know they can't win as logic and facts are stubborn things, just shut out/silence opposing views.

Thanks for proving me correct about Progressives yet again! :D

Strat

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[MindlessAutomata]

We saw a taste of direct democracy in California, where they outlawed homosexual marriage.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[CannonballHead]

What's best would be to compare the US to other SIMILAR countries without a large and active military... are there any? The problem is the current "brand" of terrorism comes along with fanatical Islam, it seems. I'm not saying Islam == Terrorism, I'm saying that at the moment, there are a lot of terrorists - it seems - that ascribe to a fanatical belief in Islam. And that particularly fanatical belief appears to hate Western culture. And at the moment, one of THE biggest "homes" for western culture, religion, belief, freedoms, etc., is America. And the UK. And they seem to have some of the most problems with terrorism.

Give me a "bastion" of western culture, religion, and freedoms that fanatical Muslims despise that does not have a military, and I'll compare the US to it. Comparing it to a small South American country whose main source of income is tourism is not a fair comparison.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[secondhand_Buddah]

I'm talking even more granular than that. Every issue should be voted on in an electronic open forum. The real problem is the lack of social responsibility within society.
The real sense that we are the actual owners of our country has been diminished. We have handed over our decision making to self interested strangers. and then we have the audacity to complain when they put suppressive and draconian laws into place.

We are actually complicit in this by giving them the authority to do this.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[snadrus]

You are.

New coke was a distraction to change the "old coke" formula from Sugar to High Fructose Corn Syrup. As this ingredient is illegal in Canada and Mexico you can double-check by reading the label of Coke coming from those areas.

Thank you for your example.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[HungryHobo]

culture, religion, belief, freedoms, etc

yes.... they hate you for your freedom.

What's best would be to compare the US to other SIMILAR countries without a large and active military... are there any?

I know this game.

Any country which has less than a quarter the population of the US will not count because they're too small or insignificant.
the only countries which are that big are:

Bangladesh | Brazil | China | Egypt | Ethiopia | Germany | India | Indonesia | Japan | Mexico | Nigeria | Pakistan | Philippines | Russia | Vietnam
(15)

Any country which is not predominantly christian won't count because they're not american enough given that you dwell on Islamic terrorists and ignore all the other kinds.
Brazil | Ethiopia | Germany | Mexico | Philippines | Russia
(6)

Any country which doesn't have a high enough average enough average income will not be western enough for your taste.
Germany
(1)

And while germany spends a tiny fraction of that the US does on it's military and anti terrorism rocks it still spends quite a lot.
I can't find any attacks in 2009 which implies they're going better than the US on that score.

In looking up the deaths due to terrorists in other western countries I'm finding it hard to find any other western countries with or without large militarys which lose less people to peanut allergies and bee stings than they do to terrorism.

Despite what the news may tell you terrorists just aren't all that much of a threat.

All those billions of dollars being wasted on anti terrorist measures could save more lives if they were spent on cancer research or road safety... quite possibly even if terrorists actually manage to do the incredibly improbable and and get their hands on a small nuclear device... which they somehow didn't do even before 9/11 when nothing like as much money was being wasted on terrorist repellent rocks.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[vegiVamp]

They are not mutually exclusive, however. I daresay he was referring to both of them, but put the more important one first.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[hairyfeet]

I would agree that as individuals they were stronger, but nowadays we tend to band together in groups around alpha males. Just look at the crips, which outnumber the cops in some areas 4 or even 6 to 1. It was easy for the government to rally against a single man, like machine gun Kelly or pretty Boy Floyd, it will be a hell of a lot harder to go up against a 100,000 strong army, especially if the people rally to them.

All it is gonna take is an X (or a Stalin, or yes even another Hitler) that says "Fuck the government! What have they done for us? Why should we listen to those fat bastards, rich off our suffering, when we can just kill that fool and take it? We'll take care of our own". Our national guards are practically clearing houses for stolen military weaponry, thanks to the shitty treatment and pay of our grunts. Back then the best you could score was a Tommy Gun, today you can score C4, LAW rockets, hell just a couple of years ago they busted gang bangers here carrying an RPG those fools planned to use for a drive by. Imagine if instead of fighting over turf they banded together?

No empire lasts forever, and I truly believe this empire is headed for the fall. The powerful and the greedy have adopted a "let them eat cake" attitude, confident their technology will save them. They forget the French army was much better armed than the peasants there too. In the end their heads still rolled. I have known many in the military, and they still take words like "honor" and "the constitution" seriously. If ordered to shoot Americans on American soil I have no doubt many will turn and point their weapons at the power mongers. Remember that the Roman Empire fell because the people got to the point they believed anything was better than what they had. I believe we are well on that way, when even my 94 year old grandma thinks the system is too corrupt to bother voting anymore.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Schmorgluck]

In some countries, the use of surprise is a sufficient condition for an act of sexual nature to qualify as sexual assault. I guess it's the case in some states of the Union (but it's only a wild guess: IANAL and IANAUSC).

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[sorak]

people are more worried about drama.

If you look up the statistics on how many people are killed every year by cigarettes, reckless driving, firearms, lack of health insurance, or obesity, and then compare that to how many people have been killed in the past decade by terrorism, you would find that terrorism is a more dramatic threat, but not a more dangerous one.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Schmorgluck]

That's why healthy and loyal debate is so vital to keep a democracy sane.

Once in a blue moon, I read some logs of the debates of my country's chambers. When the representatives are discussing matters that aren't very mediatic, the debates are actually quite courteous, the various parties' speakers are people who know the matter at hand, and overall they are willing to find reasonable compromises between their ideological views.

I find this beautiful. If only lawmaking could be always like that...

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[steelfood]

I agree. They should've called it the Ninja Party.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[snadrus]

I'm not so sure that the name is off-base. Their "single focus" goals are actually a broad range of anti-corporatist laws which paint them as a Robin Hood of sorts, appealing to common youth.

Two party politics would be an improvement over Texas's current elections where only Republican primaries decide your candidates. Your choices:
- The current Governor who is open for selling Texas to the highest bidder.
- A 15-year pro-big-business US Senator who made more spending projects than anyone. Still labelled "conservative" though.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[frank_adrian314159]

drinking Bud Light.

And the difference between that and regular Bud is...?

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[dweller_below]

I wish I could attribute the saying, but here is how I've heard it said: If your law requires a police state to enforce, then your law is a bad law.

The very fact that these meetings were held in secret was a dead giveaway that nothing in our interests is going on in there.

Whoever is doing this is focused on an immediate benefit. This is short-sighted thinking at it's finest. Open processes and democracy work because it directly benefits the law makers. When there is a bad/unpopular law, the guilt and blame gets spread around. It is pointless to kill the lawmakers, because they are everybody.

But, closed processes and secret lawmaking have an entirely different economy. It is obvious who to blame. Just get the list of people participating in the secret process. It is also obvious how to rectify that situation. And, in one or two quick steps we are back to the politics of the great merchant houses. The lawmakers end up being so unpopular that they can't go out or taste untested food. They lose almost as much freedom as the people they are enslaving.

It's not hard to see the big picture. It's obvious the end result is bad for everybody. What kind of short-term payoff could be so tempting?

Miles

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[cas2000]

I'm talking even more granular than that. Every issue should be voted on in an electronic open forum. The real problem is the lack of social responsibility within society.

the trouble with this idea is that it's effectively giving the government to fox news and their ilk (true, they already own most of the govt but occasionally they get thwarted by other vested interests)

the vast bulk of the population are cretinously stupid sheep who are easy prey for propagandists, scare-mongerers, and advertising vermin. they're easily whipped up into hysteria and made to "demand" amazingly stupid things of the government, which are very much against their own interests but which are exactly what their corporate masters want.

stupid people and the evil scumbags who are willing to exploit and manipulate them are responsible for most of what's wrong with the world.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[secondhand_Buddah]

The solution to this is to have different types of voting. At the most basic level, where most of the participation will happen, need to be aligned to ones special interests where one has the most life experience and education.
Another protection measure in an open society at this level is to have open voting so that votes can be openly verified, especially within the special interest groups.
Importantly voting is loaded (with a maximum threshold) according to ones experience and eduction. The reality is, that all people do not contribute equally to society. Some peoples contributions are greater, and this needs to be respected (and even revered in a system like this) This would also encourage people to become more proficient in their areas of expertise.

My experience is that people have become sheeple because they have been deprived of this right, and social responsibility. I predict that if it was returned to them, after a short phase of upheaval, this system would stabilize and an unprecedented new level of social responsibility would emerge among citizens.
I expect there would be challenges, because democracy is inherently designed to side with the majority no matter how slim the majority may be.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[mcgrew]

i.e. the corporations pass the tax on to the customers.

They still have to compete with the other corporations. They're going to have to eat some of the tax if their competetitors do. And with most products, one can do without. I can choose whether or not to pay the corporate tax on a product, I cannot choose to whether or not to pay a direct tax.

Pure evil.

[mirix]

What's good for the *AA is good for us, right?

Re:Pure evil.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

In some way, yes. If you actually like what the *AA produces, then strengthening copyrights can, in theory, bring prices down (or at least, keep them down when they should be inflating), and allow them to invest more, particularly in riskier ventures.

If you don't like what the *AA produces, well, I wouldn't think you'd be too pissed off about having to wait 100 years before getting to freely distribute their crap.

That aside, I have no doubt that the ACTA will be, on the whole, bad for consumers. Essentially, this is shit-fight between leeches and the corporations they feed off. Consumers will ultimately be the casualties here.

Re:Pure evil.

[IndustrialComplex]

If you don't like what the *AA produces, well, I wouldn't think you'd be too pissed off about having to wait 100 years before getting to freely distribute their crap.

If it was just them, it wouldn't be a problem, but eventually EVERYTHING is owned by somebody for 100+ years. The result is that it doesn't matter if you don't like what the *AA labels produce, but that everything gets tied down.

Even worse, what is owned by one person is usually sold and ends up being in some giant corporations vaults which they will NEVER release until it expires or is sold again.

Tyranny vs Liberty

[Afforess]

A Man much wiser than me once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

Which is true today?

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[Mad Leper]

An equally wise American once said "..and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

The tyranny you speak of is really the tyranny of the public and those who seek to destroy the foundations of government are in fact engaged in a war against their fellow Americans.

But I would assume fair-weather Libertarians would find this quite reasonable, every man for himself after all...

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[geminidomino]

An equally wise American once said "..and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

And? One would have to be a deity of disingenuous rhetoric to make a case that there is anything "by" or "for the people" about the contemporary government system. It's been gamed, expertly so, and the only ones who could fix it are those who benefit from it.

You'd better start to love it, because ACTA and more like it are going to happen, and there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it.

Cue naive, high-school idealists who blame the voters and/or claim that voting could stop it.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[BradleyUffner]

Which is true today?

People can't be scared of things they aren't aware of. Most people aren't aware of much the government is doing these days.
Governments passing laws to control people so much seems to indicate that the government is scared of the people and is trying to regain control.
Oddly enough it seems we are in the situation of government fearing the people more that the people fearing the government. So that means... We have Liberty?

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[DigiShaman]

I fear the government. That much I know to be true.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[advertisehere]

Can't both be true?

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[91degrees]

The much wiser man was a complete moron then.

When government fears the people there is a ineffectual weak populist government that fears making difficult decisions because people collectively are pretty damn stupid. Alas that isn't catchy and doesn't use a clever mechanic of opposites, but alas, reality can't always be handled in a pithy statement.

Government should respect the people, earn their trust, and work as their loyal servants. Neither side should fear the other.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[Spad]

I think it's more a case of the government being afraid that the people might realise what they're up to and so is trying a pre-emptive strike. It gives "the people" too much credit to claim that they're clued up enough to actually frighten the government; the ludicrous state of US politics should show you that (by which I mean the Democrats being in-fighting pussies incapable of pushing through any legislation even with a super-majority and the Republicans having whipped their supporters into such an anti-Obama frenzy with meaningless buzzwords that they're now incapable of agreeing with him even when it means getting what they want for fear of alienating their own supporters).

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[the_humeister]

A Man much wiser than me once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

  Which is true today?

Depends where you are. In Somalia, it would seem that the government (and everyone else) does indeed fear the people.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[Adrian Lopez]

So that means... We have Liberty?

If ACTA is anything to go by, it appears there are those who feel we do have [too much] liberty.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[maxwell demon]

Actually tyrants fear the people more than democrats. In a democracy, those in power mainly fear to get voted out of office. Tyrants fear to be forcefully removed, with high probability of being killed, and an assured uncomfortable life if he survives the revolution.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[ipquickly]

A Man much wiser than me once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

There should be neither.

The government should be the people.
Right now the government is more the corporations than the people.

Until we start electing people who grew up downloading music, or those in power will have lawyers bills because their kids were charged with downloading music, I doubt much will change.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[Anonymous Coward]

An equally wise American once said "..and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Don't forget that "equally wise American" said that while in the process of denying just such a government to more than 6 million people, killing more than a quarter-million of them in the process. I don't agree with slavery, but that still was an extremely hypocritical statement for Lincoln to have made, particularly in light of the fact that he, by his own admission, was far more interested in keeping the South from establishing their own government (i.e. of their people, by their people, etc.) than any high-minded concern for the slaves, as evidenced in part by his support of the Corwin Amendment and stated willingness to let slavery continue where it already existed.

