Slashdot Mirror


Once-Secret ACTA Copyright Treaty Approved By EU

itwbennett writes "By a vote of 331 to 294, the EU Parliament has approved the controversial and once-secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). According to an ITworld article, 'the most controversial paragraph in the final text leaves the door open for countries to introduce the so-called three-strikes rule. This would cut Internet users off if they download copyright material as national authorities would be able to order ISPs to disclose personal information about customers.... The proposed agreement would also place sanctions against any device or software that is marketed as a means of circumventing access controls such as encryption or scrambling that are designed to prevent copying. It also requires legal measures against knowingly using such technology.'"

255 comments

  1. Cool! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Awesome! This just means higher adoption of encryption and more bodies on darknets!

    Works for me, and, I suspect, most others here too.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    1. Re:Cool! by asvravi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Strike one.

    2. Re:Cool! by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wish they'd use bowling instead of baseball for the number of strikes.

      "Hey dude! I scored 300 with my ISP! I'm going to the library!"

    3. Re:Cool! by tenchikaibyaku · · Score: 5, Informative
      Although I hold no real hope that ACTA will be shot down, the summary is - as far as I can see - at best misleading.
      Quoting from Christian Engstroms blog:

      This was a defeat, but it is far from the final word on the issue. The resolution has no formal effect at all, but is merely an expression of how the Parliament feels.

    4. Re:Cool! by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Awesome! This just means higher adoption of encryption and more bodies on darknets!

      The problem is you can't hide the data. The bit is either there, or it isn't. It's on or it's not. All you can do is apply statistical and mathematical formula and methods to the data in an attempt to obscure or distort the information to the point that it is no longer useful to anyone other than the intended recipient(s). And almost every method we have of creating plausible deniability is being hunted down by governments around the world. If they want it to stop, they just pass a law saying "If you can't give us the keys, methods, etc., used to mask, alter, obscure, etc., your data, we can simply throw you in jail."

      In other words, the mere act of creating privacy between two entities will itself become a crime. That is the next step after ACTA. And it's already being planned.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    5. Re:Cool! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Using baseball analogies seems so out of touch. Even Americans as a whole don't really care that much about baseball anymore. Maybe yellow cards or fouls would be more appropriate.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:Cool! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wish that it was more like Golf.

      Then if I didn't like that download I could call it a Mulligan, and if the ISP tells me I've got a Bogey all I have to do is get a Birdie next month and I'll make Par.

      Then the Legalese can get extra convoluted.

    7. Re:Cool! by emkyooess · · Score: 4, Informative

      Planned? Hasn't it happened in the UK?

    8. Re:Cool! by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      so why does the slashdot link claim it passed? It has no weight currently, so it's not even really approved.

    9. Re:Cool! by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      most smart folks have been using encryption from day one and, what do ya know? they also never saw a single lawsuit threat or settlement letter, etc.

    10. Re:Cool! by morcego · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can hide the data. Good enough encryption is indistinguishable from random noise.

      There are several tools around that make that possible, and even more on the way.
       

      --
      morcego
    11. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How is this insightful? Have you ever heard of hiding data? If I'm sending you pictures where the least significant bit of each pixel is one bit in an encrypted file, how do you even know to look there? If I'm sending log files where the fifth bit of every line timestamped with a date that corresponds to an integer number, whose sum of its digits in hex is evenly divisible by 3.... you see where this is going.

      Not to mention various encodings that aren't encryption, binary representations of data structures, etc. How do you know what is encryption and what is not?

    12. Re:Cool! by teachknowlegy · · Score: 2, Funny

      No worries, as by the time the law gets that far we can have quantum encryption, where the encryption may or may not be present at exactly the same time.

    13. Re:Cool! by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Funny

      Slashdot isn't staffed with people who understand the political structure of the EU?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    14. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Awesome! This just means higher adoption of encryption and more bodies on darknets!
      Works for me, and, I suspect, most others here too.

      Terrorist!

    15. Re:Cool! by Leynos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Trouble is, that's a lot of pictures you're going to have to send to embed a useful payload. Maybe you could set up something like a 1080p webcam looking out of your window so you have a constant stream of plausible signal in which to hide your "noise."

      --
      "Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"
    16. Re:Cool! by julioody · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Gee, this guy is using encryption. We'll have to leave him alone then".

      Or

      "He's using encryption, so he must be a terrorist. Ship him to Gitmo".

      Pick the one you think it's more likely.

    17. Re:Cool! by gknoy · · Score: 1

      His point was, they can know that you're doing heavy traffic, but if your traffic is encrypted, they have to figure out whether you're sharing Batman or acting as a Linux mirror, or perhaps just VPNing into work and uploading lots of research data, or even mirroring the latest WoW patches. Even traffic analysis, which can reveal that you're sharing data with a thousand other hosts rather than primarily one or two (as one might in the case of a VPN), has a hard time distinguishing between infringing uses and non-infringing.

    18. Re:Cool! by kvezach · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even if they take encryption away, there's always chaffing and winnowing. If you have a signature scheme and a naturally noisy channel, you can simply sign some packets with a valid signature and some with an invalid one - using realistic distortion of the valid signature - and communicate data that way. This would look little different from a channel where you're actually trying to communicate but where line noise is randomly corrupting your packets.

    19. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely in the short term or long term?

      In the short term they'll be left alone, but if things continue as they are the gitmo option starts to look more likely.

    20. Re:Cool! by celle · · Score: 1

      "...people who understand..."

      You mean slashdot is staffed by people, you can't tell by the summaries.

    21. Re:Cool! by xOneca · · Score: 1

      "He's using encryption, so he must be a terrorist. Ship him to Gitmo".

      Can we say the same for all DRM encrypted media on Internet?

    22. Re:Cool! by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Planned? Hasn't it happened in the UK?

      Globally, good sir, not locally. It takes time, luck, and large amounts of money to make governments cooperate.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    23. Re:Cool! by Lanteran · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Among other nations. The trick is to create a data volume that will decrypt differently with different passwords.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    24. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its never indistinguishable but it needs a really long time on good computer, so if u piss off the riaa (they now own part of the fbi ;__;) dont trust it that much and start burning evidents

    25. Re:Cool! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      It wont help in the long run, as they wont have to find out what you are doing. If you encrypt and get caught, you will be guilty of encryption alone.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    26. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gee, this guy is using a weak encryption, he must be doing something illegal, but knows a good lawyer, probably.

    27. Re:Cool! by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if you even do a search for such tools, it will attract the black van since you know only criminals....

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    28. Re:Cool! by Delkster · · Score: 2, Funny

      The thing is, with these guys the par is 1, so it's awfully difficult to get birdies.

    29. Re:Cool! by Delkster · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sometimes it feels like there are approximately two people in the world who understand the political structure of the EU, so it's not particularly surprising that a random Slashdot staffer isn't one of them.

      Neither am I, really.

    30. Re:Cool! by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      After one year of angry activism I indeed settled for this position : let them mess with things they don't understand and let's enjoy the freedom that is still left.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    31. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just that, but you could also appeal to the sportsmanship of your fellow gentlemen and ask for a decision to be made "in accordance with equity".

    32. Re:Cool! by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Hell, Most Europeans don't understand the EU structure

    33. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly,

      In addition all purchases will be electronic and tracked. Why would any "honest" person use paper money?

    34. Re:Cool! by iiiears · · Score: 1

      An interesting question is.. "If the widely available encryption algorithms+hardware are as claimed, What use are large intelligence satellites?"

      Who wants your data and is it cost effective for them to decrypt it?

      --
      15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
    35. Re:Cool! by shermo · · Score: 1

      I prefer cricket, and it's more culturally relevant here since nobody plays baseball.

      You only get one strike, but you don't get penalized until 9 of your friends also get out.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    36. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that from the governmets point of view you have no reason to store random noise and since you won't show them how to decrypt the data they will assume that whatever you are hiding is the worst possible thing.
      Plausible deniability, just like proof, only exsists in the eye of the beholder.

    37. Re:Cool! by Lazareth · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I don't play football.

    38. Re:Cool! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Planned? Hasn't it happened in the UK?

      Globally, good sir, not locally. It takes time, luck, and large amounts of money to make governments cooperate.

      Not if the desired result is oppression, subjugation, or just making people's lives miserable. That's what they all want to do anyway, even if the individual leaders/politicians won't admit it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    39. Re:Cool! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      "Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    40. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or minutes in the box.

      (referring to hockey if you didn't know)

    41. Re:Cool! by zeropointburn · · Score: 1

      You might be shocked at just how much data is transmitted unencrypted or otherwise in violation of protocol. Besides, knowing the 'party of interest' is sending messages of a certain length at a certain time to a certain destination (or over a certain frequency and power) is highly useful data in its own right.

      --
      -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
    42. Re:Cool! by ooshna · · Score: 1

      Its called soccer get it right.

    43. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are given unlimited time and computing power, it is staggeringly difficult to determine if something is random data or if it's encrypted; assuming a decent cipher is used, and there are many.

