Slashdot Mirror
FSF Starts Anti-ACTA Campaign
judgecorp writes "Free Software Foundation president Richard Stallman has said in a blog post that the ACTA file-sharing proposals punish users unfairly. He wrote, 'Any time there is a proposal to change things for the worse, the obvious way to oppose it is to campaign for the status quo. To campaign for the status quo suggests the approach of singing its praises; thus, praising WIPO is a natural way to highlight how ACTA is a step for the worse. However, where there have been previous changes for the worse, lauding the status quo tends to legitimize them. The past 20 years have seen global waves of harmful changes in copyright law — some promoted by WIPO. To confront a further assault by presenting the status quo as ideal means we stop fighting to reverse them. It means that our adversaries need only propose a further affront to our rights to gain our acceptance of their last affront. Instead of making the status quo our ideal, we should demand positive changes to recover freedoms already lost.' The FSF has launched a petition against the ACTA proposals."
That may be true but really, almost every one of his predictions has come true in one way or another. As much as I really would like to dismiss him as having unworkable policies, he has been spot on for almost everything.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
"praising WIPO is a natural way to highlight how ACTA is a step for the worse. However, where there have been previous changes for the worse, lauding the status quo tends to legitimize them"
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The best way to get a problem like copyright legislation is to use it against those who created it. Follow the trail of greed, find individuals responsible and track what copyrights they violate.
Make them turn on themselves like a bunch of rabid animals and sit back and laugh as they tear themselves apart.
Not that it would work because they don't want to fight each other they just want to pick on the little defenseless suckers that get singled out.
I thought I would just throw out my stupid idea while we are dreaming.
My concern about ACTA is not related to copyright law but to its effect on patents. Copyright law is practically always infringed by intent, while patent infringement in the field of software is in most cases inadvertent (that's the most fundamental problem I have with software patents). It would be desirable to introduce into patent law, at least in connection with software, an independent invention defense. However, ACTA in the version I saw might do quite the opposite, treating a patent infringer as a "pirate" once he is made aware of an infringement (for an example, by a cease-and-desist letter). That's unreasonable and unjust in my view. I blogged about that.
Recently I read on Twitter that the US Trade Representative told knowledge rights activist Jamie Love that the US wouldn't mind throwing patents out of ACTA and instead the US government blames the EU for wanting patents included. Since those negotiations take place behind closed doors, it's not easy to verify that claim. However, it's more likely than not to be accurate. It would be good if EU-based activists could inquire about this (especially with help from Members of the European Parliament). With pressure from inside the EU there may be a chance to get patents thrown out of ACTA altogether. I know a lot of people here are at least equally interested in copyright issues but to many of us patents are the number one concern.
For those interested in EU processes relevant to free and open source software, here's a link to a blog post on a talk I gave on the subject (not discussing ACTA per se in detail, but with a couple of slides on EU patent policy in general) at LinuxTag in Berlin last week. LinuxTag is Germany's and probably Europe's largest open source event. The blog post I just linked to contains links to the presentation.
This isn't a "law" this is an agreement, meaning it basically passes without the consent of the people. Essentially the US is letting other countries write the laws for us. This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about with "Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None".
While there is a time and place for some "binding" contracts such as bi-laterally reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles (lets face it, we don't need thousands upon thousands of warheads that could get lost/stolen/etc.), things like the ACTA and also to some degree the UN effectively force the US to give up its own sovereignty, placing lawmaking not in the hands of elected officials, but unelected delegates from not just the US but almost every other country.
Free trade is easy to accomplish, simply let people purchase goods from foreign countries just like domestic products, only using internationally recognized standards such as gold, silver, platinum, palladium, oil, etc. However, in this day and age, its hard to avoid entangling alliances that infringe on the sovereignty of the USA.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
My enthusiasm kinda dwindles when I saw that the article amounted to a simple petition. Petitions, especially internet ones, are just a way for signees to feel good about themselves while making minimal effort. Kinda like complaining on /. will change the world :P. It'd be interesting if there a more concerted effort behind the petition like showing congress critters opposed to ACTA (so we could vote for them) or raising money to actually lobby against it. Corporations have realized that lobbying, or being active in government helps bend the rules to their favor, so why can't free software institutions do so either? I'm just hoping that this petition doesn't lead to a dead end.
Richard, I love ya and everything you've done for the open source community, just want that clear. Now what the sam hell are you doing telling us to "recover" our freedoms? You don't recover freedom -- you fight for it. You disobey, you protest, you drum up support, tear down walls, and throw wrenches in the establishment. Freedom isn't free, and you won't get it by firing off strongly worded letters.