While he had made public statements before indicating he believed that the slaves should be free men, his beliefs obviously weren't strong enough to keep him from letting them stay put for as long as there was a political benefit to be had, and his actions only changed after the war started and he didn't have to worry about the political fallout anymore. Typical politician, whose father-in-law was even a slave owner.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[Afforess]

That much wiser man was Thomas Jefferson. Care to revise your moron comment?

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[zach_the_lizard]

An equally wise American once said "..and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Unless you want to leave his government, then he is all for jailing you without trial and suspending habeas corpus. He is also cool with using total war in order to invade one section of the country, burning down such cities as Atlanta and devastating the region. He also brought about the income tax, which was at the time unconstitutional (like much of what he did). Sure, he freed a terribly oppressed group of people, but he used another form of slavery (conscription) to achieve it.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[zach_the_lizard]

I would take an ineffectual and weak government over what we have now; such a government would likely not be able to pass such crazy laws, with such a weak grasp on the reins of power. I feel that the various wars would not have gone on for so long, too.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[zach_the_lizard]

Not that I agree with your parent, but just because a man is famous and revered does not mean that he was infallible. Many wise men have made mistakes throughout history; Jefferson is one of them (ever hear of the embargo he put in place? That was one of them. Let's not get started on him and slavery)

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[zach_the_lizard]

Depends where you are. In Somalia, it would seem that the government (and everyone else) does indeed fear the people.

I think they did that before their government collapsed. Somalia was a hell hole then, and remains so now, although I have heard it reported that, despite this, they have a fairly decent telecom industry for that neck of the woods. Their tribal Xeer law system is also fascinating.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[zach_the_lizard]

We have elected men who have done drugs for many decades, but that has not helped end the war on drugs; it may have even hurt it, as they moralize about how "evil" they were for doing that and then have to go around making the laws even tougher to get some drug warrior cred.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[NeutronCowboy]

To see this at work, just watch the French. It is the one country in the world where the government is genuinely worried about the population. The French have a habit of instigating work actions that would result here in the National Guard being called in. The French government, not being quite as quick to shoot at its own population (unless they live in the poor suburbs....) is constantly forced to cave to populist demands.

How is it working out for them? I don't know about you, but Time Magazine recently rated France the best place to live. On the other hand, be ready to plan your vacations around predictable strikes that cripple the nation's transportation system.

I wouldn't go so far to say that such a government would be weak and ineffectual, but it certainly comes with its own set of challenges.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[Golddess]

If people were motivated enough, voting most certainly could stop it. It certainly would not be the last step, but a step towards stopping it definitely.

The way I see it, there are two scenarios:
1) The people vote in someone who would actually make a change, change occurs (Ignore the likelyhood of actually finding such an incorruptible person).
2) The people vote in someone who would actually make a change, but someone else instead gets into office. The people then find out "hey, our guy got 60%/80%/100% of the votes, wtf is going on?" Revolution ensues.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[geminidomino]

The way I see it, there are two scenarios:

1) The people vote in someone who would actually make a change, change occurs (Ignore the likelyhood of actually finding such an incorruptible person).

Except you can't ignore the likelihood. That's the crux of the problem. It's not possible.

2) The people vote in someone who would actually make a change, but someone else instead gets into office. The people then find out "hey, our guy got 60%/80%/100% of the votes, wtf is going on?" Revolution ensues.

The same impossibility applies there. Neither of your scenarios will ever come to pass.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[zach_the_lizard]

I hate to reply to myself, but for those looking for more info on Somalian internet access/telephone service, this BBC article may be of interest: Telecoms thriving in lawless Somalia. Unlimited local calls, according to the article, can be gotten for $10 per month.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[Ltap]

Somehow, I don't think this quote was one of them.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Either you are a person of acceptable intelligence, or you make false dichotomies.

In which category are you?

(I like your sig BTW)

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Perhaps the secrecy is, ultimately, a sign that the government is scared.

And why not? We have to stamp their next round of paychecks.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[CapnStank]

O rly?

Come to Canada, lotsa room up here.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[FiloEleven]

As the sibling poster said, neither of these options are viable. It's not a question of finding the right person, because the right person doesn't exist. The only way to get the power in the first place is to become a player. Once you do, the establishment has enough on you to keep you in line.

The way to make things change is not through voting, it is through public pressure. It doesn't matter who is in office. If enough of the public calls their congressmen strongly voicing their opinion, in this case against ACTA, the threat of losing the next election will force congress to do what we want them to do.

This requires people aware of the issue to discuss it with friends and family, and if they get riled up about it (or even if they don't) stress the importance of calling their representatives. Public pressure has consistently halted more bad legislation than strategic voting, and it's something you can do as often as bad legislation comes up.

(To make your job easier in the future, urge your congressmen to support the Read The Bills Act.)

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[Tolkien]

Easy. Tyranny.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[c-reus]

The second scenario happens. Sequoia will provide the voting machines so achieving the desired result (a corporately supported fellow winning) is not that hard.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[91degrees]

Okay. Thomas Jefferson said some pretty moronic things. Being Thomas Jefferson doesn't make him right. That fallacy even has a name: argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

Right now the British government is terrified of its population. As a result, our ability to protest has been curtailed, the police have been given unprecedented powers and the government has desperately tried to push an ID card scheme. I don't fear the government, but I certainly don't feel at liberty.

You don't want those with power to be frightened. Who do you think the most frightened person in a bank robbery is? It's the guy with the gun. Anything could go wrong. If it becomes a hostage situation, one of the most important things is to keep the guy calm. You don't want the guy with the power to be frightened.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[Genda]

Public schools are atrocious because the people in charge need a mass of workers just bright enough to do what they're told, certainly no brighter. A truly informed and enlightened electorate, would be difficult, maybe impossible to manage, and certainly, it would be most difficult to hold dominion over such a population. That is why the great mass of Americans isn't aware of what's happening. They swallow their predigested corporate sound bites, from the evening infotainment, and do precisely what they are told... we've been bought and sold for a very long time now.

We need to STRICTLY enforce the separation between church and state. We need to declare the Corporation, a religious movement of sorts, and remove it from having any contact whatsoever with our government. We need to strip our government down (clean out the beaurocracies, the courts, and dismantle the insanity that is now our executive branch) and put the checks and balances back in place. We need to teach Americans, to intelligently manage their own affairs, and stop looking for the government to fix their lives, because the more it does, the worse we all live. The government is there to take care of things that individual people cannot. That said, we need to take our lives back, and use the amazing new resources at our fingertips, to manage our liberty, our privacy, our dignity as human beings, and stop this steady erosion of all that we most require to live a life worth living.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[Arccot]

The much wiser man was a complete moron then. When government fears the people there is a ineffectual weak populist government that fears making difficult decisions because people collectively are pretty damn stupid. Alas that isn't catchy and doesn't use a clever mechanic of opposites, but alas, reality can't always be handled in a pithy statement. Government should respect the people, earn their trust, and work as their loyal servants. Neither side should fear the other.

I always took "fear" to have its biblical meaning, obedience, in that context. It's a completely different quote in that case, and one I mostly agree with.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[Golddess]

It's possible because the likelihood, while low, is > zero. I only said to ignore the likelihood in an attempt to prevent any "but it's so low it's impossible" arguments (which I seem to have failed to do). It's not impossible, just improbable.

Same with the second, but I did not feel that that one required any further qualifications other then the overall requirement of a motivated population.

As an aside, thanks for pointing out the (I'm hoping) correct spelling of likelihood to me. At least, Firefox isn't complaining about it like it did about likelyhood.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[geminidomino]

It's possible because the likelihood, while low, is > zero. I only said to ignore the likelihood in an attempt to prevent any "but it's so low it's impossible" arguments (which I seem to have failed to do). It's not impossible, just improbable.

To find *one* such person. Now calculate the probability needed to have enough such people in place at the same time to actually effect these changes, and you're at a probability that's not simply "low." It's in the vicinity of "rounding error"

As an aside, thanks for pointing out the (I'm hoping) correct spelling of likelihood to me. At least, Firefox isn't complaining about it like it did about likelyhood.

If I got it wrong too, it's cause firefox told me it was right. ;)

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[91degrees]

Okay. Not sure what you're afraid of though.

I'm quite willing to accept that the quote may make more sense in context. I'm certainly not going to accept it on its own merits.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[geminidomino]

With an attitude like that nothing ever will be done about it. Anyone who refuses to try and change things should not complain about the end result.

And with an attitude like that, you're just the sort of naive, clueless idealist I knew would show up.

You've already been shut down, served up, and sold out. This is real life, not a movie, and the good guys don't win against a stacked deck.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[sorak]

A Man much wiser than me once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

And when the people are ignorant of the government, there is stupidity.

Where's the Obama transparency?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the transparency on this project, although inherited from the previous secretive administration, went the same way as the CSPAN broadcasts of the health care debate.

Re:Where's the Obama transparency?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

ACTA's negotiations started under Bush. If they opened up the treaty negotiations now, it could crash and burn any negotiations already in place.

Mining the DMCA safe harbor

[John Hasler]

Sounds more like "DMCA-minus" than "DMCA-plus", with mines being planted in the DMCA safe harbor.

Re:Mining the DMCA safe harbor

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Sony is probably going to bomb the safe harbour at some point.

Why isn't China a Partner?

[BlueBoxSW.com]

Seriously. You want all the world to abide by an anti-piracy measure and don't include the biggest pirate on the planet?

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[Gorkamecha]

Wait, I thought Canadians were the biggest pirates on the planet? (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117939142.html?categoryid=19&cs=1&nid=2570)

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[TapeCutter]

They don't play baseball?

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[introspekt.i]

China doesn't seem to be a big player in software or IP in general..at least from what I've seen, I could be wrong. I wouldn't get in on a treaty that doesn't benefit me in the same way it benefits everybody else, which, to me, it seems like China would be getting the raw end of the deal I'd think they'd be entirely rational to ignore the ACTA treaty stuff...whatever it is anyway. That being said, I think countries who bind themselves up in these deals while HUGE countries like China sit it out are really just shooting themselves in the foot. Agreeing with the OP.

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[introspekt.i]

By big player I mean currently and internationally. China most definitely has potential to be as big or bigger than any other player in anything in the world wrt "Intellectual Property"

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[TheNarrator]

Because the Chinese don't think Europe and the Anglo-Americans run the world. Seriously, whenever you hear the word "global" or "international" that really means Europe (Specifically the EU leaders), the Anglo Countries (spearheaded by British and American think tanks), any third world countries they can bribe or intimidate into going along with them and NOT China or Russia (and occasionally Brazil and India will opt out too).

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[oldhack]

It's a sad, sad world where we have to rely on China and Russia to "protect" our freedom.

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[introspekt.i]

Naturally this becomes an issue about race.

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[shutdown -p now]

But EU and US together do run the world. Ultimately, there is one measure of that, and it is the ability to make others do their biddings.

There are two sides to this, and both are covered. On one hand, EU and US are two biggest economies in the world. On the other, NATO countries account for 2/3 of total world military spending.

The Chinese may not like it, and they are on a long term program for world domination themselves, but they are still far from reaching this goal. This is still Pax Occidentia, sorry.

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[the eric conspiracy]

The reason is that China is probably the main target for this. If they don't toe the line they get screwed for not enacting their own laws to enforce this.

One thing I notice is that it isn't only media companies participating in this process. The biotechs and tech companies are involved. This tells me that countries that are appropriating IP on a large scale basis are a large part of what the target is here, and is probably a good part of the reason national security is being invoked.

Slashdot readers are of course worried and justifiably that their personal entertainment habits are going to get gored. But think of the scale of piracy in Asia with it's multi-billions of Internet connected folks and huge pressure to counterfeit or appropriate EVERYTHING (including milk!) and I think that you will see where the money REALLY is.

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[FiloEleven]

Nationality != race. There is of course significant overlap, but GP is referring to the acts of large political bodies: governments of nation-states. "The Chinese" in that post refers to "the government of China" and does not say anything about "American citizens of Chinese ancestry," as it would if it were about race.

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[francium de neobie]

Oh, you mean Eastasia isn't our ally anymore? Ah, sorry, have been sleeping through the latest 2-minute hate sessions. Sure, we've always been allied to Eurasia, for like... millennia.

DMCA, international edition

[redlegion]

Wunderbar. Perhaps instead of a death penalty we should castrate or cut off clitorises as a punishment for copyright infringement. It's just as barbaric, or perhaps even more barbaric, than ridiculous awards for copyright infringement cases.

been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS

[Joe The Dragon]

been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS

Do like what you market competition is doing just a accused them and watch how they can't do any work any more then they get shut off.

some get's layed off then to get back they just accused them.

You make your own art / music and you trun down a deal and they just trun around and accused you

You give a bad review of a moive / game / any other thing and they just accused you and shut down your web site.

You say that x is doing a bad job and he shuts you down.

This like a red light cameras with no court that goes off on yellow and goes off right before you hit the stop line.

Re:been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS

[Hurricane78]

How about aquiring a list of those who created ACTA, and accusing them all of whatever.

But I think a new virus would be better. One that targets ACTA creators and their friends, and has a child porn payload. Then it automatically triggers a call to the cops. ^^

Re:been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS

[polle404]

These people do not get cut off, people with this much power never do.
Vira with illegal payload won't do the job for these persons, they will pay, bribe, cajole, lawyer their way out of anything.
But hey, you've just had most of your family and neighbors locked up.

There's only one way out of this, publicity, publicity, publicity.
This needs to be blown up so big all over the news, that none of these people/organisations/corporation can hide anymore.