      If you are trying to crack a good (as-yet-unbroken) 128 bit cipher in a reasonable amount of time with current hardware you will need a not-insignificant portion of the sun's output power. Might as well say it's indistinguishable.

      Not that I'm worried or anything, but if I were, I'd be more concerned about spying or rubber-hose cryptanalysis than I would about anybody ever cracking some encrypted documents.

    44. Re:Cool! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Hell, Most Europeans don't understand the EU structure

      That's intentional. That way, when a national government wants to pass unpopular (and usually stupid) legislation, they can blame it on "EU directives".

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    45. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in NZ

    46. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOBODY understands the European institutions! Their THREE chief weapons are treaty obligations, binding regulations, competition law, AND fanatical devotion to "ever closer union"... Sorry, I'll come again.

    47. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pick the one you think it's more likely.

      Isn't it obvious? When the burglar finds a locked door, he goes to the next house, which doesn't have a locked door. When it comes to thieves, neither burglars nor backbone trawlers are a special case. They both share the same best strategy: you get the highest payoff by doing what is easiest.

      "Gee, this guy is using encryption. This isn't worth our time. Let's go look for terrorists instead."

    48. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, with enough nodes on darknets, they will become very efficient for anonymous copyright violation. Then the darknets will be outlawed. The excuse will be - what else? - good 'ol "terrorists and pedophiles" per usual.

    49. Re:Cool! by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's called football (or the equivalent) by a few billion people.
      Only some 300 million or so call it soccer.

    50. Re:Cool! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it feels like there are approximately two people in the world who understand the political structure of the EU,

      One of whom is dead, and the other isn't talking.

      I still find it amusing that Eurosceptics claim that "people didn't think they'd be signing up for a European government when they voted in the referendum of 1975". I understood perfectly well that the question of Europe was one of whether or not to become part of a "super-state", and I was too young to vote. Too young to even get away with trying to vote. So, what the Eurosceptics are really saying is that they think that the population of the country are on average stupider than a young child.

      Depressingly, they may be right.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    51. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And 6 billion minus 1 get facetiousness

    52. Re:Cool! by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, in Belgium they don't need to do that, stupidity is expected here, and a lot of people here don't even know how many governments we have, sad state of affairs :(

    53. Re:Cool! by Mavakoy · · Score: 1

      Yup - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000

      Specifically Part III:

      which requires persons to supply decrypted information (which had been previously encrypted by the owner) and/or the cryptographic key to government representatives. Failure to disclose these items is a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of two years in jail.

    54. Re:Cool! by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      You can outlaw, but can you enforce it? Slow, inept governments trying to do an arm race with thousands of hackers...

    55. Re:Cool! by Raumkraut · · Score: 1

      "Hockey"? Is that what you kids are calling it now?

    56. Re:Cool! by shnull · · Score: 0

      The proposed agreement would also place sanctions against any device or software that is marketed as a means of if that's literally copied from the text there should be nothing to worry about for the no-cd patches and anything that clones dvds i suppose ? after all they are not marketed as a means of I'm pretty confident in the EU privacy rules so far but i get a little scared when i see meps trying to suck up to Obama Bin Laden and his gang of copyright nazis really, can't these people make their own decisions? post office might get the best deal out of it, when i was 14 i had my games and stuff mailed to me by a major 'distributor' from holland, water flows wherever holes are present

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
    57. Re:Cool! by lpq · · Score: 1

      Except that such encryption will now be classified as a means to get around restrictions on copying -- so such encrypted nets will become illegal.

      Not cool!

  2. It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... to go kill some lobbyists.

    1. Re:It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard they copyrighted an image of Muhammad.

    2. Re:It's time... by xOneca · · Score: 1

      They're also practicing terrorism: ACTA is so scary!!

    3. Re:It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I am with you on this one.
      Lets kill the people who was for ACTA in the voting too, the people hurting society needs to be purged :(

      A bit more realistic thought: WHAT THE HELL?! How would anybody in their right mind let something this huge and tainting trough?!

    4. Re:It's time... by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Money.

    5. Re:It's time... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is modded "insightful"?

      No. Terrorism is when one group of people uses fear of death and dismemberment to alter the behavior of another group.

      I doubt the GP wants to change these people. He just wants them dead. So it would be more correct to ask, "Mass murder is modded 'insightful'?"

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:It's time... by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      That only works if there are enough lobbyists who are against ACTA - otherwise the dead ones just get replaced.
      Besides, if there's a clear threat they're more likely to band together against it. If they are killed, it can't look like murder - suicide or divine punishment would be better

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  3. So when are they coming for us? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So when will the cops nab me for watching DVDs I pay for or rent then play using libdvdcss?

    1. Re:So when are they coming for us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you use your CC to pay you will automatically be deducted the value of the item * random n where n is somewhere between 1000 and 1000000

    2. Re:So when are they coming for us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They won't. They'll nab you for child pornography that appears on your desk an hour before the dawn raid.

    3. Re:So when are they coming for us? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      All the more reason to practice good network security, with lots of logs of traffic, so you can prove that you didn't download it, or that the intrusion came from elsewhere. OF course, good luck being able to find an expert witness who can back that up. Scary.

    4. Re:So when are they coming for us? by xOneca · · Score: 1

      And what about copying it to another support (DVD/HDD/memory card/...)?

    5. Re:So when are they coming for us? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They won't. They'll nab you for child pornography that appears on your desk an hour after the dawn raid.

      There: fixed that for you.

    6. Re:So when are they coming for us? by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Or they'll just call your logs inadmissible evidence, you could've pulled them out of your ass. Best thing to do is to download using one of the people who voted for this their wifi connection.... Wardriving it is.

    7. Re:So when are they coming for us? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Or they'll just call your logs inadmissible evidence, you could've pulled them out of your ass.

      You mean like the RIAA and Mediasentry have been doing for several years now? Courts don't seem to have any problem accepting their fabrications as fact.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:So when are they coming for us? by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      That's because they have money & they've painted Mediasentry to be some sort of 'cyberdetective' service, never mind the fact that they're idiots.

    9. Re:So when are they coming for us? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      That's because they have money & they've painted Mediasentry to be some sort of 'cyberdetective' service, never mind the fact that they're idiots.

      Not too mention crooks. They admit to instigating DOS attacks, have even bragged about how much bandwidth they have at their disposal. They should be up on Federal charges by now: of course, with RIAA lawyers at the Justice Department that probably won't ever happen.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  4. Old school? by chemicaldave · · Score: 2

    Guess this means I'll have to start buying CP'd things off the street and in person like days of old?

    1. Re:Old school? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I guess the key difference there is that you are going to start buying.

      If it wasn't so easy to mass pirate, I would suggest that the black market street prices like in the old days might make a closer to actual value price point that the record and movie companies could shoot for and avoid piracy almost entirely.

    2. Re:Old school? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I guess the key difference there is that you are going to start buying."

      Good luck with that. Until my country's copyright law will be amended, I am still entitled to make copies of whatever non-DRM'd copyrighted work I want for my sole personal use. Not even ACTA changes anything about that - I would simply face harsher punishments for things I am already *not* allowed to do.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Old school? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Guess this means I'll have to start buying CP'd things off the street and in person like days of old?

      Please read the above sentence I was replying to.

      Then consider what I wrote again.

    4. Re:Old school? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, one just has to find a non-cp'd source of the same work and that's it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Old school? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yea, but the op said he was going to start buying. That's the key difference between having the acta and not.

      On the other hand, if you could buy the media outright for the black market prices, I don't think many people would find it worth their while to pirate it.

    6. Re:Old school? by kyjo · · Score: 1

      Until my country's copyright law will be amended, I am still entitled to...

      The thing is ACTA is an international agreement and if approved at EU-level it would be obligatory for the member countries to adapt their laws accordingly. In case of EU, this so called "trade agreement" is basically a cheap way to circumvent legitimate democratic proceses of individual countries.

  5. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From there to banning FOSS, the slope is slippery...

    1. Re:Good! by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      these are two different slopes. you can't slide from one to the other unless you're M.C. Escher.

    2. Re:Good! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Don't you know? Copyleft and public licenses undermine 'intellectual property.' It doesn't have to make sense, since limiting both free culture and copyright infringement are in the interests of the same groups. Attempts have been made to tie torrents to terrorism, although it's quite likely a sinle legit copy of CS5 contributes more to organized crime than a single copy downloaded on TPB.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Good! by iiiears · · Score: 1

      Has anyone gotten netflix to work on GNU?

      --
      15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
  6. I'm a little surpised by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    I thought they weren't going to bother with it on account of not getting the geographical designators. Freedom on the internet may be dead, but at least my Kraft Parmesan cheese doesn't have to be renamed.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  7. I'm torn on this by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On the one hand I'm angry that it seems like they are cracking down on filesharers and have left open this "expansion slot" to fill in with whatever they want later. On the other hand, I'm even more angry that they are going to start cracking down on CD bootleggers. These people perform a great service for many poor kids who don't have a computer to download files or $15 bucks to buy from the store. These kids would end up stealing and getting into much worse trouble if it weren't for the ability to buy from bootleggers for pennies on the dollar.