Look at it from the other side -- the ACTA is about trying to make a global police framework to try and stop file sharinng. Let them pass it. Let the government sink billions upon billions tryinng to solve the problem, while we come up with ever more clever ways to evade detection, and eat away at their bottom lines. The ACTA is about moving the costs from an industry to a global support group of governments. Now is the time to maximize damage -- gut their bank accounts, make free copies pervasive.
Slip how-to manuals into people's mailboxes, leave CDs on the bus with instructions on how to get stuff for free, build and distribute new tools that are harder to track, use stronger encryption, and frustrate traffic analysis efforts. Bury these fuckers to the point where for every dollar they can recover through this kind of legislation they have to pay five more. Keep the hurt machine running at full power.
That's how you defeat the ACTA and protect your freedoms -- by going on the offensive. If they have no rules, neither should we. They want to hand this mess over to the government and we should be only too happy to obliege them -- let's make it cost more than the combined budget of all of law enforcement to recover what little cash they're getting back now. Eventually the costs for this will make it a public spectacle and people will question why we're diverting so much money and throwing all these people in jail and ruining their lives and the general public will finally ask the question it should have been asking years ago:
Is it worth it?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Kinda like this video from Youtube which accuses Viacom of the same infringment that they claim Youtube has done?
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Because the largest party that promises to do just that, the Libertarian party, is still dwarfed by people who will automatically vote republican/democrat despite their lack of having any coherent ideals. I'm not saying don't get involved, I'm just saying if that third largest political party and one that shares similar ideals on that subject, doesn't have anyone currently in congress the chances of change are slim.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
its a farce
all of copyright law is based on a dead technological era. well, copyright law as applied to agreements between creators, say: the company that films the adaptation of harry potter and jk rowlings, for example, is still valid, because the parties in the agreement are finite
but copyright law as applied to end consumers is completely and utterly unenforceable. its not like you need to have a vinyl printing plant or a tape duplicator to spread media anymore. you simply need to be able to point and click. additionally, its completely international, and completely without economics: the cost to send 100,000 copies of lady gaga to johannesburg, novosibirsk, cartagena, etc is exactly the same as sending one copy of lady gaga across town. your agerage 15 year old today has more publishing power worldwide than bertelsmann, time warner, etc., had in 1990. this really means something, and what it means is: copyright law (as applied to end consumers), is dead, and unenforceable
so let them make ACTA as draconian as the morons want. who fucking cares? 10,000 lawyers in western countries versus 10 million media hungry, technologically savvy and, most importantly, POOR teenagers, worldwide, is no contest. of course i understand the EFF, they are protesting on the matter of principle. and to this extent, they should protest, and you should join them. but remember who we are dealing with here: the media industry. a bunch of sociopathic assholes. principles don't matter to them, so the EFF won't sway them. so i say: go ahead register your principled objections, to clear your conscience, but do not grow disheartened by a lack of response from the lizards. rejoice in the fact the lizards are at an end game, and are dying out, and that there ridiculous ACTA is a useless folly
its called disruptive technology for a reason: it disrupts the status quo. the printing press did away with monarchies, the gun did way with the feudal caste system, the automobile created suburbia, the nuclear bomb did away with world wars, etc.: technology changes society and the law. the law and society do not change technology. well, that's never stopped one shortsighted asshole after another from trying, but their efforts are always futile and pointless, just causing a lot of temporary pain for innocent bystanders. in the end, none of their posturing matters: the internet will assimilate the media industry, resistance is futile
the internet has rendered copyright law as applied to end consumers null and void, despiter all the believers to the contrary, despite all the power they hold. its a fait accompli
the media industry's job now is to embrace its obsolescence. of course, it goes down kicking and screaming instead. but again, who fucking cares? let them pass the most draconian ACTA anyone can imagine in their worst nightmares. UNENFORCEABLE. END OF STORY
RIP, vinyl record era copyright law. i'm certain you will exist on the books for a long time to come. but in terms of being an enforceable concept on end consumers in an internet-using society, you're toast
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually, the US is misusing ACTA to change its own laws. All those draconian steps in ACTA were promoted and forced through by nothing less than the US Government, to protect what is essentially an economy that relies increasingly on immaterial goods after having outsourced manufacturing to China and elsewhere. Other ACTA participants are bearing the pressure of the US here, rather than vice-versa.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Exactly but you have to go against the people not the business. If you sue Viacom no one in the company cares because it is the legal department that handles it. But if you sue the CEO of Viacom in small claims locally that would be funny. Of course you have to have a legit claim against them.
They essentially only want copyright to prohibit making money by copying, etc., the works of others.
That sure sounds reasonable to me.