Re:been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS

[GameboyRMH]

There are some things the mainstream media will not cover. This is one of them. You could hope for news to spread on blogs and social networks and become as well-known as a media-covered issue, but even that's unlikely - who cares about IP issues? The average Joe absolutely does not. They're purely passive consumers.

Besides, even if there was a lot of publicity, how would it help? The government(s) will just deny everything, and then when they spring it on the public, the policies have been thoroughly laundered, and responsibility has been diluted to nothing.

So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[jr2k]

I think I have posted 1 time since I opened am account here. This issue caused me to find my login /password. This thing scares the shit out of me. Something that is seemingly "all encompassing" treaty for internet use should be out in the public for ridicule. What would be the due process for contacting whomever in government has the power to stop this thing? Or do we have no option? I am generally apathetic about internet policy because I have FIOS, but this treaty has changed my outlook.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[jr2k]

Oh yeah...I'm sure people from other countries have a type of due process, but I'm just speaking for myself. I know that internet does not = united states. No disrespect to people from far away (and much better climate) lands.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[geminidomino]

What would be the due process for contacting whomever in government has the power to stop this thing? Or do we have no option?

We have no option. You know how, when talking about annoying/abusive advertising practices, people love to say "you're not the customer, you're the product?"

Welcome to reality: the government views you exactly the same way.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[Spad]

I wouldn't get too excited, our governments are made up of just as many selfish dicks as yours is.

Christ, we've got The Dark Lord Mandleson handling our business affairs until at least May and given how retarded & easily led most of our population is, probably for 5 years beyond that as well.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[jr2k]

If I could pen a letter to whomever represents me in England or Ireland, I would. Unfortunately, I do live in the US and therefore I need to write (yes...a real letter that goes in the mail) someone that will read my letter and has a chance of acting. I'm pretty sure I would be wasting my time writing foreign politicians.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[ttldkns]

who else is there to vote for? Vacuous Cameron? The man who has no policies worth mentioning so that once he's in he can do what he likes?
I'll vote after making an informed choice but as no one else will all we'll end up with is the same kind of government shafting us all for 5 years more.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[slashqwerty]

In the United States a treaty has to be signed by the President and approved by two thirds of the Senate. So you can:

1. Convince the President not to sign it (he has been pushing for this treaty and has to sign it in order to repay his very favorable media coverage during the election).
2. Convince 34 senators to vote against it (they will be crucified by the media if they do so). They will likely need to vote against it every year until the deadline runs out.
3. Convince two thirds of the states to hold a constitutional convention to fix copyright law. Hope they come up a with a fair constitutional amendment. Then convince three fourths of the states to ratify it.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[Hurricane78]

Well, you can do many things.

You can get the word out. (But beware to not act or sound like a crazy or raging person. They have to want to listen to you!)
If you are relatively skilled in PR / politics / marketing / psychology / social engineering / etc, you can create a critical mass of people agreeing with you. They will then take care of things... the hard way. ;)

Or you can go guerillia (= the best war strategy for minorities) and create a virus that lands on ACTA creator/supporter computers/sites, has a highly illegal payload (child porn, movies, secret documents, illegal books, etc), and then automatically tells the cops to go raid the house.

You can create, support, install and spread darknets to everyone.

You can move to a still free country. (Or create your own. [You wouldn’t be the first one!])

Etc, etc, etc.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[jonwil]

I believe that writing to your congressmen and senators is still legal over there so do it. Write a physical letter, they seem to be less likely to get ignored. If enough people say "this issue is important enough to affect my vote in the upcoming election", politicians may sit up and take notice.

As an Aussie with an upcoming election, can someone tell me how to find out which local politicians I should write to and what sort of things to say to express why ACTA is a bad idea without sounding like someone who just wants to download big media corp content without paying for it.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[Culture20]

In the United States a treaty has to be signed by the President and approved by two thirds of the Senate.

Unless the President is negotiating it as an executive agreement, then it's just the President. So you can:
1. Convince the President not to sign it (he has been pushing for this treaty and has to sign it in order to repay his very favorable media coverage during the election and his political connections with Biden et al).

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[bzipitidoo]

Laudable that you want to participate, but I think we need not worry too much about this. This proposed law is so bad it'll collapse under its own stupidity. I think the politicians are just taking stupid corporations for an expensive ride and are figuring the public will ignore it and the courts will eventually shoot it all down. That I think is the most likely way forward. Peaceful defiance Ghandi style. Copy that floppy and dare them to respond. Keeps our healthy skepticism of the law alive and hopping.

Still, assuming that is what the politicians are doing, I think it's a dangerous and foolish game. Suppose the courts don't shoot it down, then what? At the least, the courts will need years to undo the damage. Yes, better to nip it before it becomes law. Point out to the politicians that they stand to be voted out if enough enraged, innocent people get kicked off the Internet? Cite the Pirate Party's recent success in getting elected to the European Parliament? Following that logic, even better to nip it before it is lobbied, but how?

There's probably no reasoning with these corporations. Even if you show them they stand to make more money by growing the market rather than trying to control everything, they won't believe it. I have thought of banding together to buy these corporations and purge the leadership. Set up some sort of fund with the purpose of buying a target entertainment company's shares and upon achieving majority control, releasing the corporation's entire collection to the public in every conceivable way-- into the public domain, under CC licenses, in every format possible. Also purge the leadership of course, and dismiss all their lobbyists. That might cause the value of the stock to plummet to nothing, but perhaps not. Up to the time they're bought, boycott them to protest their actions and make their shares more affordable. Doubt we could get enough people and money together to do anything so radical. I think it's going to take a generational change to put more enlightened leaders in control of the entertainment industry.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[walshy007]

take the angle of a content creator, after all if you are making your own content and putting it online, competitors could easily take you out just by merely claiming you stole their work even if you didn't.

Also good to point out unfairness to ISP's and third parties etc

Here is where you can find information regarding sending people your problems with it. email and snail mail options provided, recommend snail mail for best results.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[Artemis3]

• Do a revolution: call for a People's National Constituent Assembly, tear down corpocracy and bi-partisan power. Instate direct democracy, down with lobbies and corrupt representation. While you are at it, fix copyright, socialize Health Care and Education and have a decent State run system instead of wasting money in wars. Perhaps forbid military forces from invading foreign nations, and stop active undercover messing all over the planet. We might even achieve World Peace then.

Please read Joe Stack suicide note. The terror is the system, Wake up!

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[dwillden]

Let your Senators know everything wrong with this proposed treaty. The President and his trade reps can sign anything they want. It still has to be ratified by the Senate.

What this leaked document should be is a call for very U.S. based /. reader to start contacting his/her Senators, and using any forums they have access to to raise public awareness of this issue.

This is why Copenhagen didn't really concern me, it's why we never heeded Kyoto, the Senate shot it down.

It's one thing for the executive branch to sign a treaty, pledging away our rights in the name of international cooperation. It's another thing for the Senate to actually ratify such a treaty. And the failure to ratify such damaging treaties is rarely along party lines.

The Media industry will open it's pockets in support of the treaty. The tech/internet/software/consumer products and many other industries as well as many other interest groups will open their pockets in opposition. I don't see any treaty negotiated in secrecy, and so blatantly signing away basic freedoms as getting much support in the Senate.

But it requires vigilance and effort in spreading the word, and letting our fellow citizens know how bad this treaty is. You get enough people complaining and congress critters do actually listen. But it takes a lot of complaints and we as a people have tended to be too lazy to put much effort into opposing many bad laws.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[FiloEleven]

Writing is good and if you have the inclination, do it. Calling the offices (home and DC) of your senator (since this is a treaty) is very quick and almost as effectual as snail mail. I personally call for important matters and email for back-burner stuff. I never got along well with the postal system.

Just as important as contacting your reps is convincing others to do the same. This is why I prefer to suggest phone calls: they can be done on a whim and they're quicker than post and email because you get to air your views to a live person on the other end of the line who can gauge how you feel by your tone (please remain civil and avoid run-on sentences like this one). If you convince other people to call and to talk to their friends, soon enough the staffers on the other end are going to feel like everybody hates this thing, and they'd better tell the boss or they might be blamed when he loses his next election because of it.

Public pressure is our greatest tool.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[ArsenneLupin]

4. Get a gun, and take it to ACTA's head quarters. That's what the Second Amendment is for. As others have said, ACTA is high treason, and needs to be dealt with as such.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[Kjella]

Carefully explain that the best way to end this war, or at least people on our side, is to first take the moral high ground over these corporations

Hahahahaha, I bet you think you'll get your rights back right after they catch all the terrorists too. Never once in history has it worked that way, one excuse is simply replaced by another. Like the people that somehow conclude that they'll legalize drugs after people stop taking them, it just doesn't pass the giggle test. And not that I really want to drag the civil rights movement into this, but that colored people would get their rights by staying at the back of the bus and taking the moral high ground. Or that prohibition would ever have ended if people still weren't drinking alcohol everywhere. Can you show one example from history where your "best way" has worked? Please?

Copyright is best shown to be broken by total and complete disregard for its existence, eventually the law is updated to reflect reality or it becomes a sleeping paragraph of law. I can tell you that if this goes through and three-strike disconnects become mandatory in Europe, then there will be a political upheaval as the disconnect becomes too great and people rebel.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

First of all, flamebait? What the hell? There wasn't an inflammatory word in my post! I'm starting to get the impression that I'm being censored for my opinions, not their presentation. Methinks there are some people out there who don't want to have to think about opposing viewpoints for themselves, or even for others to do the same.

Secondly, I would say that the fact that only a handful of people decided to break the race barrier did untold wonders for the black rights movement. If everyone started speaking up at the same time, all that would have happened would be a greater divide between the whites and the blacks, and an even stronger stereotype that whites were superior, especially since they would seem to be more able to abide by civilised laws than their black counterparts.

And yes, with drugs, these harsher measures to prevent drug enforcement would ultimately stop if most people stopped using. Eventually, funds would drain and the political spotlight would move on.

I would also say that abolishment of prohibition was, by and large, helped by not so much by the prevalence of drinking, but the prevalence of the will to drink, which could be communicated without drinking itself.

You want a specific example where playing by the rules gets us where we want to be? Nixon. Thanks to some fine reporting, Woodward and Bernstein took him down. Of course, they couldn't come in all guns blazing, hurling accusations, because that hardens the readers and makes Nixon look like a victim. They first had to carefully create a case, and show that they weren't unfairly targeting him. When the platform was ready, when the readers were on their side, that's when they struck.

Copyright is best shown to be broken by total and complete disregard for its existence

Why? Why does a subset of the people choosing not to obey a law make it broken? Can they not be, well, just plain wrong?

Suppose that a very large group of companies, and their employees, decided that it was OK to collect and share customers' information, including in-home surveillance. Would that make the privacy laws broken, and thus in some serious need of change in the companies' favour? Or would it just mean some companies, and their employees, are in need of some heavy suing?

eventually the law is updated to reflect reality

Don't you see? That's exactly what's happening! Piracy is currently a reality, and the laws are being adjusted to suit said reality. Just because you think they should be adjusted another way won't make it so!

I can tell you that if this goes through and three-strike disconnects become mandatory in Europe, then there will be a political upheaval as the disconnect becomes too great and people rebel.

Maybe they actually might take a hint, and, y'know, stop pirating. If, of course, it ends up with many people who weren't pirating being disconnected, then that's another story, and another problem.

Seriously, all this civil disobedience stuff. What's the point in having a law, when any person can break any law they feel like, any time they feel like, and shout "civil disobedience!"? I believe the correct and honourable way to conduct civil disobedience used to be to break the law in full sight of the authorities (not hiding behind anonymity) and bear the consequences.

Now, any old person can rip these companies off, while blaming them, and claiming themselves something akin to martyrs for some higher calling. It makes me sick to my stomach. It would seem that Rosa Parks had more balls than all the modern day pirates put together.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[Culture20]

ACTA headquarters is probably 1600 Penn. Ave. Which treason is worse?

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[ElectricTurtle]

I have a feeling that you're one of those liberals who gets their jollies by pretending to be a crazy conservative to defame conservatives and perpetuate the stereotype that they're insane and irrational. However, I'm going to feed the troll.

If you want to start a political movement that proceeds from ballot box to ammo box, I can respect that, so long as you walk in the founders' footsteps, taking responsibility, petitioning first, working in public and doing whatever possible to engender the support of the public, and if all else fails, attacking military targets. On the face of it though, you advocate your own tyranny. Forcing the defenseless to your personal political whims on threat of death is wholly dishonorable. That makes you a tyrant, no better than any other dictator rightly despised by history. And I tell you this, though you would go to a government office and demand at gunpoint everything that I myself ever dreamed a government should do or be, were I there and armed (and I am almost all the time) I would cut you down immediately, for that very reason. Sic semper tyrannis.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[BeanThere]

Forcing the defenseless to your personal political whims

Gee, yeah, totally defenseless, I mean the government only has a police force, the largest military in the world, and numerous other powerful organisations to defend itself. A monopoly on the biggest 'force of force' in the world - under what strange definition of "defenseless" can you possibly make such an absurd statement with a straight face?

That makes you a tyrant, no better than any other dictator rightly despised by history.

What, like Nelson Mandela, who engaged in precisely such practices? You don't ultimately tell if someone is on the good side or the bad side by looking at the strategies they employ --- you tell by looking at the principles they're fighting for --- are they fighting for liberty or fighting for fascism. Some terrorists really are freedom fighters.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[GameboyRMH]

Now, any old person can rip these companies off, while blaming them, and claiming themselves something akin to martyrs for some higher calling. It makes me sick to my stomach. It would seem that Rosa Parks had more balls than all the modern day pirates put together.