    By restricting the free flow of information, these cartels have created an artificial scarcity. They exploit this scarcity and the ones who suffer are the poor kids. I can't believe we are agreeing to such heinous terms.

    1. Re:I'm torn on this by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm even more angry that they are going to start cracking down on CD bootleggers. These people perform a great service for many poor kids who don't have a computer to download files or $15 bucks to buy from the store. These kids would end up stealing and getting into much worse trouble if it weren't for the ability to buy from bootleggers for pennies on the dollar.

      Those kids could, you know, just not have a copy of the music. I don't know where this divine right to have stuff comes from.

      Out of curiosity, when it comes to material goods, would you describe yourself as a capitalist? Because, absent artificial scarcity, how else can an author or programmer make money?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:I'm torn on this by alexborges · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whats "material" cost of music? Most of the cost comes from a distribution method that has been obsoleted in the digital age. This law only tries to impose limitations on a better and less costly way to get digital "wares", to save the ass of a distribution bussiness that is simply not needed anymore: music labels, cable companies, tv channels.

      We should have ONE link, the internet, and content providers, both independent and from label and shit, competing together: THATS HOW CAPITALISM WORKS.

      Protecting unnecesary monopolies with law is both plain stupid and a plain robbery from the people. We are supposed to do "as if", the internet wasnt there with regards to digitalizable content. But it is there. And digital content can travel through the net. That is "bad" for the distribution monopoly and they thus bought politicians to FUCK US ALL IN ALL OF THE WORLD.

      THAT SUCKS.

      --
      NO SIG
    3. Re:I'm torn on this by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      I am, above all, a humanitarian. If a small gesture on my part can have a large impact on someone else, I will willingly and without hesitation give my time and money.

      I have received so much in this life. There are so many things I am truly blessed with. How can I not give back freely?

      Some repay me with thanks. Others with donations. Others are inspired to pass along this gift of giving to others. And most of all, that is my most favorite repayment. To see a life that I've touched turn and become another brilliant point of light shining down, illuminating humanity.

    4. Re:I'm torn on this by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Those kids could, you know, just not have a copy of the music. I don't know where this divine right to have stuff comes from.

      The fine arts are traditionally considered vital to a society, so much so that most first-world countries massively subsidize production of music and films. Some music labels stay afloat purely through subsidies or patronage even if they don't sell many CDs, and if the bills are already paid to the creators, it's hard to say that people copying CDs are depriving them of a livelihood.

    5. Re:I'm torn on this by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      if i had mod points...

      this is true. laws were never passed to give back jobs to all those people who were obsoleted by machines. i wonder why when the same thing happens to companies that laws are passed to protect obsolescence.

      the future of distribution is in value-adds. not everyone will want a nice glossy boxset, or a laser etched cover image, or a little toy with their DVD/BD, but some people will.

      the only way for economies of abundance and economies of scarcity to coexist while selling the same product is for the scarcity side to provide something that cannot be downloaded or copied easily. and that is physical objects.

      the next big risk for distribution is when star trek style replicators become practical.

    6. Re:I'm torn on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those kids could, you know, just not have a copy of the music. I don't know where this divine right to have stuff comes from.

      Human nature. People see that others have things, and they want these things as well. Whit physical objects there's no real problem because only on person can have the object at one time, as such it's possible to protect and horde the object. However with an idea it's fundamentally different, the idea can be copied millions of times over with little overhead. As such it effectively cost nothing to duplicate and give ideas out. This mean that most people can't see a just reason not to share ideas and information, and if some one tries to artificially limit they are seen as the villain, because they are causing duress where there was originally none.

      It's not a hard concept.

      Out of curiosity, when it comes to material goods, would you describe yourself as a capitalist? Because, absent artificial scarcity, how else can an author or programmer make money?

      They could start by billing by the hour to code a particular app, or they could do a first sale, where they produce a product then look for someone to buy it initially. There are many options out there, YOUR failure to find them shouldn't be my problem.

      Capitalism gives you the right to sell what ever you want, it does not grant you the right to make money or the right to own ideas (which are fundamentally unownable). Locking down ideas will hurt the economy and us in the long run.

    7. Re:I'm torn on this by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those kids could, you know, just not have a copy of the music. I don't know where this divine right to have stuff comes from.

      Stopping someone from doing something that doesn't affect others is generally what needs a justification. The scarcity is what we are creating, so that is what needs something to back it up.

      Because, absent artificial scarcity, how else can an author or programmer make money?

      Several viable methods are available for authors to get money, and many would do things for the love of doing them, for fame, or because it enables other revenue streams. We had books and music before the Statute of Anne, after all.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:I'm torn on this by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those poor poor kids, unable to play pirated games, watch pirated movies, and listen to pirated music.

      The correct thing to do here is to eschew commercial media entirely. Libraries are free, and they are the proper place to go if you need a book.

    9. Re:I'm torn on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To see a life that I've touched turn and become another brilliant point of light shining down, illuminating humanity.

      (emphasis mine)

      Sir, I have been accused of having a large ego, but I humbly defer to your hubris. At the very least, this was a Freudian slip.

    10. Re:I'm torn on this by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Laws were never passed to give back jobs to people obsoleted by machines because the owners of the machines were the same kind of industry mobsters who are now buying laws to restrict what you can or cannot do with your machines. Internet activism will never reach any result, witness the fiasco with the TSA scanner boycott. The only resort is violence: whether you like it or not, the 9/11 hijackers succeeded in changing the US from an international powerhouse into a whimpering, hysterical mob scared out of its wits.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    11. Re:I'm torn on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some repay me with thanks. Others with donations. Others are inspired to pass along this gift of giving to others. And most of all, that is my most favorite repayment. To see a life that I've touched turn and become another brilliant point of light shining down, illuminating humanity.

      Thank you.

    12. Re:I'm torn on this by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      None of this stuff just appears from nowhere. It requires musicians, producers, directors, actors, artists, developers and lots of other technical and administrative people to get it made in the first place. Should they all work for free just to keep cheapskates like you happy?

    13. Re:I'm torn on this by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      it can happen without providing government backed monopolies. Even If we are going with the government backed route, direct funding through something like grants would probably be more sensible.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    14. Re:I'm torn on this by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      So instead you want government deciding what we should watch, listen to and play? I can't see that working too well either. I'm not defending the MAFIAA but I'm at a loss to see how the creation process, which does cost a lot of money, gets paid for in the world of those who think it should all cost nothing.

    15. Re:I'm torn on this by alexborges · · Score: 1

      MOST of the cost is NOT in production. Most of the cost are executive pay, lawyer pay and investment in the new DRM or such format pay to limit what YOU, the buyer can do with the music that this houses BUY OUT RIGHT from artists.

      You see, in MY perfect world, musicians would sell directly to me and id download their music from their site for whatever money the sell it, even if with DRM.

      Capisce?

      --
      NO SIG
    16. Re:I'm torn on this by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Who said that?

      Let me say it again: ONE link. No cable company, no tv channels, no "networks". Just one link, and everyone provides their content in their wepage behind paywalls and we pay for what we want.

      If independent musicians do better than labels and can distribute and produce for me, who will pay them to do so, then WHY NOT? If labels are so good at producing that they can survive even competition on the market, then all the best to them.

      Dont you see? This law ONLY serves a middle man that has lost tremendous value once music/video/software can travel at almost zero cost.

      --
      NO SIG
    17. Re:I'm torn on this by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that. I'm saying that IF we are going to use government mechanisms to push creative activity, then we should do it through monetary grants instead of monopolies, because government backed monopolies are pretty much the worst method of economic incentive. Utilities are about the only place they make any kind of sense, and with those, it's stupid for them to not be member-owned.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    18. Re:I'm torn on this by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Stopping someone from doing something that doesn't affect others is generally what needs a justification. The scarcity is what we are creating, so that is what needs something to back it up.

      Actually, scarcity not what copyright is about. After all, sans copyright, non-disclosure agreements could fulfill the same purpose. Every purchase would be accompanied with a contract. The lack of standard terms would mean libraries would have to ascribe to the strictest terms or that they would cease to exist.

      Copyright simply provides a common framework by default.

      Several viable methods are available for authors to get money, and many would do things for the love of doing them, for fame, or because it enables other revenue streams

      Which are? How do we encourage John Grisham to write another novel. Or how do we convince a studio to invest $200 million in a movie?

      I mean, I get there are always going to be people who give away their work, and I'm not saying everyone has to be profit driven, but some people are. And even those who aren't then need to work a day job. How do we enable the great creators to have 8hrs/day to devote to projects?

      We had books and music before the Statute of Anne, after all.