Palm trees and 8
requires countries to prohibit software that can break Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), also known as digital handcuffs
So if someone has a library of DRM protected Flash videos and seeks to convert them to some new HTML5 format, they are not allowed to use a simple conversion tool to convert their entire video library. They are instead required to find the original DRM-free source of each video - if it exists?
Of course, RMS wants all software to be free.
I don't always agree with his politics but I do share his concerns.
For example from the TFA:
I agree that being accused of sharing is not enough to justify disconnection.
However if they are convicted of file sharing then disconnection can be an acceptable punishment though I think it's silly and unenforceable. I'm also against mandatory sentencing guidelines, because they don't take circumstances into account.
Software that break DRM is tool and can be used for legal reasons too. What if I wanted to run a program that I purchased but can't because my netbook doesn't have a CD-ROM drive? I'm not going to share my program so why should I be treated as a criminal?
Where we differ:
I believe that someone who knowingly share a copyrighted file(s) without the consent of the creator has committed copyright infringement and is liable for any punishment related to that infraction (US has laws that make it criminal as well as civil) .
It's still copyright infringement and copyright laws are only as good as the enforcement. I also believe that the current laws are good enough and every attempt "strengthen" them involves taking rights away from the consumer. Take the DRM removal software for example. If I used the software and made the resulting broken DRM file available to others, I am already breaking copyright law. However, if I use it on software that I have a valid EULA for (because I actually paid for it) and keep it to myself then this should remain legal. Also, if I use the DRM to "steal" services by copying files that I did not rightfully purchase then there are already laws against that too.
The corporations are frustrated that they can't stem the tide of piracy and therefore want to make the tools that make it possible illegal. I say too bad for them. They already proven they can find violators so why go after a tool?
Well I guess RMS and I don't differ that much.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Essentially the US is letting other countries write the laws for us.
As someone who lives in another country, let me assure you it's exactly the other way around. Many of the proposals in the leaked document come directly from US law, and are being pushed down everyone else's throat with the threat of being blacklisted if we don't agree to it. For instance, Canada's new law that forbids breaking DRM, lobbied for by US groups, pressured for by the US ambassador, and written up by RIAA.
Maury
Stallman might make accurate predictions (though I wouldn't say that all his predictions are all that accurate - it's just that you don't hear much about those which are not), but his suggestions as to how things should be done instead are utopian, to put it politely.
that I asked myself when I read the GPL. why the FUCK doesn't Stallman communicate directly and get away from the obsufcated communication style that he uses.
If the GPL causes you so much distress, I suggest you go try to read a typical proprietary EULA. Then maybe that will cause your head to explode and we'll all be better off.
They can afford to play by the rules, but they probably don't.
So the tactic may work in the short term. Do you think that music producers or Simon Cowell (or the executives lower down in the pecking order) ever pay for music that they listen to? No, they assume that they can just copy it and that the person copied from should be honoured at the possibility of getting noticed by the aristocracy. Heck, they assume they can put it into a track and sell it and worry about the "clearance" afterwards.
At the very least we should make sure that their designer living rooms are all cluttered up with multiple DVD players for each locked region so they can get a glimpse of how annoying it is.
And could you imagine if they pierced the corporate veil and chucked Bill Gates inside for the various times Microsoft has blatently infringed copyrights or patents?
It's about precision. Those of us who know how to use emacs understand it. :)
I certainly don't agree with everything RMS has to say, but I do respect his intelligence and his conviction. Signed the petition, too.
Caveat Utilitor
The entertainment industry does not have either a) a right to exist or b) a right to make money. Agreements such as ACTA and laws like the DMCA provide those rights. The MAFIAA wants to have it both ways: it's a free market when it comes to pricing, competition and business practices, but it's draconian laws when it comes to finding ways to support it's aging business model, and force people to pay when there are better alternatives available.
The guilt card about lack of employment for software and media producers is priceless. Not to mention that the business value of "production" versus "creation" is questionable. Never mind how many of those in Mr. Stallman's world have lost their jobs to precisely the unethical business practices he rails against. Like me, they will have to find ways of adapting to a world with changing ideas. Or, like you say, maybe they can just go on welfare. I, for one, won't pity them, for none was shown to me.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
Actually, the reason Morocco is involved in the ACTA negotiations (it is definitely an outlier when you look at the rest of the parties) is likely because the US already has a free trade agreement with them that includes IP enforcement provisions that the USTR points to as a basis for ACTA.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
To be fair, it works both ways. The current draft text of ACTA still includes language that permits "graduated response" or "three strikes" laws in a section that was contributed by EU countries. While the original footnote that referred specifically to three strikes was removed, neither is it explicitly forbidden.