To be fair, Rosa Parks was disobeying a law that would get her a slap on the wrist, not guaranteed financial ruin. If the fine for not giving up her bus seat was the 50s equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars, with a best-case outcome of being dragged through a long trial and potentially having to pay devastating lawyer's fees, are you sure she still would have done it? We're talking about the difference between facing a punishment comparable with a hefty speeding ticket, and the possibility of your life being absolutely ruined. "Civil disobedience" over piracy - doing it in the open and accepting the punishment - is closer to martyrdom than civil disobedience. That would take WAY more "balls" than Rosa Parks had.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[ElectricTurtle]

If I were to accost an unarmed official at gunpoint, they are in that moment defenseless. There is nothing absurd about that. They are individuals in individual circumstances, and any movement that thinks the mere occupation of government workers forfeits their honorable treatment as human beings is despicable and one I would oppose by force regardless of their so-called principles.

Nelson Mandela achieved an honorable goal through dishonorable means. I don't personally respect him or his methods, but that doesn't mean I would reinstate apartheid. (Many, many persons of deficient character have advocated reform only to leverage the discontent of the masses so as to be able to ride on their shoulders to power. Lucius Sergius Catilina comes to mind easily.) The means a movement uses betrays their true nature. If they are so desperate for power that they will throw anybody into a meat grinder then it doesn't matter what they say they want, chances are they are lying, because their actions demonstrate they are desperate enough to kill dishonorably. You think a movement that isn't afraid to do violence to the defenseless is afraid to lie about its goals or principles? Pull the other one.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[Kjella]

First of all, flamebait? What the hell? There wasn't an inflammatory word in my post! I'm starting to get the impression that I'm being censored for my opinions, not their presentation.

Agreed. Delusional perhaps, but flamebait is no substitute.

You want a specific example where playing by the rules gets us where we want to be? Nixon. Thanks to some fine reporting, Woodward and Bernstein took him down. Of course, they couldn't come in all guns blazing, hurling accusations,

I'm sorry, what laws did Watergate change again? I wasn't talking about due process, I was talking about a law changed by people ceasing to break it. You provided an utterly off-topic attempt at an example.

Why? Why does a subset of the people choosing not to obey a law make it broken? Can they not be, well, just plain wrong? (...) Don't you see? That's exactly what's happening! Piracy is currently a reality, and the laws are being adjusted to suit said reality.

There's mostly two reasons why people don't break the law, it's either because they think it is wrong or because they fear the punishment. The third kind who'll just uphold an unjust law because it is the law is a small minority.

Regarding the first, of course they can be wrong but I'm saying that is how many laws change. The change comes first in the population, then only later in law not the other way around. This is particularly true where the law is hampered by political interests, lobbying or other things that prevent the true will of the people to prevail. Already there was a poll in Sweden showing that 75% of people 15-25 did not think file sharing is wrong, so that won't stop people.

The other is risk, but risk = probability * impact. They're trying to increase the impact, but with enough probability the risk is still negligible. This is why the fastest way to make the law ineffective is to just ask everybody to ignore it. Together, a large enough group of the people will effectively change the law whether the politicians like it or not. Not as an argument of right or wrong, but as a practical reality this is fastest road to show that the law is broken and can not be mended.

Seriously, all this civil disobedience stuff. What's the point in having a law, when any person can break any law they feel like, any time they feel like, and shout "civil disobedience!"?

There's a substantial difference between "I think this is wrong and the law should change for everyone" and "I'd just like to get away with what I do". I don't want to live in a country where you get robbed and beaten up and stolen from, and neither do most of the people perpetrating these crimes. They'd just like to get away with their own crimes.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I'm sorry, what laws did Watergate change again? I wasn't talking about due process, I was talking about a law changed by people ceasing to break it. You provided an utterly off-topic attempt at an example.

It's not off-topic, it's an analogy. Standing in defiance of convention gets attention, but without some civility, it's mostly bad attention.

If you want examples of laws being changed, look at one of your examples. Like I pointed out, most blacks didn't decide to to break the laws (all the better for them and their cause). The civil disobedience was the exception, not the rule.

Not as an argument of right or wrong, but as a practical reality this is fastest road to show that the law is broken and can not be mended.

So the problem is the people who don't think the law is just. Is it not possible that the law can be "mended" by educating these people?

My experience of the general public is that most have an extremely rudimentary knowledge of copyright law, they don't understand why it's there (beyond artists needing money), or the actual consequences of their breaking it. Mostly they can get away with blaming scapegoats, conveniently abdicating them of all responsibility. The most common of which seems to be "The **AA made me do it!"

If they still want the law changed, knowing the consequences of their actions, then I'll learn to deal with it. As it stands now, people have a lot to learn before I let this go. So many people seem to think that, somehow, artists will be more inspired to work without any guarantee of pay, or that somehow the **AA is stealing culture, when they are the ones producing it. There's so much bullshit, so many arguments based purely on emotion, so many built on blind rage and irrational intentions of revenge.

There's a substantial difference between "I think this is wrong and the law should change for everyone" and "I'd just like to get away with what I do".

There is a difference, and I like to think that the line between them is not screaming in anonymity on online forums. To me, that is cowardly disobedience. Piracy harms our cultural output, raises the price to access our own culture, and stimulates increasingly draconian legislation (pertaining to entertainment) to be passed. I would like to know that whomever is fighting for piracy at least has the courage and conviction to stand up to the rest of us and the authorities, announce that they are a pirate, and let us deal with him as we see fit.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

"Civil disobedience" over piracy - doing it in the open and accepting the punishment - is closer to martyrdom than civil disobedience.

Well, pirates really only have themselves to blame for that. They've dug themselves into a hole, and the only reasonable way out is to just stop pirating. That doesn't exclude their right to preach their views to others, just that they need to find other ways to get attention, other than being sued.

Ex post facto?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will this be applied ex post facto (e.g., you copied an MP3 to your iPod some time ago, and once this gets passed you can be prosecuted, even after the statute of limitations is up?)

I'm asking as an American, FYI.

Re:Ex post facto?

[base3]

If they make the act of having infringing files a possession crime, so long as you haven't deleted the MP3 and can't prove its provenance (and who but the most anal-retentive (and I mean that in the nicest possible way) can, even for the ones they've purchased), then you are in a state of continuously committing the crime.

Re:Ex post facto?

[base3]

Fair enough--%s/possession\ crime/posessession\ statutory\ liability/ and %s/crime/infringement/ in the above and we're square. Either way, we're fucked.

Re:This is absurd

[causality]

As a whole, does anybody really think the DMCA was beneficial to the economy?

It was incredibly good for the economy, if by "economy" you mean "campaign funds."

When governments cease to represent their citizens

[Adrian Lopez]

I'm reminded of the beautiful phrase: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ..." Too bad this sort of response is no longer a realistic alternative.

It's obvious

[aztektum]

That the powers that be do not care one bit about the cattle... er consumer.

If this goes into effect with any really weight, I'd say it's time for some good old fashion protest vis-à-vis an all you can eat pirating fest across the globe. Start mailing your grabbed goods on disk to MAFIAA members, pols, etc.

We're inching closer to a point where something has to give in this system. I say nerds unite. The internet was built on the backs of our nerd fore-bearers. Time for the nerds of today to stand up and defend it.

*inverted exlamation*VIVA LA REVOLUCION*exclamation*

Re:It's obvious

[cpghost]

We're inching closer to a point where something has to give in this system. I say nerds unite. The internet was built on the backs of our nerd fore-bearers. Time for the nerds of today to stand up and defend it.

Amen to that brother! But looking back at reality, we nerds are a minuscule minority lost in an ocean of mediocrity. And even with all possible publicity, the best that we've reached so far are some 7.5% for the Swedish Pirate Party, and 2% for the German PP, both highly developed countries sensitive to issues such as privacy and individual rights. Everybody else votes differently and seems to condone the way copyright maximalists are killing the free exchange of ideas.

Treason, and terrorism

[syousef]

Can't think of anything that fits with the definition of treason better than a system that passes laws that the citizens aren't permitted to know. That immediately removes the incentive for being law abiding since you can't know if you're breaking the law. Anyone enacting or enforcing such laws should be covered by treason laws.

Can't think of anything more terrifying than threatening to take away a person's ability to communicate, possibly their livelihood without having to PROOVE a crime in court. Enacting such laws is the very definition of terrorism. Where's the anti-terrorism legislation now?

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[Spad]

Next up, you're not allowed to know what you've been charged with or what you've been sentenced to.

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[chickenarise]

Dunno if you've figured this out yet, but our government uses doublespeak. Anti-terrorism IS terrorism.

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[Hurricane78]

Doesn’t this exist already in the US? It’s the laws that allows homeland security to deport you to Guantanamo.
No phone call. No asking why. Nothing. Basically the laws of Gulags and KZs. (And at the same time Cheney’s company builds tons of new jails too.)

Land of the free my ass! :(((

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[Manchot]

I find it pathetic that your comment has been modded up, because it proves that you and several others have completely bought into the FUD surrounding ACTA. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: all treaties must be ratified in public by the Senate. I repeat, all treaties must be ratified in public by the Senate. There is no "treason" here because nothing has been voted on; if the ACTA negotiations are ever finished and it is presented before the Senate, it will automatically become public knowledge. These "leaked" documents that periodically appear are beyond worthless: we have no idea whether they're legitimate or not, so there's no reason to let yourself get worked up over it.

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[mindstrm]

I think they have to catch you at a port of entry to do that....

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[Ltap]

You know, mod me offtopic, but all of this discussion reminds me (in a hilarious aneurysm sort of way) of that scene in New Hope...

Governor Tarkin: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[selven]

If the citizens are actively prevented from knowing the law, ignorance is now a valid excuse.

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[n0rm]

The "secret evidence" laws predate the GWB administration. I'm no legal expert, but I believe it's all tied up in how the FISA court was put together.

It's a pretty frightening idea that you can be convicted without ever knowing what laws you've broken.

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[syousef]

What's pathetic is that you care so little for your freedom that you're happy for laws to be passed without any public debate so long as you're eventually notified. You can keep not getting yourself worked up over them. Some of us however find it scary that a situation can exist in which such "leaks" are so common.

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[klui]

I'm pretty sure when the negotiations are over, several thousand pages of crap will be presented to the House and Senate floors an hour before they're to be voted upon. And each person will be told if they don't vote yes, hell will break loose, terrorism will ensue, and "martial law will be in effect," blah, blah, blah.

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[L4t3r4lu5]

It's not law yet. They'll tell you what the law is when it becomes law and they're good an' sure you can't wiggle out of it with pesky issues such as "habeas corpus" and "constitutional rights."

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[Manchot]

What's pathetic is that you care so little for your freedom that you're happy for laws to be passed without any public debate so long as you're eventually notified.

Did I say that? My point is that there will be a public debate, and that debate will come when the negotiations are finished. As long as you don't know what's in the treaty, you're allowing yourself to be scared by a bogeyman. It's no different than Glenn Beck's rantings about how the Obama administration is supposedly directing FEMA to build concentration camps. If you have no proof of something, you shouldn't allow yourself to be scared by it.

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[Manchot]

Contrary to popular belief, that rarely happens. Sometimes, last-minute amendments are added to already-long bills, and so the opposition party says, "This x-page bill was voted on less than a day after it was introduced!" In truth, the vast majority of the legislation has usually been debated for months.

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[Manchot]

Besides, have you seen how the Senate operates these days? After one year in office, Obama hasn't even finished making low-level appointments because certain Republicans senators decided to put a blanket hold on all of his nominations.

Nothing passes the Senate anymore.

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[ConfusedVorlon]

that was standard practice during the inquisition - so there is precedent.

More recently - I believe it is standard practice at Guantanamo and the related international prisons.

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[syousef]

Public debate won't give citizens any option to change one damn thing. It'll be debated when the deal is already done.

I'm not saying anyone should run around scared like headless chooks. There should however be protest and plenty of letters written about the illegality and injustice of making this such a closed process.

Maybe it'll be a good thing...

[No Grand Plan]

Perhaps this could signal the death knell for the **AAs, the music and movie industries as we know them. I'd love to see people just refusing to buy their crap, not downloading their lousy movies and turning their backs on the whole situation. Only buy CC music, only download and use FOS software and only watch independent (true independent) movies.

You may say I'm a dreamer... but I'm not the only one.

Re:Maybe it'll be a good thing...

[Spad]

No, you're not, but you are still in a minority.

Face it, 90% of the population of any given country involved in ACTA don't care in the slightest about copyright and patents and net neutrality and the like; at least, they don't realise they do, even if they do. They're quite happy to carry on with their lives and put up with or work around any shit that new legislation throws at them without changing their day-to-day routine.

Re:Maybe it'll be a good thing...

[mirix]

Yeah, this is a problem. Most folks won't know this exists (if passed) until they receive a summons for DLing a MP3.

They need to add YRO to school curricula. ;)

Re:Maybe it'll be a good thing...

[jr2k]

Exactly. I just asked my girlfriend about this, and the DMCA. She thought I was talking about WOW.

My guess is that the general population will only care about this once they start getting lawsuits.

Re:Maybe it'll be a good thing...

[c-reus]

Adding YRO to school curricula will end with having to read something like Captain Copyright for home assignment.