      Some. We've had a huge amount more since then. Similar to how the industrial revolution started off with secrets, but kicked into gear after patents were invented.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    19. Re:I'm torn on this by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I am, above all, a humanitarian. If a small gesture on my part can have a large impact on someone else, I will willingly and without hesitation give my time and money.

      You're well within your rights to, and I certainly believe in optional copyleft licenses. But you used the word "gesture". It ceases to be as meaningful if you're forced into it.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    20. Re:I'm torn on this by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      What happens to the content once it's outside that paywall? Do you think people won't copy it?

    21. Re:I'm torn on this by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      MOST of the cost is NOT in production. Most of the cost are executive pay, lawyer pay and investment in the new DRM or such format pay to limit what YOU, the buyer can do with the music that this houses BUY OUT RIGHT from artists.

      Well, Avatar cost $500 million. That is half a billion dollars.

      And, assuming you're right, if people didn't steal then the costs would drop by more than 50%. Isn't that good?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    22. Re:I'm torn on this by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      It's a nice idea in theory but how does the government decide what gets funded? Worthwhile programmes like universal health care are controversial enough; imagine how unpopular billion dollar funding for our current copyright beneficiaries would be. The current system doesn't work - anyone can see that. However there doesn't seem to be a viable replacement either.

    23. Re:I'm torn on this by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Actually, scarcity not what copyright is about. After all, sans copyright, non-disclosure agreements could fulfill the same purpose. Every purchase would be accompanied with a contract. The lack of standard terms would mean libraries would have to ascribe to the strictest terms or that they would cease to exist.

      NDAs aren't effective for end users, and tracking the leaks is going to be nearly impossible. That's why NDAs are generally done on very small scale.

      Which are?

      Product placement is already quite popular even within copyright. Movies could be subsidized by movie theaters in exchange for getting copies earlier than competing chains. Movie tickets are loss leaders for them, and their revenue is popcorn. Things like kickstarter are a good model for fundraising, and subscription models would probably be effective as well. Musicians generally make the lion's share of their money from live performances.

      Some. We've had a huge amount more since then. Similar to how the industrial revolution started off with secrets, but kicked into gear after patents were invented.

      Most works that were considered a masterpiece were before copyright. But, this is where proponents of 'IP' cheat. Copyright and patents have more or less moved in only one direction over time, so our scientific controls on the subject are rather limited, but a lot of the data we have suggests that their effects are neutral or negative in most situations. However, the future was generally better than the past even when clearly oppressive policies were in place, like the censorship policies implemented after the invention of the printing press. Media conglomerates can point to the future, where there is greater literacy, a lower cost of production, and more effective methods of distribution, and say that's it's better than the past as evidence. They also tend to do the same thing with developing countries while neglecting that adopting these institutions results in much more favorable trade relations with developed countries.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    24. Re:I'm torn on this by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand me. This is a stupid idea if implemented on a huge scale, and it already exists to some extent with PBS, federal research, reports, and such. My point is that it's a way for the government to interfere that is far less stupid than copyright. We don't inherently need to get the government to interfere, but if we do, copyright is about the worst way to do it.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    25. Re:I'm torn on this by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      "The fine arts are traditionally considered vital to a society, so much so that most first-world countries massively subsidize production of music and films."

      For this one time i agree with something Henlein wrote in Time enough for love I think.

      "A government sponsored artist is an incompetant whore"

    26. Re:I'm torn on this by iiiears · · Score: 1

      Okay, patents aren't copyrights and this thread is off-topic. but this link is thought provoking, "Do Patents Encourage or Hinder Innovation? The Case of the Steam Engine." http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/do-patents-encourage-or-hinder-innovation-the-case-of-the-steam-engine/

      --
      15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
    27. Re:I'm torn on this by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Yes. If its reasonably priced, i think people won't copy it.

      --
      NO SIG
    28. Re:I'm torn on this by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Chances are that some of the art you enjoy was created a least in part through government funding. Do you really want to call some of the great directors incompetent? Even in the US, which has little tradition of a welfare state, filmmakers have gotten tax breaks and other financial incentives from the states they shot the film in.

    29. Re:I'm torn on this by cpghost · · Score: 1

      By restricting the free flow of information, these cartels have created an artificial scarcity.

      Just nitpicking, but it was the (corrupt) lawmakers who created an artificial scarcity by enacting Copyright laws, and we, the People, who were too lazy and careless to let those lawmakers off the hook by voting them again and again in office, instead of hanging them high up a tree for their bad laws. We're all collectively responsible for the mess we're in today.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    30. Re:I'm torn on this by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Pesonally I have never attended a government sponsored arts event, my preference is for modern music which NEVER gets any govt funding.

      Thing is, good art speaks for and sells itself itself. If it needs govt funding it probably would not attract enough punters to see it to pay for itself.

      Why should minrity arts such as the classical opera, ballet etc get funding when popular art that people WANt to see does not.

    31. Re:I'm torn on this by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Why should minrity arts such as the classical opera, ballet etc get funding when popular art that people WANt to see does not.

      Because most first-world countries consider them worth supporting, and they view a decline in the fine arts as a decline in civilization. In Finland, I don't think I've ever met someone who wanted an end to state subsidies of concert and opera halls -- even if people don't personally listen to the music, they recognize its value. Besides, the fine arts filter down into popular music. Radiohead, for example, credit composers you've never heard of, and their last album uses technology originally developed at IRCAM (which is fully, and generously, funded by the French state).

    32. Re:I'm torn on this by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, when it comes to material goods, would you describe yourself as a capitalist? Because, absent artificial scarcity, how else can an author or programmer make money?

      You know, I'm not making any money from these Slashdot comments. Does that mean that Slashdot is communistic, and that there should be a law requiring you to pay the poster before reading the comment?

      The key idea of capitalism is that people will end up working on whatever gets them most money (which, due to the law of supply and demand, is often whatever the society find most valuable), not that they do something that doesn't make any money and whine that the government should pass laws helping them profit. In fact the latter is a clear example of a (badly) planned economy, or "communism" if you will.

      So, if your livelihood depends on copyright law, you aren't a capitalist but a dirty commie demanding that the Central Committee comes to your rescue when market forces crush your company. Which makes the pirates freedom fighters risking everything to resist the oppressive regime. But the Empire has secretly created a superweapon, ACTA, with legal firepower enough to destroy entire countries, and only the leaked documents, which might reveal some weakness, can save us now!

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    33. Re:I'm torn on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know where this divine right to have stuff comes from.

      But you don't know where the divine right to prohibit having stuff comes from, either.

      IP advocates would do well to steer clear of the topic of rights. Such discussion can only work against them.

      absent artificial scarcity, how else can an author or programmer make money?

      From non-artificial scarcity. Even after all these decades of programming, hardly anybody has the software that they want. Dude, if we didn't already have real scarcity, then nobody would care how authors or programmers make money, any more than they care how buggy whip manufacturers make money. The fact that anyone cares how programmers make money, suggests society has an interest in using force to keep people working as programmers. The fact that society has wants programmers tells us we already have so much desperately-real scarcity, that we don't need artificial scarcity.

      You might as well ask how the oil business can make money unless we create an artificial scarcity of energy.

      Why does my employer pay me to write code? Because if they don't pay me, then the code won't exist for them to use. I don't need any ridiculous laws to create a fake demand for what I do. The demand exists, naturally.

    34. Re:I'm torn on this by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Patents aren't copyrights, that's true. However, since those are the only two ways that ideas become protected, the same analysis often applies to each. And while it is slightly tangential, interesting conversations often are.

      I read the article you recommended. I had a few points about it:

      • The dates listed are contradicted by wikipedia. And I don't mean "minor, nitpicky errors". I mean "the dates, using his logic, prove the exact opposite point.
      • He talks about what happens after two major innovations. Factoring the effect of that innovation into his numbers, they're practically equal.
      • Watt's (patent protected) numbers take into account a 10 year period when no one was purchasing engines due to an economic slump.
      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    35. Re:I'm torn on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Avatar cost $500 million. That is half a billion dollars.

      To put some mediocre colored dots on a screen. Don't you see what is wrong with that picture?

      Not to mention the fact that this funny money, Hollywood accounting at it's finest, is going to parasitic middlemen, not creators.

      Personally, I think it's highly likely that since the days of Frank Sinatra and the ratpack many such movies are primarily money laundering operations. You can be so creative with "IP" accounting.

    36. Re:I'm torn on this by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Ah but who defines reasonably priced? And if you feel it's unreasonably priced then should you be able to just have it anyway?
      Agreed the current system is a mess but destroying the livelihoods of everyone involved isn't the answer either.
      Creation costs money, and a lot less creating will be done if it's not financially viable.

    37. Re:I'm torn on this by alexborges · · Score: 1

      The market is. Period.

      Things will change? Sure: look at japan's practically fully up-for-grabs anime and manga market.

      What happens is that most creations get paritioned in much smaller chunks and they are sold briefly and separatly... yes, its a price to pay, but on the upside, its a HUGE market of stuff to choose from and the quality of the top 10% is, well hell, probably the best in the world

      Have you ever read Lessigs work on this issue?