Having gone over the draft text and the leaked version that indicated the various country positions, I'd say the US and EU are equally responsible for some of the nasty things in ACTA - just different nasty things.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Honestly, I agree with RMS more than disagree.
However, vi is the superior editor
Wherever You Go, There You Are
you wouldn't call yourself the velvet flamebait
and here's my flame free rebuttal:
world before internet: 99% of artists were poor. 0.9% one hit wonders signed contracts with distributors in which they got pennies and a ride in a limo for a few months. 0.1% muscled in on the distributor's game and made fair money
world after internet: 99% artists are still poor (this is the way it always was and always will be). 0.5% make enough contact over the internet with their fans to make some money from gigs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail ). another 0.4% realize enough revenue from ancillary means to be moderately financially successful. the final 0.1% are still making u2 and jayz money, from all their tie-ins
sure, the ancillary revenues are tiny fractions of what the marketplace was like before the internet, but artists still make more because mos tof the cash in the pre-internet world went to distributors anyways
your problem is you fall for the contrived bullshit concept that distributors not making money anymore is the same as artists not making money anymore
but, don't believe me that distributors are a joke and artists should just go it out on their own, listen to an actual artist:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10272490.stm
so please stop swallowing the contrived lie that artists need distributors. its tired. its false. its a dead fake maneuver you are either intellectually being dishonest about or are actually quite cluelessly naive about
the truth is, distributors are parasites that only existed because someone had to manufacture the media. the internet has made that process defunct, and so distributors themselves are now defunct, no matter how hard they try to grandfather themselves into our cultural space with bullshit legal maneuvers that are destined to fail regardless
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's not a law yet, it is only a bill (C-31) but unless you (Canadians) get off your collective fat asses and start making noise about it, it will be.
The real question is, how is the first goddamn post redundant? Idiot mods.
Anyway, I'll help you out.
He says normally you resist bad policy by promoting how good things are without it.
This, however, obviously implies that things are good without it.
If things are bad and getting worse, promoting the bad in favor of something worse legitimizes the bad. All policy makers need to do to legitimize bad policy then is to simply introduce worse policy, which gets people to accept the bad in favor of something worse.
He's basically saying "Don't say 'look how good things are now, don't destroy it with new restrictions', say 'you ass-holes have been destroying our freedom for 50 years, cut it the hell out!'". In a nutshell.
It's worth noting that this is exactly what happens in politics anytime you hear someone say "Well, he's better than the alternative".
I think the little prick has a really good point here.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
My guess is that it is actually neither. What's really happening is that highly interested parties with a shitload of money are hiring people in all involved countries (especially the US and the EU, but almost certainly in others as well) to manipulate politicians into doing their bidding.
This isn't a "law" this is an agreement, meaning it basically passes without the consent of the people. Essentially the US is letting other countries write the laws for us. This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about with "Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None".
That's not actually true. The US is the one writing and pushing ACTA, and is having it written as a treaty so that it can do an end run around it's own laws that would prevent something like it passing. It's ingenious really. Can't pass a law? Get it written as a treaty and have someone else pass it for you!
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
The current draft text of ACTA still includes language that permits "graduated response" or "three strikes" laws in a section that was contributed by EU countries.
The European parliament has several times explicitly removed the concept of the "three strikes" rule. Which countries are you referring to?
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Calling it utopian is calling improvement impossible. Calling improvement impossible makes improvement more unlikely.
Well, the primary thing that I can think of is "TiVoizion" (see http://gplv3.fsf.org/pipermail/info-gplv3/2006-February/000001.html ) of taking Open Source software and then bundling it with restrictions in the hardware to prevent you from actually using the software, just look at Android for a major example and phones like the Motorola Backflip in particular.
Then look at the article on Trusted Computing ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html ) and then look at the Kindle remotely deleting copies of purchased e-books, restrictions on various cell phones, etc.
Also, look at some of the articles on non-free file formats, the same things RMS was predicting has come true not in file formats but in social networking sites like Facebook, the root cause being the same: when you entrust your information to a format you can't control you lose control of that information.
Then of course the things against software patents, the Java trap is now quickly coming to "the Cloud" and controlled marketplaces like Apple's App store, etc.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
There's is no "drugs are harmless routine" coming from me, that's for sure.
YOU are the moron if you cannot distinguish between a society that copes with illegal substances as a matter of routine police work, and one that increasingly imposes martial-law style tactics on its own population (you know, the WAR in the "War On Drugs").
What ACTA represents is a possible "War On Piracy" which could reinforce police state patterns in this and many other countries. That's a road we should just not go down.