Re:Great...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

silly goose... which one is the right party? they're both the same and they are a front for the enemy of the people.

Re:Minimum service!

[headkase]

You know what, people should prod their ISP's to start looking into restoring a functioning public domain: it would be a great way for ISP's to sell more bandwidth if we could all download those 1980's movies. You know, the ones like Conan and such with the Governator. *THAT* would be a great way to increase bandwidth utilization considering if this goes through it won't be needed for anything else.

Doesn't matter

[einhverfr]

The fact is that each of us probably commits three felonies a day as it is, or so says Harvey Silverglate of the EFF, ACLU, and FIRE (see his book "Three Felonies a Day.") Heck, it's probably a felony (under wire fraud statutes) to surf Slashdot while you are at work. And given that it's a felony there, it's probably also a felony under the CFAA. So if you surf Slashdot at work, you are already two thirds of the way there.....

The fact is it doesn't matter if you have done anything wrong. The current state is that the government can prosecute just about anybody on vague laws and make it extremely difficult to fight (try hiring a lawyer will all your assets frozen).

I am of the opinion that the Constitution is in shambles anyway. I oppose this treaty but I am too cynical to think that will make a difference. Prosecutors can ALREADY go after anybody they want to.

Re:Doesn't matter

[betterunixthanunix]

I could not agree more, but what bothers me the most is the absolute apathy most people seem to have. Most people are not just unaware of what is happening, but they do not care at all even after they are told -- and that is when they bother to listen at all. People just do not care about these issues, so long as they can see the latest celebrity scandal or play with some new high tech toys.

Re:Doesn't matter

[einhverfr]

I think part of the problem is that it usually comes up when prosecuting alleged bad guys.

For example, it's really hard to have sympathy for Jeff Skilling or Lori Drew but some of the charges in both their cases illustrate this problem perfectly. I have no problem with the securities fraud charges against Jeff Skilling, but the wire fraud charges? The idea that Jeff Skilling engaged in a fraud to deny Enron the "intangible right" to his "honest services?"

Yet I have known people who were railroaded in these sorts of things for political purposes. They don't make the news. It was a nice republic while it lasted.....

Re:Doesn't matter

[Ltap]

I hate to be the person to Godwin this, but it is reminiscent of the regret of German intellectuals. They were intelligent, educated people who could have swayed the German public early in Hitler's rise but were too apathetic to do so, convinced that they would be left alone as long as they toed the line.

Which is ultimately the perfected method for slowly eroding liberties - to at first use it on "criminals" (catching more people who break existing laws), then creating new laws to support it, then revising it to suit the new laws... continue ad nauseum until you end up with a legal system in shambles that has been filled to over-capacity and can punish anyone just for living their daily life, if it so chooses. This is by far the most sneaky way of governments dealing with political dissidents - either find them committing a crime, frame them for a crime, or turn what they do into a crime to make it easier to lock them away. Then they have a pretext, an excuse to get rid of them without it being too obvious.

Re:Doesn't matter

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The fact is it doesn't matter if you have done anything wrong. The current state is that the government can prosecute just about anybody on vague laws and make it extremely difficult to fight (try hiring a lawyer will all your assets frozen).

But do they? Have they actually managed to prosecute anyone for their 3-a-day felonies? Have they managed to actually freeze anyone's assets over these felonies? You can't just freeze assets over any crime.

Re:Doesn't matter

[einhverfr]

But do they? Have they actually managed to prosecute anyone for their 3-a-day felonies? Have they managed to actually freeze anyone's assets over these felonies? You can't just freeze assets over any crime.

I have known two relatives who were prosecuted on trumped up charges for political reasons. Both were convicted. Neither one even had assets frozen. However, having assets frozen is not uncommon.

In the first case, it was a lawyer in the McCarthy era who spent a lot of time and energy defending individuals accused of violating the Smith Act. They tried him on perjury for his efforts and he was acquitted, so they came back and tried him on income tax evasion on some technicality (and secured a conviction there). Shortly after he was released from jail he was readmitted to the bar association which suggests that there was reason to think it was politically motivated.

In the second case, it was a doctor who was prosecuted for "medicaid fraud" over an error in billing codes. This was during the Reagan administration and was part of an effort to show the public they were fighting fraud regarding medicare and medicaid. Many, many doctors were unjustly prosecuted and in the case I know of, there wasn't even an allegation that the wrong amount of money had been billed. The government talked to the doctor's partners and pressured them into demanding a guilty plea. Silverglate documents a number of other similar cases in his book.

So yes, it happens. If a prosecutor decides that prosecuting you is in the prosecutor's interest, it can happen and all too often does.

Re:Doesn't matter

[FiloEleven]

A lot of the reason people don't care is because they don't think they can do anything about it. The GP is too cynical to think that any effort will make a difference; it's only one step further to not bothering to care.

But you can do something. You can call your representatives and pressure them to oppose this legislation. In the same way that voters say to the apathetic, "You cannot complain if you didn't vote," the active public can say, "You cannot complain if you did not express your opinion to the people charged with representing you." It is very easy to get their contact information, and a matter of under fifteen minutes to call both senators and your congressman.

Do that first and you can complain. Convince other people to do the same and you can get enough influence to make your representatives pay attention to your collective viewpoint. This is how the system is supposed to work. There is much talk of the failure of the public, but there is too little effort currently being put into making things right. You all talk about how stupid people are but naturally you are thinking of people in general and not yourself or most of your friends. So why aren't you making yourselves heard and spreading the word?

Re:Doesn't matter

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Okay, so you have good reason to be cynical.

However, while the first case is undeniably a case of the prosecutor using an unrelated and common crime to punish the person, not the crime, the second sounds like a garden-variety case of overzealous enforcement of existing laws; an effort to (overzealously) punish the crime, but not the person.

Still, my condolences for both your relatives who got screwed over in the name of politics. Just because your doctor relative wasn't targeted personally doesn't make what they did right.

Verizon will have to be shut down.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Why dont we really curb piracy and close the internet all together.

If this bullshit becomes a reality, it will destroy our economy and technological progress. Think about it.... think really hard about that.

Re:Verizon will have to be shut down.

[Spad]

The sad thing is that the entertainment industries that are pushing this ludicrous legislation account for a fairly small fraction of most nation's GDP, it's not like they're "too big to fail"; the UK could certainly take hit of the loss of all musical and movie-based industry without catastrophic problems and I suspect the US probably could too.

Re:Verizon will have to be shut down.

[mirix]

I hope that at the very least a pathetic patchwork of internet, for the geeks, by the geeks, rises from the ashes.

Who buys stuff anymore?

[kyrcant]

I bought one CD last month, They Might Be Giants Science album, and that was the first one in over a decade. Likewise, I have almost no DVD movies. They're making themselves irrelevant even quicker than necessary. I'm all about Hulu, Pandora and Netflix.

Re:Who buys stuff anymore?

[c0d3g33k]

You may as well start enjoying long walks outside now, because those services won't remain free either. What are you going to do then, when your only choice is to pay for DRM-locked services in the cloud?

Smoke and Mirrors...

[introspekt.i]

Until it gets ratified by the Senate (for us US folk). Write your senators, get the word out, take care of business. If the entire thing stinks to high heaven, the politicians just need to be convinced by their constituents that it's important enough to be shot down.

Disproportionate punishment

[mudshark]

People have been using the postal service to commit fraud for decades, but even repeat offenders are not banned from sending or receiving mail. And when was the last time you heard of someone getting kicked off the telephone network? Just because the medium has evolved, the right of people to have access to common means of communication does not change.

The hiding of the bill's creation is only half

[You'reJustSlashFlock]

The hiding of the bill's creation is only half of the fearful part of the legislative process.

The DMCA was passed with not one legislature sigining a name to it. It passed the House through voice vote and the Senate through unanimous consent. They knew what they were doing.

Re:The hiding of the bill's creation is only half

[Chowderbags]

If the governing body attaches no name to a piece of legislation, assume that they all wanted it.

Re:The hiding of the bill's creation is only half

[You'reJustSlashFlock]

Yes, but that is much more difficult for people not familiar with procedure to understand.

Canadian solution

[jvillain]

For me the proper solution to the piracy concerns from the US is to stop the import of all movies, music, tv shows and any thing else they are so worried about people stealing at the border. If other countries did it as well then production would move from the US to other locations. Problem solved they wouldn't have to worry about people stealing their content any more. I swear, I try not to hate Americans, but when they start demanding that we abandon our laws and customs and adopt theirs I just loose it. How long till the next secret treaty is about making every one, every where abandon their gun control laws because that is how it is in the US?

Re:Canadian solution

[introspekt.i]

Why are you acting like we (Americans) are out to get you? I don't like this any more than you do. Also, you might want to read a little more on gun control in the US. It's not exactly a black and white, cut and dry issue here.

Re:Canadian solution

[mirix]

Did Americans not form the DMCA? Are they not pushing for this as well? It might not represent the American people's will, but it does represent the american industry's will, RIAA et al.

Re:Canadian solution

[introspekt.i]

The RIAA and the IFPI is now an international organization that throws its weight around everywhere, not just the US. Would you say a company like Sony-BMG is an American one? This is not an American problem. It's easy to scapegoat Americans, but perhaps this is an issue that deserves more thought.

Re:Canadian solution

[mirix]

I suppose you are right. But if the precedent of the DMCA wasn't set in the US, it would be easier for other countries to tell these agencies to sit and spin.

Re:Canadian solution

[socreets]

Although the RIAA/MPAA are NOW based on international corporations, it originated in the most influential and omnipotent Country in the world, the USA. The DMCA was a Clinton/GOP/USA thing after all and the power given to the multinational corporations with that law changed everything for all of us and in the process trashed your constitution.

The thing that gets me is that the American entertainment industry is by and large the goose that lays the golden eggs for the US and Canada and everywhere else basicly yet the very corporations that stands to gain the most future revenue from keeping the goose healthy and happy are the ones destroying their customers/citizens/geese but suing them mercilessly with full government backing and destroying all cultural innovation throughout the world.

Really bad karma over a long period of time for them, starting with corporations cheating there way into becoming legal US citizens, but this ACTA monstrosity is a sign of desperation on their part.

ISP Reason for Public Domain

[headkase]

If this goes through here's what I'm going to do: make suggestions wherever there is a receptive venue to restore a functioning public domain. If regulation such as this actually does go through and all those pipes (heheh) are suddenly sitting there underutilized, well, they need something else to fill them back up! Starting with restoring a sane public domain would be a poetic way to accomplish this! Say everything 20 years and older is the target to be public domain. So, any movie, music, book, and software from 1990 and back right now. ISP's who would suddenly be looking at a drought of demand for their infrastructure would probably be receptive to such a proposal. Mom and Pop who suddenly found they couldn't download the latest pop song would also probably be receptive to the idea at least out of a sense of revenge. Seriously if it's going to be class warfare then throw a little corporate warfare into the mix: pit ISP's against content industries. At the very least I could be a little smug. And if it doesn't work, get all your friends and family to move to the really cheap ISP plan which is all they'll actually and reasonably need in this new corporate dawn. ISP's are the ones set to lose the biggest in this, all the more reason to give them ideas as much as possible.

Re:ISP Reason for Public Domain

[slimjim8094]

They don't like people using the service they paid for to begin with. Can you imagine how ornery Comcast would get if everybody was downloading huge files all the time - and they couldn't blame it on "dirty pirates"?

And you're forgetting that the ISPs are also content providers. Why watch Die Hard on demand, or wait for it to be on AMC, when you can just download it legally?

Re:ISP Reason for Public Domain

[headkase]

Well without grey content and advertisements using all my bandwidth I'll just have to drop down to the $20 plan instead of the $45 ;) With advertisement blocking in my browser I really only need the $20 plan anyway, I would just wish enough other people would do it too ;)

Re:ISP Reason for Public Domain

[Jewfro_Macabbi]

The problem with pitting ISP's against the content industry is that ISP's often are the content industry. Comcast "Cable". "Time Warner Cable", AT&T sells U-Verse, etc...

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

It's in your interest that the rich become richer. After all, doesnt it trickle down?

I'm still waiting for that top 1% to release the cash on us poor 99%ers

Oh wait, they're just going to lock us up for pirating things they sell that we cant afford, because they refuse to pay us a humane living wage and provide us a country of fair laws that represents the interest of its people....

we are so fucked.

Its the kind of shit that makes you want to fly planes into buildings... but then they label you as "crazy" rather than try to understand why you were crazy... even when you write a perfectly sound explanation as to why.

Keep dreaming *AA

[sqrt(2)]

Lofty goals. This isn't enforceable, legally or practically. Three strikes and you get kicked off the internet? How? Will I have a chip in my arm that keeps my router from working? Even if they were somehow able to blacklist me from every ISP how would they stop me from using freely available Wifi? How will they shut down Freenet? How will they stop me from burning CDs and just handing it to my friend?

This isn't going to change anything.

Re:Keep dreaming *AA

[cpghost]

A nation-wide blacklist is what HADOPI is all about (in France). Think global-HADOPI, and you've got a worldwide (or at least ACTA-wide) blacklist... the wet dream of all "intellectual property" pundits. Good luck trying to sign up with any ISP in most parts of the "free" and not-so-free world once on that no-fly^W no-surf list. As for Freenet, how would you access it without Internet access? Sneakernet (swapping CDs -- or, more accurately TB-big HDDs -- with your friends) is an offline activity so it is out of scope of the 3-strike scheme.