      Go read Free Culture, its online and free.

      --
      NO SIG
    38. Re:I'm torn on this by iiiears · · Score: 1

      I am grateful for your reply. sadly, I am likely missing something from the article but but your premise is that patents forced innovation? Finding a solution other than using a condenser? The more critically i read the article the less i like it. An otherwise engaging article is left hanging on inconvenient measurement conventions and (at least for me) a difficult to verify timeline.. How long was an English patent at that time? 20 years? Slashdot is remarkable in that among the hundreds of posts a few individuals like yourself force old ideas to be re-evaluated. Thank You.

      --
      15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
    39. Re:I'm torn on this by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. Are you saying that there will be a lot more content to choose from. In that I agree with you, but I still don't see how you can stop the mass copying of that content. Reasonably priced or free - how many will choose reasonably priced if there's no need to pay at all?

  8. A law that has been passed... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

    ... with no consultation of the people, and by an institution that many of us already consider to be nowhere near democratically accountable enough.

    Do they expect us to follow it?

    1. Re:A law that has been passed... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Do they expect us to follow it?

      Because you're going to do anything beyond whining about it in your parent's basement?

    2. Re:A law that has been passed... by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      Of course they do, peasant. Mind your betters.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    3. Re:A law that has been passed... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Comply or Die...

      Government says so.

    4. Re:A law that has been passed... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Ignore it? Tell them to go fuck themselves? Vote for anti-EU parties? etc.

    5. Re:A law that has been passed... by Desler · · Score: 1

      So basically you will do what amounts to nothing.

    6. Re:A law that has been passed... by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

      ... with no consultation of the people, and by an institution that many of us already consider to be nowhere near democratically accountable enough.

      Do they expect us to follow it?

      Cops have guns that say you will. Don't think it will come to that? Look at what can happen to people who have a nickel bag.

      If this becomes law, it will be abused, as all laws which are pretexts for invasive searches are.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    7. Re:A law that has been passed... by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Vote for anti-EU parties?

      Just because of a single bad law passed by Congress, would you recommend people vote for parties seeking to undo the Constitution and return the nation to the Articles of Confederation or a band of independent states? While everyone has a few complaints about this or that feature of the EU, support for disbanding it is very low except for a tiny, but loud, minority. That's particularly true among the young, who have gotten used to things like Eramus, EVS, a single currency and not having to change money every 200 km, the freedom to go work in some other European country that tickles their fancy, no more internal passport checks, etc.

    8. Re:A law that has been passed... by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Informative

      They still riot in the streets against perceived injustice in Europe.

    9. Re:A law that has been passed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with no consultation of the people

      There have been such. It is called "Voting" (actual term may vary for your native language). What would you want? Door to door polls? The problem is that most of the people are not informed enough or don't care enough, not that they couldn't have a say here if they wanted to.

      by an institution that many of us already consider to be nowhere near democratically accountable enough.

      If you think that a law was passed (IE: Didn't notice any glaring errors in TFS/TFA) you probably aren't well enough informed on EU/ACTA that your opinions would have much weight.

      Even ignoring that, this public vote wasn't in comission but in the parliament. The body we elect directly. I don't see how you could get more democratical accountability. If they don't face consequences, it is simply because most of the people really don't care that much. Perhaps we (perhaps even you?) should have done more to raise public awareness instead of complaining that the institution isn't accountable enough.

      Do they expect us to follow it?

      Technically, they expect the member states to follow it. Which they will. (If this law actually gets passed next year)

    10. Re:A law that has been passed... by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      "The freedom to be unemployed in some other European country..." FTFY.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    11. Re:A law that has been passed... by transfatfree · · Score: 1

      people retain the right to vote for political parties while being objectively ignorant.

      they will fight for this right.

    12. Re:A law that has been passed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the cops where I live aren't allowed to carry guns as a matter of course.

      I can still tell them to fuck off and they have absolutely no right to search me.

      As an aside, cops without guns tend to be much nicer.

    13. Re:A law that has been passed... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the wonderful employment situation in the US currently Jock?

    14. Re:A law that has been passed... by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Don't know and don't care since I don't live in the US, but anyone who believes the EU - any part of it - has been made with the citizens' interests in mind is deluded. It has been conceived so that the Powers That Be can move capitals and goods with no restrictions whatsoever, and with the recent Eastern expansion jobs and money are running away fast. Now, if you expect a French worker to take everything, family included, and move to Poland to keep his job while getting a lower wage, you should probably jump from the tallest building you can find.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    15. Re:A law that has been passed... by wdef · · Score: 1

      The EU is a good idea on theory. It's the implementation that is worrying. The erstwhile EU constitution was clearly struck down by the People when a few governments did the right thing and required referenda on what was in actual fact an enormous centralization of power and huge change in governance. Undeterred, the bureaucrats simply resurfaced this as the Lisbon Treaty and now Europe is stuck with it. Few educated professionals let alone ordinary people understood what was in this massive, turgid, game-changing document. That is not democracy.

    16. Re:A law that has been passed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with no consultation of the people, and by an institution that many of us already consider to be nowhere near democratically accountable enough.

      Do they expect us to follow it?

      No, they expect us to keep funding the sausage machine so they can bribe less wealthy countries into enacting their laws. The EU funds remove any incentive for these countries to create wealth, ultimately bankrupting them and finally saddling them with high interest loans in the form of "bailout packages".

      Support the EU: Drop your pants, grab your ankles and keep paying those taxes; you impoverished, disempowered sap!

    17. Re:A law that has been passed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they riot in the streets because it's been a while since the last riot.

      Seriously, this has fueled a number of protests in Southern Europe. Only outsiders take those seriously; the locals consider it folklore. Everyone realizes that if Germany can't pay for pensions at 65, then Greece can't either - including the Greeks. The introduction of the Euro has synchronized the timing of such observations a bit more, but does not cause them.

  9. background and swpats by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Background info:

    http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement_overview

    On the software patent problems (or patents "in the Digital Environment"), it seems most or maybe all have been fixed (provided the the signatory uses the Section II option of excluding patents from that section) but a thorough reading is still needed:

    http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA_and_software_patents

  10. they work fast by bugi · · Score: 1

    That was fast. Did they not read and discuss it, or were they simply in on it from the beginning?

    1. Re:they work fast by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The "once secrete" part of the story should have indicated that this has been around a long time before we started talking about it. They were most likely in it from the start.

    2. Re:they work fast by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall the EU parliament complaining about the negotiations being secret.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:they work fast by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Was it the EU parliament or people in the EU.

    4. Re:they work fast by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1
      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:they work fast by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The "once secrete" part of the story should have indicated that this has been around a long time before we started talking about it.

      Yeah, there are definitely some secretions involved in the passing of this particular law.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  11. I fear for Canada by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

    I have often felt we are one of the more sane countries with respect to the digital age, but seeing this I believe we are all F***ed.

    I guess I should start voting Pirate party.

    --
    I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    1. Re:I fear for Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You won't recognize Canada when I get through with it" -- Stephen Harper
       
      Voting for anybody other than that right wing douchebag would probably have covered it.. but it's a bit late now

    2. Re:I fear for Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think Canada failed at the digital age when they charged a tax on recordable CDs just because you MIGHT burn pirated content to the CD!

    3. Re:I fear for Canada by colesw · · Score: 1

      Canada is part of the EU?

    4. Re:I fear for Canada by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      Does it matter?
      Canada is a lemming when it comes to things like this.

      Patent on life and seeds: check
      Software patents: check
      body scanners: check
      DMCA/ACTA: In progress
      Constitution free zone: TBD
      Police state: TBD

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    5. Re:I fear for Canada by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      I think it's better than the US method - those who buy blank CD's only have to put in pennies more and support Canadian Artists and you don't get people's Lives ruined due to crazy lawsuits.

      Call it crazy - but it keeps musicians happy, keeps the people happy, and isn't a giant FU to the States.

    6. Re:I fear for Canada by suutar · · Score: 1

      Don't knock it. Because of that, they are in fact allowed to download stuff and burn it to the CD, by Canadian case law. After all, they already paid for it.

    7. Re:I fear for Canada by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Does THAT matter?

      You mention all those things like they are terribly bad, Patents are a good idea but just terribly implemented. We're a lemming on things like that because they generally don't affect us. And when they do, (like Copyright issues) we just work our way around it (Blank CD Tax).
      DMCA and ACTA? Let them come. The people will complain, we actually still hold some influence over the government. If they don't take it away, they'll at least make some kind of legal loophole for the people to exploit. Or they'll get voted out, and the next government will.

      As a side note I went to San Fran this February and I did not have to go through a Body Scanner, it wasn't even an option, and the "Pat Down" I recieved was less than that at a local bar, he basically went to my knees and stopped. I'll be going to Washington in a few weeks and I also don't expect any issues.

      Really Canada is pretty laid back when it comes to things like this, even if we've technically implemented them. The law may be stringent but the enforcement is lax.

    8. Re:I fear for Canada by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      It's not just Canada.... Belgium does it too, and it's not limited to cd's here, dvds, hard drives, even freaking SD cards come with a tax for the music industry. When you buy a camera and an SD card to take pictures of your vacation, you end up paying the music biz. Fuck that.

    9. Re:I fear for Canada by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Problem is, i actually buy cd's already, not as much as i used too, because most is commercial trash, but i have a rather large cd collection. This tax however, gets divided between those commercial trash producing idiots that i refuse to support. Well, in Belgium anyway.

  12. The EU... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is now OFFICIALLY our bitch. Any doubt there once was is now gone.

    Ahhhhhh stop your argument right there. You're our bitch. Now go get me some beer and chips before i backhand you.

    And put on something sexy like the whore you are.

    1. Re:The EU... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh... Troll mod. That's ok. The usa likes a bitch that thinks it's free.

      But you'll still enforce our copyright laws like a good little bitch won't you? Yes you will.

      And in return you get what we feel like giving you. So bend over.

  13. All righty then... by countSudoku() · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Keep your 10" Android Tablets off my fairly used Righthaven Once-Secret ACTA Copyright Treaty articles, before I come down on you like a Spring Dynamic Module In Action, Cuz'!

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  14. Once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A government demonstrates that it puts the interests of the rich above the interests of the many, even when the results mean plenty of injustice for the many.

    Humans are not competent to govern themselves on a national level.

    1. Re:Once again by umghhh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      some humans are. There are many reasons why this is not prevalent state of affairs of course. Some inherent to human nature of course: minority benefits paid by majority means that motivation to act and participate in political process is big in this minority as ROI is huge because the benefits for these few are paid by many. The motivation of the members of majority is much smaller because their personal losses are small or unlikely albeit taken in absolute numbers massive. This leads to unbalanced policies as the authorities are put under pressure by the militant minority while majority does not even look. There are other reasons of course too - incompetent authorities - these are the essence of the society and society at large has no capability to understand issues more complex than 'this is my beer it is free'. But even with these limitations sometimes we humans are capable of organizing ourselves into something good. The American Revolution is a good example (while of course US is a good example that greatness once is not a guarantee for greatness forever).

    2. Re:Once again by celle · · Score: 3, Funny

      "...injustice for the many."

      The many just have to borrow a couple of guillotines(per country) from France and use them during the half-time of national football games(soccer/american). The rich/manipulative, as the cause of this shit and therefore initially responsible, go first. The politicians who are also responsible for not listening to the many will switch quick once they realize they're next. Ah hell, both at the same time with twice the fun in half the time. Once the body politic is directly held accountable for its behavior this shit goes away. You want to hold the big seat, pay the big price.

      Problem fixed.

      "Humans are not competent to govern themselves on a national level."

      We've done it a hell of a lot longer than you now buzz off skynet!

    3. Re:Once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You make a great point about the American Revolution. The masses essentially coalesced because the oppression of England was highly visible and briskly felt by nearly all Americans. But in our day, freedom is more apt to be stolen at the tip of a pen, rather than the end of a musket. Most people don't possess the ability to think critically or abstractly. They simply operate in a world that has been pre-arranged for them. The boundaries have been clearly defined by those in power and there is very little desire to question those boundaries. Thomas Jefferson articulated it beautifully -- "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty".

      I could rant for days about the rate at which freedom is being compromised in every nation on this planet, but most you /.'ers are technical folk who've had the need for critical thought thrust upon you, and therefore clearly see the decline, and hence are of like mind. That said, as technology takes greater hold, it also draws to itself great power. Those in positions of power clearly see this and their natural reaction (since they desire to remain in power) is to exert control over technology and oppress those who wield it skillfully. This is always done under some fabricated guise of "protection".

      There is hope however. You see, programmers and electrical engineers hold in their mathematical war-chests, technological battle-axes that can return power to the people. The ability to write an OS, of which the source code may openly viewed by all, the ability to root a smart phone and thereby return control to the device's owner, the ability to craft an encrypted, anonymized, overlay network which allows private data transfer, the ability to patch a binary file and alter a program's course, and on and on.

      Use your power for freedom.

    4. Re:Once again by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually I'd say the way us tech nerds can "win" is by using that most glorious and powerful of weapons...propaganda. Just look at how a single attack ad (Willie Horton) could change the way a presidential election was flowing. Now imagine if we geeks here on /. cooked up snarky and funny but biting ads showing how big business is stealing from ALL of us with 150+ year copyrights and ACTA style bullshit, and then plastered them all over Youtube? And if each video had a link to a nicely done website where the populace could let their elected officials know in NO uncertain terms they WILL be voted out if they don't listen?

      The future won't be decided with a gun, but with a videocam. The winning of hearts and minds by using the massive power of propaganda against the very ones that currently wield it against us. THAT is how you can change things now, not writing some OS that 90%+ won't use because it won't play their game o' the week.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:Once again by iiiears · · Score: 1

      The power is yours while you can buy a domain and post a hyperlink. Unlike any other time in history since the days when men formed small tribes and could discuss an issue with each person. Is it acceptable to place convenience over freedom?

      --
      15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
    6. Re:Once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...during the half-time of national football games(soccer/american).

      It' soccer in America...
      And Ireland
      and Japan
      and Australia
      and ...

    7. Re:Once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The revolution will not be televised.

    8. Re:Once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, yeah. we can compete with the companies that own the mass media.

      because we're just that smart.

    9. Re:Once again by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      I for one fail to see how the american revolution was really such a change. You rebel against a government and eventually they send people with guns to stop you. Same as the current american government. Can guarantee if you don't pay your taxes and take arms against the US government for it they will not be very amused or forgiving.

    10. Re:Once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In a world where viral videos are having a huge influence on the media and a large body of 'anonymous' persons support our ideals?

      Yes we fucking can.

    11. Re:Once again by jo42 · · Score: 1

      A government demonstrates that it puts the interests of the rich above the interests of the many, even when the results mean plenty of injustice for the many.

      It's called The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules". It's been like that since before written history.

    12. Re:Once again by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I could rant for days about the rate at which freedom is being compromised in every nation on this planet, but most you /.'ers are technical folk who've had the need for critical thought thrust upon you, and therefore clearly see the decline, and hence are of like mind.

      "You're smart, so you'll agree with me (and if you don't, it's because you can't think critically)."

      Also, "You're better than the common peasant." Classic divide-and-conquor.

      You see, programmers and electrical engineers hold in their mathematical war-chests, technological battle-axes that can return power to the people.

      If you truly think that "Most people don't possess the ability to think critically or abstractly", why would you want to give them power?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    13. Re:Once again by JohhnyTHM · · Score: 1

      oh, yeah. we can compete with the companies that own the mass media.

      Of course we can. ACTA isn't just about piracy you know. What really scares big media is that they lose control. They don't want people to realise that music and films can be home made and self published. After all, why would we need them any more if that were the case?

  15. But in CrazyWorld corporations are people by bledri · · Score: 1

    ... with no consultation of the people, and by an institution that many of us already consider to be nowhere near democratically accountable enough.

    Do they expect us to follow it?

    According to Unequal Protection by Thom Hartmann, we've been putting up with it for decades in the US. And now that the SCOTUS says money == speech and corporations == people, we're totally screwed.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  16. Been there already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Church has already forced ridiculous stuff on people in order to protect its interests. It hasn't helped us progress as a society and we've had to break free of that in order to allow ideas to be researched on and technology being developed.

    The government should avoid going down the same path in order to protect private interests. It won't help us progress as a society and we'll have to break free of that in order to allow ideas to be researched on and technology being developed through competition once again.

    1. Re:Been there already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by "through competition once again" you actually mean "copy some proprietary piece of software half-assed", right? This seems to be the FOSS version of what the term means.

    2. Re:Been there already by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's interesting that you bring the church up as an obstacle to new ideas, research and technology when it was the church that created the very university system that is used to spread new ideas, research and technology (along with the modern court system, hospitals, etc.). Not that I am an apologist for the church (big C or little c), but I do think that if one is to spout off, they should at least get their facts straight.

    3. Re:Been there already by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No it didn't.

      The church built its learning institutions on the model of others, and there were secular learning institutions alongside them.

      The church is in conflict with the forces of reality. It has a long history of oppressing the free spread of knowledge, and of couching its tyrannies in the language of benevolence. And of coopting institutions and traditions and pretending they were the province of their religion all along. It's only typical that they would pretend to have invented higher education, and would call it open and free exchange of ideas.

    4. Re:Been there already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > they should at least get their facts straight.

      Ummm, no, churches are at the forefront of suppresion of new ideas... oh except for crazy ones like condoms causing aids... they're all about getting the 'facts' out about that.