Re:Keep dreaming *AA

[value_added]

Lofty goals. This isn't enforceable, legally or practically. Three strikes and you get kicked off the internet? How?

You underestimate the power of the courts, and the effectiveness of bureauracies. Ever been the subject of a court order, or known someone who has? You'd be surprised at how a simple and seemingly narrow thing can have wide ranging implications. A small claims judgment, court-order child support, or a DUI can bring a lot of third-parties into the mix.

For hypothetical "DMCA Plus" offenses, things could remain simple. A signed order that requires the guilty party to "not use a computer or the internet" would suffice. Pissing off a judge by disregarding his or her order could easily result in, at minimum, increasingly harsh fines or penalties. And losing service from your ISP? Well, how many do you really have to choose from in your area?

Re:Keep dreaming *AA

[sqrt(2)]

You didn't address open wifi or mobile adhoc networks. And the point of freenet is that it keeps me from getting strikes in the first place. If I keep all my illegal activity hidden they can't file complaints against me, I can't get strikes, and I can't get blacklisted.

Re:Keep dreaming *AA

[sqrt(2)]

I have three different neighbors that generously provide me with strong wifi signals, or the slightly more inconvenient option of walking out into the world with my laptop or smartphone to find an open WAP.

Re:Keep dreaming *AA

[geekmux]

Lofty goals. This isn't enforceable, legally or practically. Three strikes and you get kicked off the internet? How? Will I have a chip in my arm that keeps my router from working? Even if they were somehow able to blacklist me from every ISP how would they stop me from using freely available Wifi? How will they shut down Freenet? How will they stop me from burning CDs and just handing it to my friend?

This isn't going to change anything.

(In my best Morpheus impression when speaking to Neo during training). What makes you think these laws have anything to do with enforcement? You think they care about what numbers they change on this Internet?

Remember NO law is ever suggested without it ultimately meaning money and/or power to someone.

Re:Keep dreaming *AA

[cpghost]

Yes... until those neighbors get caught for copyright infringement and locked out of the Net as well. Adding to this that secured wifi will become increasingly common by default, especially in the context of hyper-severe DMCA/ACTA-like laws, how long will open wifi access remain an option in the field? If at all, we need our own backbones outside of current legislation. That ultimately means our own (pirate) network of LEO satellites, administered in a distributed manner. Just wondering how to shoot them in orbit though (building them being by far the easier part)!

Re:Keep dreaming *AA

[Solandri]

The three strikes provision isn't bad per se. It just needs some balance, some reciprocity.

Convicted three times of copyright infringement and you're kicked off the Internet.
Wrongly accuse people of copyright infringement three times and you're banned from ever filing a copyright infringement claim again.

Re:Keep dreaming *AA

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Really? I was thinking about the same thing (LEO satellites), but I thought that shooting them into orbit is easier than making something that is:

a) light enough to be lofted into orbit cheaply
b) Powerful enough to sustain lots of connections, presumably with high bandwidth
c) Has a power source that can sustain the satellite for years (those extra efficient solar panels used on satellites are generally very expensive, if they even sell them to civilians, and god help you if you try to get nuclear material for a RTG).
4) Can survive in a hostile environment for long periods (From what I've heard, even LEO has enough radiation to mess up non-hardened computer electronics).

If you don't mind a low bandwidth worldwide satellite link, then become a HAM operator, and then you can communicate via the OSCAR HAM satellites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCAR and AX.25 standard for packet data transmission.

Seems the Hams have been busy lofting their own satellites into orbit for decades now, and it is truly an international effort.

Re:This is absurd

[CrackedButter]

Secret, not secrete. Secrete has a totally different word use.

Brought to you by the folks at Disney

[pubwvj]

They implemented DMCA in the USA.
CD sales plummeted.
Not because of pirates.
Because of change of tech (legal downloads) and we already have the good music.
No need to keep buying it over and over just because they create new file formats.

Three what?

[chilvence]

The most aggravating thing about this three strikes rule is that it is so obviously based on an obsessive baseball fanaticism.... making it impossible to disguise the fact that it is actually the kind of half baked idea thought up in 30 seconds in a bar somewhere and scribbled on the back of a beer coaster so that it wouldnt be forgotten in tomorrows hangover. That is exactly the kind of flippant attitude to problems that nobody in the world deserves to have forced upon them.

Besides, if you yanks were going to try and pull a fast one on the rest of the world, you should have used a football analogy - its the international sport!

(thats the one with the round ball by the way)

Re:Three what?

[Opyros]

Besides, if you yanks were going to try and pull a fast one on the rest of the world, you should have used a football analogy

So don't you think we'll score an own goal with ACTA?

Re:Three what?

[KlaymenDK]

Besides, if you yanks were going to try and pull a fast one on the rest of the world, you should have used a football analogy - its the international sport!

(thats the one with the round ball by the way)

See, there's your problem. Haven't you been paying attention to the recent "document format war" discussions? It's better to use one specific format, however obscure it may be, than something else that can be god-knows-what depending on regional settings.

That is, you ought to stick with the baseball analogy. ...I can't believe we're joking about this unfathomably creepy issue. I guess we know we're doomed already anyway?

Anonymous Accusations?

[headkase]

Do you at least get to know who made a false accusation against you so that you can sue their ass off in civil court where the burden of proof is much lower? After all, you stand to lose something - shouldn't they?

Law vs law?

[gmuslera]

This implies no privacy, as whoever that provides us connectivity with others (ISPs, cell/line phone companies, postal service, web services like email/chat/voice/webcams/etc) as could held liable for what their customers do, that must follow all we do using their services. And privacy is an human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, plus probably most governments constitutions. Will that be enough to stop them or we will not have human rights?

It makes the worse totalitarian governments in the world in history look like the land of the free.

Re:Law vs law?

[just_a_monkey]

UN Declaration of Human Rights

"It's just a goddamned piece of paper."

Re:Law vs law?

[Ltap]

IANAL, but the UN Declaration of Human Rights, as far as I know, is a moral document and isn't legally binding.

Re:Law vs law?

[Jaazaniah]

On Privacy and Human rights: You don't see that stopping the advocates of the full body scanners, or the people at airport gates who can't fly without exposing themselves, yet did nothing to stop the move in the first place. Web cams in laptops used to play Nanny State on unsuspecting kids, all your packets are belong to the NSA, smile for the nudist-cam, and soon to be laws to randomly pull people over for (effectively) no reason - oh yeah, the US is a MODEL for Human Rights adherence these days.

Re:Law vs law?

[ArsenneLupin]

And privacy is an human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, plus probably most governments constitutions.

Not in any constitutions passed recently. European constitution (a.k.a. Lissabon treaty) lacks any meaningful protections for freedom of speech, privacy and presumption of innocence. You know, the corporations have learned their lesson, and stopped putting such foolish clauses in.

Re:Great...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

http://www.gp.org/index.php

Well look at that... I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004..

He was right back then... and no one believed him and now look at us dick deep in the shit he predicted and NO ONE STILL GIVES A DAMN TO VOTE for a 3rd party. The dems have adopted his issues yet do nothing about them.

Ralph was right... and Everyone of you should look into him seriously if he runs again.

Not sure it's even good for them.

[einhverfr]

Here is the letter I sent via regulations.gov:

BTW, here was my comment submitted to the USTR regarding the treaty.

RE: 2010 Special 301 Review
Docket Number USTR-2010-0003

Jennifer Choe Groves
Senior Director for Intellectual Property and
Innovation and Chair of the Special 301 Committee
Office of the United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20508
Filed electronically via Regulations.gov

Dear Ms. Groves:

I am a software engineer and developer here in the US. I own copyrights to a number of software programs and published papers, some jointly with corporations or other natural persons. I have also authored two ebooks which are distributed online and one printed book which is available through major retailers. Software I produce is distributed world-wide.

I am deeply concerned about the rush towards greater liability for neutral service providers where copyright infringement is alleged. Holders of copyrights (including myself) should not be able to make end-runs around our traditional system of legal protections by threatening third parties into shutting off services which may be vital for conducting lawful business. This is especially dangerous where very fact-centric elements of copyright and trademark infringement accusations may need to be adjudicated by courts. These cases can occur where questions of fair use or derivation occur.

Thus I am concerned that the rush towards greater protection and greater third party liability will become a sword of Damocles hanging not only over the head of the average citizen but most especially over the head of the copyright holder. After all, if a set of mere accusations is enough to insist that material be taken down or internet access denied, then those who produce copyright-worthy materials will be the most exposed.

Instead, balance is needed, and consumer protections must be a major part of the equation. These consumer protections don't just protect consumers against rights-holders. They protect rights holders against unfair competition, and they protect innovators against entrenched market interests.

Instead of dictating how foreign countries should make laws ensuring elements well outside the traditional boundaries of copyright law (circumvention device control, etc), we should instead be interested in looking at ways to make claims more easily adjudicated when they come up. The emphasis on third-party liability is a major step backwards.

Please reconsider.

Sincerely,
Chris Travers

Re:Not sure it's even good for them.

[fucket]

Did you include a check?

Re:Not sure it's even good for them.

[KarmaOverDogma]

I sent the same letter

Re:Not sure it's even good for them.

[dcollins]

Amusingly, in the past when I've sent similar letters to representatives in Congress, I get an automated letter back to wit, "Mr. Software Professional, we hear how important copyrights are to you, and we're doing everything we can to strengthen them and enforce them as stringently as possible..., etc., etc."

Re:Not sure it's even good for them.

[NetNed]

Yeah I have gotten the "Your representative doesn't really check this e-mail address, but if you want to review and resubmit your e-mail, do it here". Pretty much a sand in the ointment that probably weeds out the majority of people that don't want to spend more time sending the e-mail again. Funny too when I wanted to make sure something was read I sent it snail mail and still got a form letter in the mail saying "Rep. So&So tries to take the time to read each response he/she gets in the mail, but sometimes doesn't get to read them all. But rest assured that someone in his office has/will read your letter and pass on any "pertinent" info along to said rep.

Whenever I get that it's a automatic no vote for that candidate.

Re:Not sure it's even good for them.

[Sparx139]

I'm not sure if that's funny or sad.

Re:This is absurd

[Ethanol-fueled]

It's a matter of national security. As the American manufacturing sector withers away and we become a service economy, our creative content* will remain our largest export, and we have to protect our country's cash cows. I'm not joking.

* Of course, I don't agree with bullshit like ACTA and the DMCA. The content providers haven't produced anything worth a shit in decades so the best solution to this is not to buy their shit and instead donate that money to the EFF and The Pirate bay.

So now you know!!

[noz]

Keeping it secret is a matter of national security when the nation is controlled by private interests.

Fat, Dumb and Happy

[issaqua]

Most are either too affluent (or is it effluent?), or too desperate, to care about these things.

The narcissistic direction that western culture has taken - "I'm alright Jack, sucks to be you" - magnifies this issue. Without concern for the common (greater) good, I think we will ultimately consume ourselves.

-I.

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz

[Bigjeff5]

What's really twisted is that every cushy cushy feel good bill that comes down that looks like it spreads the wealth a little bit ultimately just shifts more money into the hands of the rich, because they were the ones who wrote the thing in the first place.

Public schooling, free health care, social security, you name it - it's all designed to keep the poor poor by tricking them into thinking they are actually getting wealthier. Meanwhile the rich control the systems that govern each of these programs and use them to further line their own pockets.

Its the kind of shit that makes you want to fly planes into buildings... but then they label you as "crazy" rather than try to understand why you were crazy... even when you write a perfectly sound explanation as to why.

Actually the only way you could call what that guy wrote as sound is by ignoring at least half of it. It is completely self contradictory, for virtually every point he made he later made a separate, contradicting point. Take one set of arguments or the other and you have reasonable explanations based on differing philosophies. The two philosophies he combined were like oil and water, though, they can't mix. The man was off his rocker, he had lost it, and didn't really know what he believed - as evidenced by his manifesto. All I can figure out that he really knew for sure was that he hated the tax man so much he was willing to kill himself trying to hurt them.

Re:Shadow Run becoming a reality

[ProfMobius]

Here you go :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_2020

You don't need to take shadowrun and remove all this, just pick up Cyberpunk 2020 directly ^^

they can't sign away the bill of rights and they c

[Joe The Dragon]

they can't sign away the bill of rights and they can make laws that take away due process and the 1st.

so if any one / web site get's kicked off then sue and say they are taking the 1st away.

The Furture

[BountyX]

*some time in the near furture*

Due to ACTA, everyone now listens to CC music, watches youtube, and uses only GPL software. Copyright is considered a very large liability by companies and people. All of Microsoft's servers have been shut down due to ACTA accusations made by GPL developers. Microsoft uses thepiratebay (which is still online) to distribute copies of the new Windows 10. These copies are infected with a malicious software that downloads bootleg Disney movies and reports the end-user to Disney for affliate revenue. The malicious software developer also sues the end-user directly for copyright infridgment. Meanwhile, the RIAA and MPAA are the single source of all remaining pirated musics and movies since they need pirates to survive. They eventually all go to jail for downloading illegal copies of "The Little Mermaid". NewYorkCountryLawyer is now in the Supreme Court trying to overturn ACTA; however, the Supreme Court judges have been replaced by drones provided by the airfoce. NewYorkCountryLawyer uses a legal loop-hole in the constition that allows a EULA to trump every US law ever made. Guns are no longer needed, becuase you can just throw a EULA into someones face demanding they kill themselves. The world finally achieves universal peace.