      Case in point they hated the idea of translation of bibles from latin to ${LOCAL_LANGUAGE}, or indeed, any literacy amongst the unwashed, because then the laiety wouldn't need the clergey... or rather... the clergy couldn't just wave a book around and say "it says in the book to burn and destroy"... people could look it up for themselves and challenge. Likewise creation of the printing press, no co-incidence that a bible was one of the first books printed... it was all about the technical arts trying to break down the authoritarian rule of the clergy.

      It is a virtual certainty that for every sick person they've nursed, or poor person they've fed they have cost another their life through religious skirmish... they are a blight upon the global with no redeeming facets, past nor present and the quicker we disabuse ourselves of belief systems based on superstition and fear the sooner we can realize how much we have held ourselves back as a species.

      Yes, we are dumb all over... and maybe even be a little ugly on the side.... thanks Frank.

    5. Re:Been there already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...it was the church that created ... the modern court system...

      No wonder the system is fucked then...

    6. Re:Been there already by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      No it didn't.

      The church built its learning institutions on the model of others, and there were secular learning institutions alongside them.

      The church is in conflict with the forces of reality. It has a long history of oppressing the free spread of knowledge, and of couching its tyrannies in the language of benevolence. And of coopting institutions and traditions and pretending they were the province of their religion all along. It's only typical that they would pretend to have invented higher education, and would call it open and free exchange of ideas.

      They are not the ones pretending. It is the European Scholarly Community who make the claim, not the church itself. But, if you want to say that the historians are wrong and your opinion is the correct one, then go for it.

      Obviously, you have some deep seated resentment towards organized religion, which is your perogrative. But in trying to justify your position, don't claim things that simply are untrue.

      Don't get me wrong, the church, and I assume we are talking about the Roman Catholic Church in all of this, has done plenty of bad things, but they, as many institution have also brought about much good.

      If the church is so against the spread of knowledge as you purport, then why are all of those craters on the moon named after Jesuit priests? Why is the father of geology a catholic priest? Why was the first person to extrapolate Einstein's theory of relativity into what we now call the big bang also a priest?

      You have the right to believe whatever you want about the church (Catholic or otherwise), however, just because you believe it does not make it true.

    7. Re:Been there already by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      > they should at least get their facts straight.

      Ummm, no, churches are at the forefront of suppresion of new ideas... oh except for crazy ones like condoms causing aids... they're all about getting the 'facts' out about that.

      Case in point they hated the idea of translation of bibles from latin to ${LOCAL_LANGUAGE}, or indeed, any literacy amongst the unwashed, because then the laiety wouldn't need the clergey... or rather... the clergy couldn't just wave a book around and say "it says in the book to burn and destroy"... people could look it up for themselves and challenge. Likewise creation of the printing press, no co-incidence that a bible was one of the first books printed... it was all about the technical arts trying to break down the authoritarian rule of the clergy.

      It is a virtual certainty that for every sick person they've nursed, or poor person they've fed they have cost another their life through religious skirmish... they are a blight upon the global with no redeeming facets, past nor present and the quicker we disabuse ourselves of belief systems based on superstition and fear the sooner we can realize how much we have held ourselves back as a species.

      Yes, we are dumb all over... and maybe even be a little ugly on the side.... thanks Frank.

      I think that Galileo Galilei and a few other scientists who were persecuted (if not outright murdered) down the centuries by various Churches and other religious "institutions" would tend to agree with you. Organized religion has always been the single greatest threat to scientific and technological advancement. One may claim to speak for God, but if at the same time one is willing to attack the free expression of logic and reason because it is a threat to one's hegemony ... well.

      Because, you know, when you think "church" you immediately think "progress."

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:Been there already by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      Your retort reeks of the Wikipedia page on universities, so I'll reference a few too.
      University of Bologna is widely accepted as the first and oldest (11th century) western university. And madrasahs - which certainly do have origins in religion - predate that. (See Al-Azhar University) But I don't think you're trying to connect the big C Church to Islam, and we're talking modern university origins, not 6th century Roman religious scholars. (See Cassiodorus)

      The thing is, Bologna didn't start teaching theology until almost 300 years after it was formed, so it's highly unlikely it could be considered a monastic school. http://www.eng.unibo.it/PortaleEn/University/Our+History/default.htm

      Even after the printing press was invented, I don't believe the Church was actively encouraging common folk to read the bible themselves in their own language. Better to hear it from the pulpit by an official that knows Latin. (See Bible Translations) "New ideas" as you say, are precisely the thing the Church found most dangerous, especially when things got competitive and educated men started discovering things with technology. For a good while there, it was Aristotle or bust. (See Galileo Affair)

    9. Re:Been there already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! The church is the antithesis of science, e.g. the case of Galileo Galilei.

    10. Re:Been there already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Exactly which Church was Plato a part of?

    11. Re:Been there already by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Strange, since the University of Bologna was actually the Cathedral school before it was called the University of Bologna (as was Oxford and Cambridge). As for my sources:

      Charles Home Haskins, in "The Rise of Universities (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957). According to him the university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome.

      Lowrie Daly, who held the Church developed the university system because it was "the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge." Source: Lowerie J. Daly, The Medieval University, 1200-1400 (New York:Sheed and Ward, 1961), 213-14.

      With regards to people not reading the bible in their own language, that's not true, either. There are surviving translations of the Vulgate (the official Latin Bible) in numerous languages, particularly German, predating the Reformation. Of course only the very wealthy could afford to have a hand copied manuscript made, but they did exist. Once the printing press was developed, these were then printed, however, the for the most part the public was illiterate, and had to rely on hearing it explained, because even if they could afford one of these mass produced bibles (for the time anyway), they couldn't read it. So please, don't confuse what the churches (it wasn't just the catholic church that had illiterates) did to accommodate the educational reality of the time with trying to suppress knowledge.

      As for Galileo, the church never said he was wrong and actually agreed with his findings, however, what was really going on was a political battle. His arrest had nothing to do with the science.

      It's interesting to note that while Galileo was living comfortably in his house arrest, it was the church who was paying him to do more and more scientific inquiry.

    12. Re:Been there already by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Which "European Scholarly Community"? The Vatican?

      My opinion of religion is seated deeply because it's based on fact and persistent experience. The Church's habit of giving a coin to a poor kid to dispense its sin of murder is just one of those facts.

      I don't deny that there are religious people who have advanced science. But if their science is at all in contravention of a church's teachings, they will find out about that church's position on knowledge.

  17. History Repeats Itself... by BerretSO4 · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there a three-strike rule for terrorism, too? [/tongue]

  18. Can we just RBL these people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a problem even more insidious then spam. So why not take our open sourced projects, that we freely give our time, skill and money too, and instead of letting these content owners use them freely against us, place restrictions right back on them? We can create a completely opt-in RBL, just like we do for spam, and encourage ISPs to block access to those on the blacklist.

    It's an inconvenience sometimes not getting an email I wanted and it might be an inconvenience to have sony or abode blackholed for a few days but I think that problem will solve itself a lot faster then spam has, using the same techniques. We don't have to work in the legal system exclusively. Sometimes it's important to remind law makers that it is only by our continued tolerance that laws are allowed power. When they cross some lines then we can always just go around the process.

  19. Alright, Europe. You still know how to riot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike Americans, you still got some fire though I imagine you'll need a guillotine or two.

  20. Do you hear it? by Grapplebeam · · Score: 1

    It sounds like... OH BOY! It's the Godwin's Law train!

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree.
  21. Re:Banning FOSS? Can't happen soon enough by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, yes, I know it was really "linux distros and public domain music/movies" you were torrenting not the latest Hollywood movie and Miley Cyrus CD *wink* *wink*

    I am 105% certain that when I pipe the latest Debian DVD into my sound card, it will sound much better than the latest Miley Cyrus CD.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  22. How many moviez can you fit in my thumb drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The difference between free (as in beer) and the black market is probably going to be in the dimes per G's range. You walk into an unassuming kiosk or a shady hole-in-the-wall and hand over your microportable mass storage device and say, "Fill 'er up, mate"? In a few years, with advances in storage and transfer speeds, it'll probably be no different than free.

  23. No, lobbyists are but an instrument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people you want are the officers of MPAA/RIAA and their "constituent members." For bonus points, get their lawyers too. Unfortunately it would be illegal to do this. So don't try this at home kids...

  24. Mission accomplished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what happens when the general public is too complacent and too ill educated to recognize fascism. The corporate sponsors of our "Leadership" are laughing hysterically behind the curtains, especially since they are essentially unassailable. Nobody would confess to have been seduced by simple old fascism again, right? So anyone who points it out will be met with flat out denial, no matter what. It can't happen, by definition, which makes it so much easier to get away with. Just as Hitler said, "Lie big, and people will never realize it's a lie, because people will never imagine anyone would be audacious enough to tell such lies." Fuck. This is really bad.

  25. Is johnnie copying a cd the real issue? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The real problem is not the occasional copying of a CD for ones personal use, heck, it might not be the same quality, but you can record it off the radio. The real problem is the wholesale mass production of reproducing copyrighted material. Most of this occurs in South East Asia. So, exactly how will passage of ACTA stop it?