Re:The Furture

[L4t3r4lu5]

Sorry bud, the "kill yourself" instruction would never work over the pond. We have the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Act.

There are historical documents which can be cited for requiring the first born child of every family, though. You can find one in any hotel room bedside table.

Re:The Furture

[KlaymenDK]

Somebody needs to update "Epic" with this narrative! At least, that's the voice I naturally read it with.

http://epic.makingithappen.co.uk/

Re:they can't sign away the bill of rights and the

[bhtooefr]

That's because it's Supreme Court justices that determine what's constitutional and what's not, and they're installed by the same political system that makes and enforces the crap laws.

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

He was clearly off his rocker but only because the system we have evolved into had pushed him to such limits.

People do not just fly planes willingly into buildings and burn their houses down without having been driven there by some kind of reason.

You can be pushed to the limit of insanity. ANY of us can... given we let it. I think most parents of children who have been abused and murdered would be pushed to insanity... I mean who wouldnt want to kill someone that killed your child.... and yet most people dont take it into their own hands...

The guy may have done something radical... but there was some merit to his exhaustion with our system of government and law.

I think many people are feeling it...

The government can only do nothing for so long... and we may see more of these kind of events, or just more poverty and depression... but our system is certainly going to have a negative effect on us one way or the other and there just doesnt seem to be anyone in power that cares enough to change things.

It still appears to be the same game as usual and that is.. "how can we make this sound good to the public while making us (the rich) richer"

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz

[tsm_sf]

Meanwhile the people whipping these poor plebes into a lather continue to make money.

((side note: I'm supposed to feel bad about an airplane owner's money problems? Sell the fucking plane, Einstein))

unenforceable

[circletimessquare]

seriously, let them pass every goddamn unenforceable law they want

ten million technologically sophisticated, media hungry and POOR teenagers have them beat, sight unseen. they simply cannot enforce ACTA. seriously. its castles in the sky

i understand completely the concept of a legal framework to encourage the creation of cultural works via economic incentives

except what they are talking about goes WAY WAY beyond that concept and extends into the realm of corporate ownership of culture for no purpose that serves the general public in any way whatsoever

seriously, when

1. grandchildren of some guy who wrote a song are legally entitled to a cash flow, and
2. when pseudolegal structures are empowered to intrusively monitor the supposed free exchange of ideas central to a healthy society,

then the very idea of intellectual property law is philosophically and morally broken, and must simply be ignored and/ or outright actively destroyed by anyone with a moral compass and a passion for the concepts underlying western liberal democracy

ip law is a parasitical device distribution companies have bought and paid for via legislative interference to somehow validate their existence. distribution companies that have simply been replaced by the internet. they can buy all the fucking laws and all the prostitute legislators and all the legions of corporate legal goons. who fucking cares. unless they actually break the internet to the extent of china and iran, which even their legislative whores would feel uncomfortable about, their entire legal fantasy is an unenforceable joke for some highly motivated teenagers to route around, package as a point and click interface, and give away for free

technological progress is a bitch. no law can trump it unless you want to stop the very notion of progress itself. so for all of the power of media companies, i simply don't see them powerful enough to crush the foundational concepts of western liberal democracy simply in order to retain their antiquated reason for existence

death throes of a dinosaur. people should fucking know when they are defeated already. and the entirety of the media industry has most certainly been defeated

if they won't go peacefully, we'll just kill them. p2p is only the beginning. there are a million more technologically sophisticated methods. dark nets. steganography. obfuscation. protocol impersonation. and best of all: play countries against each other. set up shop in one, jump to the other. always a step ahead of the assholes. who are we? any goddamn poor terenager. there's no structure needed. a simple desire for one's own culture is the only imperative needed to defeat these assholes. let them sniff all they want. it's a pandora's box. a hydra: cut off its head, we grow ten more. they're doomed. let's make sure they fucking know it

bring it on media corporate assholes. bring all your legal goons and all your bought and paid for legislative puppets and all your paid for tech hacks and all your pseudo corporate governmental entities. we have you beat, and we welcome the fight in the name of the greatest principles of the free exchange of ideas and a free society and simple moral integrity. you're fucked, and your defeat is for the common good

you can't own our culture. we won't let you. we are simply motivated for the love of music, literature, and cinema. you don't own it. we the people do. fuck off and die. we will burn your toll booths to the ground

bring it on. bring your worst. we have you beaten, hard

i spit on you corporate assholes. i relish your comeuppance

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz

[maxume]

Most of the GDP of the United States is consumed. Some of it is turned into wealth (An amount that is smaller than it seems, things like land often increase in value with no input of productivity).

Deciding if the distribution is fair is a big job (even coming up with some sort of measurement of the fairness is a tough job), but I guarantee you that the distribution is not skewed so that 1% are collectively getting more than the other 99% (certainly there is a 1% that individually have obscene access to resources, but the group of people getting more than a 'fair' share is likely to be much larger than that, depending on how you define fair, and so forth).

First I wondered, how this could land in my spam..

[Hurricane78]

Then I noticed.

Incredible, how they managed to sneak Apple advertising even into this story!

There is more to the world than Apple. Most of the world does not give a shit.

What we give a shit about though, is ACTA. So keep your stupid advertising out of important topics!

Re:This is absurd

[zach_the_lizard]

So, we have to add more incentive to spot producing shit and live off of royalties in order to prevent economic collapse because no one is making stuff? Yeah, makes sense to me.

Both are terrorism

[bussdriver]

If you can be terrorized and that is their intent then they are terrorists. You do not have to be killed for it to be terrorism.

A team of industry lawyers taking you for everything you have, your time, possibly your freedom and now even more criminal law. They want to make examples and terrorize their customers. "Hired guns" now wear suits but the phrase lives on for a reason.

Re:Both are terrorism

[skine]

If you can be terrorized and that is their intent then they are terrorists. You do not have to be killed for it to be terrorism.

Furthermore, the point of terrorism is that terrorists don't have the means to directly attack everyone, but instead have the means to directly attack anyone.

Re:Great...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

There is a problem with your prediction.

It depends on whether or not John Kerry is or inst just another corporatist...

I agree there are differences between him and bush but none of that equates with a different outcome. Kerry is just as super elite as Bush. He voted for the War in Iraq along with the majority of the Democrats.

I'm not one to beleive we have to justify our votes based on some kind of political game. I think voting is our ONLY course of action and it must be done on principal not on gamble.

Ralph was right on all of the issues... Thats a fact. You can go back to his 2000 campaign and look at his platform and speeches... the details of exactly what is happening in health care, labor, economy, etc. It has all come to a head as he predicted. The difference between Kerry and Ralph is that Nader had solutions for these issues in 2000. He was more credible as an outsider with a very detailed platform than what Kerry, or Al Gore had offered up. I mean these are the same democrats who have been in power for EVER. Hell Gore even ran with Leiberman... I mean thats insane.. he IS A REPUBLICAN and a puppet for AIPAC and the corporations.

Again I dont like to play the "well we would have won if you hadnt voted for the other guy" thing... because thats the whole point isnt it? I mean I didnt want Kerry to win because I dont beleive him. I dont beleive that either party is different in significant ways. Yes one party may be slightly better but they both at the end of the day represent the same corporations. Now I also didnt want Bush to win, but I would rather vote for who i beleive in, than play some strategic gamble with my one chance to voice my opinion.

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

hehehe... just because he had a plane doesnt make him problemless ;P

Its funny what you said but... its probably too simple and unfair... but also partially true i'm sure in some way. All humor is.

freedom

[mcfedr]

interesting isn't it, how governments all up for freedom of speak and information until it starts to undermine their power or god forbid, their income. no one is in government for the people, power corrupts even the best of people, let alone those who manage to be prime minister/president

He. Was. Crazy.

[bussdriver]

A sane person would go to the source of the problem not to the enforcer drones which constantly re-spawn. You think the ones at the top really give a rip about their worker drones as long as they can keep replacing them?

A nut goes into an IRS building; hell, going after the IRS in the 1st place is crazy.

If we want any hope, we must get our government back-- as in from the corporations who've taken it over increasingly since... well that point is debatable. It started after the civil war with the war profiteers and went from there - who cares where you draw the line, look where we are now. If you oppose them and their corporate faith you are an evil populist, anti-capitalist, socialist, commie... etc. and someday soon I bet you that the terrorism label will be mainstreamed. The bush admin spent a lot of time trying to label environmental activists labeled as terrorists already. Simply for the threat of property damage or lost profits. Filming in a movie theater is terrorism from the corporation's viewpoint...

If this was to pass

[future assassin]

I'll cancel my tv and interment accounts. I'll throw away all music and digital files I have bought over the years. I'll will never watch/buy another movie, buy/play another video game or buy/listen to music.

If a movement like this can be initiated with just 10% of the population it'll hit those fucker in the pocket books really good.

Re:If this was to pass

[GrubLord]

Oh, sure.

Just like all those people boycotted Modern Warfare 2... for, like, 10 minutes.

Re:If this was to pass

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Which will result in them blaming their losses on Piracy, probably demand a bailout, and followed by taxes/leves on the general populace and/or more crazy laws to "stop piracy". It's a self perpetuating cycle.

This insanity wont stop...

[CondeZer0]

until so called 'intellectual property' is exposed for the oxymoron that it is.

Re:This insanity wont stop...

[janwedekind]

IP == imaginary property

Who leaked?

[fyoder]

From the article:

Someone has uploaded a PDF to a Google Group that is claimed to be the proposal for Internet copyright enforcement that the USA has put forward for ACTA, the secret copyright treaty whose seventh round of negotiations just concluded in Guadalajara, Mexico.

I wonder who that someone is who leaked it. It could be part of a strategy to scare the crap out of people so that when they come out with something no more than an international DMCA people will breath a sigh of relief instead of getting all up in arms. What they've leaked is so bad as to almost seem not credible.

From the computerworld.co.nz article:

The chapter on the internet from the draft treaty was shown to the IDG News Service by a source close to people directly involved in the talks, who asked to remain anonymous. Although it was drawn up last October, it is the most recent negotiating text available, according to the source.

So is this a real leak, or something they want disseminated? /paranoia

Re:Who leaked?

[Sparx139]

Mod parent up.
There's no way to know for sure anything we know is true unless one of the countries involved in it releases it. And does anyone want to take a guess about the chances of that happening?

how about a new virus that plays happy birthday

[Joe The Dragon]

how about a new virus that plays happy birthday X2 score if you hit a system hooked to up a PA / radio / tv.

Crypto

[Ernesto Alvarez]

ISPs are not even remotely interested in scanning for copyright violations. It is a heavy burden that provides no benefit for them and is a technical and logistical nightmare.

I think part of the solution is to increase the use of cryptography. By that I mean putting TLS (or whatever) on everything.

If everybody encrypts everything, even just using self signed certificates, ISPs can no longer monitor the traffic. Even more important it gives them the chance of saying "We're very sorry, but due to the generalized ciphering we are unable to prove any copyright infringement. This month we have not banned anyone.". They could also claim inability to do a man-in-the-middle for fear of discovery when (when, not if) the **AA asks them to do it (after all, you can never be sure if you've exchanged fingerprints before using that self signed certificate).

Re:Crypto

[cpghost]

If everybody encrypts everything, even just using self signed certificates, ISPs can no longer monitor the traffic.

This reminds me of a talk that Phil Zimmerman (of PGP fame) gave so many years ago, advocating the adoption of cryptography by the general public. While it was technically possible back then, though clumsy (hey, btw, why aren't we encrypting our e-mails yet on a very large scale?!), it should be totally transparent to the user nowadays. Maybe the time has indeed come to encrypt everything.

Re:Crypto

[mindstrm]

Again... self-signed makes it useless in practice - the ISP could just have gear in place to permanently man-in-the-middle every connection. Or rather, the government would force them to put it there, and forbid them from talking about it.

It would prevent casual eavesdropping if the session was already initialized, keys were memorized to see if they changed later, and people actually understood the technology - but, outside technical and crypto circles, people just click "yes".

Remember the furor about how Firefox 3 handled self-signed certs differently - everyone acted like it was BAD?

A blackhat can drop a MITM gizmo in any wifi area, say a hotel, that generates a certificate that has the name of the hotel in it.... and middle every connection - and you watch, probably 90% of users will say "Oh.... weird, lemme read this, huh, must be some hotel hting, i'll just click okay" and on they go........

I agree, we should all use encryption more - but it takes more discipline and better tools.

Re:Crypto

[Ernesto Alvarez]

I don't think you got the idea....

My proposal's main objective is not technical, it is mostly to give the ISPs the excuse for not intercepting traffic.

I'm counting on the ISPs not wanting to do the interception in the first place, and using TLS as an excuse for not intercepting. While some people might see eavesdropping as not that bad, tampering with a connection is a different ball game. Besides, they are likely to be discovered unless they coordinate perfectly (how would you explain that the certificate for your site changes when you switch ISPs?).

Obviously anyone can do a MITM against not only self signed certificates, but also to properly signed ones. If the government decides to interfere, they might as well get a MITM box with a properly signed certificate that will work both for self signed and regular certificates. Then again, if the situation gets like that, you have a police state.

Re:Crypto

[Ltap]

I've noticed a great deal of apathy with crypto. Most people agree that it's a good idea, and you'll see people that will keep a hidden, encrypted partition on their drive to keep sensitive files, and they will use SSL whenever possible... but most of them just won't bother with OpenPGP for mail, or stuff like libotr (Off The Record) for instant messaging clients. And, perhaps the worst, most won't bother with using encryption for downloading because of the slowdowns.

I think that crypto is just one of those things where the benefit (except for a select few) never came close to outweighing the gains. Nowadays, though, it's looking more and more attractive every day.

Re:Crypto

[myowntrueself]

Using strong crypto between mail clients is like...

Using armored cars to transfer bags of money from one park bench to another.

Re:Crypto

[Blue_Wombat]

Actually, it doesn't matter whether they can trivially break the crypto or not - if this goes through they will be too scared to check anything encrypted transiting their network. All you have to do is send something that you have the copyright to over the net this way (say, for instance, your holiday snapshots). You are using crypto to protect access to a copyrighted work - and if the ISP breaks the crypto to look at it they have broken the DMCA/ACTA! Three strikes and the whole ISP is disconnected?

It's the establishment, stupid.

[elucido]

It's not and never has been about the economy. It's about empowering the corporations owned by the richest families. They want to protect their wealth at any cost to the economy. As long as they stay wealthy and maintain profits, they don't care. And yes they are entitled.

Re:First I wondered, how this could land in my spa

[roju]

Haha first example that came to mind, although I did laugh before I hit submit when I realized that it would play into the Slashdot-Apple conspiracy :p

Concerning

[symbolset]

I'm actually kind of concerned that there's a shadowy group of corporate advocates purporting to be agents of US policy negotiating international treaties which must remain a secret from the citizens of the respective countries, and the practice is getting serious play in the halls of large governments. I'm not the tinfoil hat type usually, but there's something about this that makes me slightly uneasy.

Re:First I wondered, how this could land in my spa

[enilnomi]

OTOH, here's a submission linking to BoingBoing and mentioning CD by name, and yet no /.er has elected to remind/espouse/reveal what a turd/sham/poseur Doctorow is (as of 2100EST); I can't recall another example of this. (It's kind of exciting....like the morning in 2002 when the /. front page ran for 4 hours without a single spelling error or obvious grammatical error -- I always knew such a thing was possible, but to actually see it happen, wow.)

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz

[cherokee158]

It's a common misconception by many people that all plane owners are wealthy. Many used planes can be had for the price of an economy car, and unlike used cars, they last a long time because of FAA mandated maintenance. (The plane the tax kamikaze flew was one of the cheaper models, widely available on the used market) Maintenance can be expensive, but many pilots work out deals with local mechanics that make the cost bearable, or do their own maintenance. Many forgo hangar rental and simply rent a spot on the field to tie their plane down. Many pilots will buy a share in a plane with several other pilots in order to keep the cost of ownership affordable. Planes are not cheap, but ordinary people with modest incomes can own one, if sufficiently motivated. But it isn't cheap to fly, even if you DON'T own a plane, so if your income dips enough, you are out of the game. When that happens, you can rapidly lose flight privileges, because you are required to maintain a level of proficiency in order to fly.

It is a demanding and often frustrating hobby to pursue, and certainly costly, but not the sole preserve of the rich. The rich tend to hire other people to fly their planes, or buy really exciting planes which they are more likely to crash on accident than on purpose.

ACTA is good

[Lomegor]

Let's just face it. If ACTA do comes out, it will improve innovation between pirates. Which is good. For us. Bad, for them.
As everyone says with every new DRM that comes out, this will end in more people being pirates and in making it easier to be one. It is, in some twisted and crazy way, the downfall of intellectual property; the government will not be able to force it, and the pirates will be able to create better and more distributed ways to improve the current technology. Web pages will not fall, because they will be hosted in a distributed form, with no real server to shut down; people will have more ways to be anonymized; Tor will prevail.

Re:This is absurd

[hawkingradiation]

And where is the part about a law being "good for the general public" when the punishment to deter a crime is so lopsided when the "crime" being committed is denying a coporation(s) money for something that they have put little investment and capital to gain such unjust awards? Again: How bad is listening to a song/watching a movie that one has not paid for? I feel that our governments are supporting a system of monetary gain which, in the age of the Internet, is largely becoming irrelevant. Besides if the only thing we are producing is paper, songs and movies, which are clearly not the same as physical devices and manufactured goods, what chance do we have competing anyway. For the monetary system we have sure does support those manufactured goods for so long so successfully. What I see it is that this new system is an artificial economy.

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz

[CapnStank]

Ok, plane and maintenance cheap? Sure. But what about the cost of the license? It isn't cheap to get enough hours in to be a certified pilot as he was.

Democracy is dead - Long live democracy

[Demonoid-Penguin]

If the leaked document is real, then democracy is dead. That the ACTA talks are secret to begin with should have been proof enough - that the document (sic) contradicts (three-strike and carrier/vendor responsibility) the claims of the British and my government (Australia) is just proof-beyond-proof.

I'll let others decide the appropriate response/preparedness. Though I suggest you do it very quietly.

Hardware

[Thomas Shaddack]

Just make your own. The difference between software and hardware decoding is just some power consumption, embedded ARM (and other) processors are a dime a dozen, and even cellphone processors are becoming fast enough to handle audio decoding with ease.

If they don't want you to buy a player, buy a compatible cellphone or an embedded board and make your own.

Screw them. Screw their will and their petty treaties. As long as we have soldering irons, we have freedom.

Re:Hardware

[shutdown -p now]

Your soldering iron will not help you in a world of tamper-resistant TPM chips storing the whitelisted keys. You can still hack one, sure - in a very well-equipped lab, and not reproducible by tinkerers afterwards - but at that point the returns are rapidly diminishing, and the risks are too high. As well, any such labs would be monitored - and underground ones would be much easier to find and shut down than just a random bearded guy with a generic PC today.

Re:Hardware

[Thomas Shaddack]

If human senses can perceive it, a machine can record it. You don't need TPM and keys to record an analog audio; you need a decent ADC.

Besides, amazing lab things can be bought off eBay, with some patience. And a lot can be improvised. The adversary can not control everything that is dual-use.

Re:Hardware

[shutdown -p now]

Analog copying is always there, yes, but signal is degraded. Also, analog copying is only an option for non-interactive types of content - i.e. audio and video (though I suspect video will get more interactive over time), and not e.g. software.

Besides, amazing lab things can be bought off eBay, with some patience.

There used to be a time when you could buy equipment for a chem lab without tripping off someone in one of those agencies implementing "war on drugs", too...

And a lot can be improvised. The adversary can not control everything that is dual-use.

Ah, but there is no need to control every single bit! The goal of those pushing for legally mandated DRM isn't to restrict copying outright; merely to marginalize it to the point where your average citizen will never be tempted into it. A small group of hackers, no matter how determined, is not a threat to the system.

Re:Hardware

[Thomas Shaddack]

Yes, the signal is degraded. Enough to matter? Software is a problem. However, we at least have the audio and video virtually guaranteed. Re equipment, just run some cover business. You can't legally run a chem lab or product plant without a ton of paperwork; hardware development can be done much easier. If you have the skills on this level, you are likely making some money out of them anyway. And the world isn't uniform. There will be countries with less enforcement. Black market can thrive from there; and once this crap is mandated everywhere, there *will* be demand. Unlike drugs, "bad" electronics does not smell different than "good" electronics; to a customs drone, a chip is a chip is a chip - besides, a blank multipurpose generic chip can be flashed with code downloaded online. There's just one person in one place in the world needed to put it together.

Satellites, wifi

[Thomas Shaddack]

What about cracking the "secured" networks? The cheap-ass ones tend to be holey like a sieve. Bruteforcing a key through a cloud can be even reasonably fast. Do we need satellites? Wouldn't disposable high-altitude balloons do the job? Or perhaps bouncing microwaves off the Moon? Or sacrificing bandwidth and bouncing lower-frequency signal off ionosphere, like in old times?

Re:paranoid

[AHuxley]

Services that work around it is the key.
If this is true, its like prohibition, apartheid, ww2 germany or eastern europe.
People will revolt slide around this.
Anyone arrested will be a prisoner of conscience.
The men and woman and their parties who passed the laws will be named and protested against.

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz

[FiloEleven]

It's a common misconception by many people that all plane owners are wealthy.

That's as may be, but I think what the GP means is this: If you have an expensive durable good, especially one that has significant upkeep costs and is mainly for entertainment, and you have money problems, selling the durable good to help with the money problems should be one of your first thoughts. "Airplane owner" just means that an airplane happens to be the durable good in this case. It could just as easily have been a second car, the sporty model.

I think if GP had meant to imply that all airplane owners are wealthy, he would have written something like, "I'm supposed to feel bad about an airplane owner's money problems? If he's got enough money for a plane he's got no money problems."

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz

[gmhowell]

How about the fact that he had two planes?

Already here somewhat.

[Jaazaniah]

Perfect example of DRM gone wrong and hurting consumers: A guy I know actually bought the media center edition of WinXP, (yes, I know) and recorded some video on an older-model hand held and then tried to play the resulting AVI file. I was called on to help them debug why it wasn't playing. I don't recall the exact error message now, but it was something related to an unknown author (Media Player was default). So on a wild hunch I downloaded and installed vlc real quick to test my theory and it played perfectly. Way to go Micro$oft, yet another normal user who will never buy your products again.

The problem is if ACTA goes through, there will be no choice. Something must be done to take these players drafting this piece of crap down or out before governments have a chance to sign away our rights to choose.

Highly valued list.

[Jaazaniah]

That list would be the most-sought-after batch of info to the tech community at large if it existed outside the circle of attendants and guards. I tried poking around for officials who were out of country over the last meeting's weekend, but didn't get a peep back. Find that list, and the community will have struck gold.

Corporations have more human rights than humans?

[mykos]

Make laws that prefer the rights of corporations over the rights of actual human beings. I don't see how this could possibly go wrong.

Link to the actual thing

[Xiph]

Sorry for top posting, but i thought this was relevant
the google groups leak

Facebook group..

[El Jynx]

There's a group on Facebook for it, we're trying to get a lot of people so we can set up petitions and start lobbying. It's called:

We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA.

Feel free to join.

Re:What is an Internet Service Provider? Say NO2IS

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Who would maintain the physical wires between the nodes?

what about VPNs?

[Jorgandar]

What if i connect to the internet via VPN? Does this law apply to VPN vendors? (They aren't technically ISPs). If the VPN guys have to snoop through your activity to find out whether you're downloading an mp3, kinda defeats the entire point doesn't it. Would this kill an entire industry?

You HAVE a weak and ineffectual government.

[Anonymous Coward]

You HAVE a weak and ineffectual government. It has inherited a stack of strong in irresistible lobby group and ancillaries from the strong and effective (and completely and utterly corrupt) Bush administration.

The weak government you have is bowing down to what SEEMS to be a stronger force: the legacy of corporate whoring Republicans left behind.

What you need is a strong and effectual government WHO WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE.

In other words .. they OWN you!

[freaker_TuC]

Because ... They already got all the money which you wanted to spend to them!

Do you really think they care less you are going to throw away all stuff you have bought with your own money in the first place?

Vote with your wallet in a more considerate way which will hurt them is the message here ...

Good luck

[bdunogier]

Well, I wish you guys good luck with this.

We have done our best in EU to fight against france three-strikes law, but it ended up voted anyway, despite a VERY strong opposition. We are now waiting to see how it will be applied, since nothing concrete was published yet, except a few names and theories...

Our best hopes is that internet users have always been one step ahead of control powers, and this will end up a technical joke. But on the other hand, our worst fear is that another law voted a few days ago also allows for network filtering, officially against terrorism and child pornography, but isn't closed to any other reason. And we all know that fighting file sharing is at least as important (financially) as fighting terrorism...

I wonder which dream comes out first ...

[freaker_TuC]

The nightmare of castles in the sky .. .. or the dream of sky in our castles!

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz

[secondhand_Buddah]

These days you need a Billion dollars in the bank to be considered rich..

Re:First I wondered, how this could land in my spa

[secondhand_Buddah]

If Steve jobs had his way, having an Apple appliance would be a mandatory requirement to access the internet.

Canadian petition against ACTA.

[Russell McOrmond]

I just wanted people to know that we have drafted a petition against ACTA. Politicians have no clue what is going on, and this is one tool among many to make it show up on the agenda.

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/acta/

New Coke

[PincushionMan]

No, New Coke was a scheme to get people to forget the taste of 'Old Coke' so that they could make 'Coke Classic', which replaced sugar with HF Corn Syrup.

AFAICT, they did it again with Mr. Pibb to Pibb Xtra.

OH NOES A STAMP

[GameboyRMH]

And why not? We have to stamp their next round of paychecks.

Yes, but your stamp is just a formality. They can pull the money out of your bank account (or raid your house for the cash in your mattress if necessary).

Re:OH NOES A STAMP

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

[citation needed]

Perhaps you can give me an example of a politician who was voted out of power, but who managed to make a living raiding the public?

Well, actually, there may well be a politician turned criminal out there, but criminality is certainly not unique to politicians.

Where do I get a list of countries?

[marcosdumay]

Is there any lis of countries on their site? How do I know if Brazil is a party?

"Entitled," as in what?

[zooblethorpe]

I'm curious here -- what exactly do you mean by And yes they are entitled?

• Do you mean they are morally right to do so?
• Do you mean they have title to (i.e. own) their wealth, and so their protecting their wealth only makes sense?
• Do you mean they feel entitled to the whole pie?
• ... Something else?

I'm genuinely curious what you meant.

Cheers,