  26. Re:Banning FOSS? Can't happen soon enough by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Funny

    A fan of datacore, are we?

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  27. Was voting anonymous? by plaukas+pyragely · · Score: 1

    If not, anyone knows if it's possible to get a list of EP members voted for this?

    1. Re:Was voting anonymous? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Was voting anonymous? by SirJorgelOfBorgel · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. That page seems like the right page to me too, but it also says they DECLINED on ACTA with 306 votes for and 322 votes against.

      So what gives ? Can anyone explain ?

    3. Re:Was voting anonymous? by plaukas+pyragely · · Score: 1

      It's only about one paragraph (which was rejected). Some where rejected, most were accepted. Click link "Click to see other votes for the same document: 45" on top of the page.

    4. Re:Was voting anonymous? by Zumbs · · Score: 1
      I find your link somewhat perplexing. On first view, the link sugggests that the EU Parliament rejected the ACTA treaty text, by a slim majority. More surprisingly Christian Engström (Pirate Party member) voted in favor of the treaty text. However, a visit to his blog shows that the vote that failed (the one you linked) were in favor of

      a joint resolution demanding that the Commission should clarify and assess the consequences of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ACTA.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    5. Re:Was voting anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I've read it.

      Votes for: 306

      Votes against: 322

      It is REJECTED!

    6. Re:Was voting anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The page says that ACTA has been rejected with 322 votes against and 306 votes for. That's sort of the opposite of the article.

    7. Re:Was voting anonymous? by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is apparently a vote to ask the commission to clarify the consequences of the treaty. This is EU diplomatic talk for a vote to reject it. With this vote rejected, the treaty was not blocked or questioned by the EU parliament. It is the among Nay votes you have to look for your traitors. (this had me confused for some time too)

    8. Re:Was voting anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Useful site

      Half the bloody English MEPs didn't even vote and if you check out the William "The Earl of Darmouth" character, who is supposed to represent the UKIP (UK INDEPDENDANCE Party) which I imagine would be against this on principal, He hasn't votedon ANY of the ACTA Treaties.

      What is that lazy git doing!?

    9. Re:Was voting anonymous? by jeffrey.endres · · Score: 1
      It is a confusing vote, but from the homepage of votewatch.eu :

      ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement): the conservative forces (EPP and ECR groups) have succeeded in having their form of the resolution adopted in the European Parliament's plenary. The first form of the document, drafted by the center-left forces (GUE/NGL+Greens/EFA+S&D+ALDE) was rejected (306 votes to 321), as 13 socialist and 11 liberal MEPs voted against it, together with the EPP and ECR.

  28. It's meaningless by Pop69 · · Score: 1

    The European Parliament has absolutely zero legislative power, it's only there to make a noise and keep hasbeen politicians in an all expenses "job"

    1. Re:It's meaningless by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the European Commission (which is on the industry lobbies' payroll) will approve it as well. The European Parliament is the only institution that paid at least lip service to democratic rule, and who had until now resisted the lobbyists' pressure. Since this bastion has fallen to almighty bribe, it is now war. The soap box has failed, they didn't listen. The ballot box has failed, they're all bought. The jury box has failed, the laws have been paid for. The ammo box is all that remains. Industry lobbyists, lawyers, politicians who support them and every agency connected to the industry mob is a legitimate target.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  29. riasing to a higher plane by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    No worries, citizen! You can upgrade your status by incorporation for a low fee. Then you too, can enjoy all of the rights, with none of the responsibilities of a living, breathing hoo-man being.

    Actually, I thought the entities we refer to as "corporations" were non-corporeal. So does that make them spirits?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:riasing to a higher plane by bledri · · Score: 1

      Actually, I thought the entities we refer to as "corporations" were non-corporeal. So does that make them spirits?

      Excellent question, but I think they are becoming more like Gods than mere spirits.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  30. Mixed feeling about this.... by plusser · · Score: 1

    I have some rather mixed feeling about this....

    On one hand your have the music and film industry complaining about piracy of their product and being completely ignorant that their business model is out of date.

    On the other hand there is the chance of counterfeit components appearing on cars, trains or aircraft that produce a serious hazard in a situation where potentially lives are at risk.

    Mind you we have a third problem in that we have fake politicians that don't really know anything but what their advisors tell them.

  31. No, this is factually wrong by sTeF · · Score: 1

    This is not the consent vote, this was only a resolution reminding the comission on a couple of things.

  32. It doesnt matter. by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    I welcome whatever legal device they think is going to stop file sharing. The only affect it will have is pushing the open source community to whatever will eventually replace torrenting even faster.

  33. on the other hand... by plaukas+pyragely · · Score: 1

    I'm confused about this results page.

  34. Remember... by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

    It's not about being right, it's about who contributes most to campaigns, and who offers the most lucrative consulting positions after they leave elected office.

    In the US, anyway-- the music and movie industries pump a lot of money into lobbying and campaign cash, and I wouldn't be surprised if they offer nice consulting positions for those who vote for laws they like, such as the Sonny Bono Act and the DMCA.

    And for the media business, it's not about the money, it's about dominating the market and the culture through complete control...

    --
    "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  35. Re:Banning FOSS? Can't happen soon enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For anyone else wondering wtf parent means: warning, googling Miley Cyrus costs 1D20 IQ.

  36. So long and thanks for the fish by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    It was fun while it lasted, but this is the beginning of the end for digital freedom.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  37. Obligatory Quote by stalky14 · · Score: 1

    "The more you tighten your grip, Lord Vader, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

    1. Re:Obligatory Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strike one. Leia said that to Tarkin, not Vader. Two more and your geek creds will be revoked.

    2. Re:Obligatory Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better quote:

      Padmé to Bail Organa: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause. "

  38. Christian Democrat = Republican by unity100 · · Score: 2, Informative
    basically right wing capitalists.

    The European Parliament just narrowly failed to adopt a joint resolution demanding that the Commission should clarify and assess the consequences of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ACTA. The numbers were 306 in favour, 322 against, and 26 abstentions. The resolution had been put forward by the Green group (including the Pirate Party), the Social Democrats, the Liberals and the Left. A resolution from the Green group (where I was one of the co-signatories) was also defeated. Instead, an alternative resolution by the Christian Democrat group EPP and the Conservative group was carried. This resolution basically welcomes what the negotiators have been doing so far, without placing any specific demands on the Commission for further clarifications or assessments.

    http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/acta-resolution-failed/

    basically, these kind of right wing capitalist parties everywhere, are those stripping any freedoms if any profits at stake. this includes any kind of constitutional indispensable, unalienable amendments.

    way to go. and there are still morons who are defending the philosophies of those zygotes. im sure a few will pop into comment after this post. its not like they 'know' that those philosophies will work. its that they WANT them to work, despite it havent worked at any point in human history, for the benefit of the average citizen.

    1. Re:Christian Democrat = Republican by morbingoodkid · · Score: 1

      The bible specifically speak about the coming of the age of peace. Specifically the time when the world will so tightly be controlled that no one will be able to move without being monitored. That you will not be able to trasnsact without being monitored. That all freedoms will be suspended and that Christianity will die as a result. Interesting than supposed Christians are bringing along their own destruction.

    2. Re:Christian Democrat = Republican by unity100 · · Score: 1

      is it even surprising ? 'believe me' is a very strong control tool. belief is something that entities do, without any solid reason or proof. using that, it is easy to herd and shape people. at least the naive ones. the awake ones, will eventually have to go along with the masses, even if they know masses are being deceived.

    3. Re:Christian Democrat = Republican by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Christian democrats are usually both in name only.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  39. Approved or rejected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, explain this to me: the page you linked states that the text as a whole was in fact rejected, 322 to 306. What does this mean? How is the agreement approved, then? Doesn't the whole-text resolution vote count?!

  40. Fuck no by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know who voted for? I want the names.

    1. Re:Fuck no by unity100 · · Score: 1

      http://votewatch.eu/cx_vote_details.php?id_act=456&lang=en

      this is the link of the vote they resolved to have acta content made public. and defend freedoms. you can use that site to find the relevant vote pertaining to this article.

    2. Re:Fuck no by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Thx

    3. Re:Fuck no by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Interesting. The only ones who have voted against were some UK representatives. Nobody from another country voted against it. Incredible. As much as it pains me to say this as a frenchman, those brits have balls.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
  41. Re:Banning FOSS? Can't happen soon enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vast majority of the content on the DVD is compressed, so it just sounds like white noise. Which, indeed, is a hell of a lot better than Miley Cyrus.

  42. hah ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    european parliament DOES have the kickass legislative power, since lisbon treaty a few years ago. they are de facto the approval body of european union. nothing can pass, without their approval since 2 years or so.

  43. youre taking it wrong by unity100 · · Score: 1

    eu parl, has the approval power. if it doesnt approve, it doesnt pass. and eu parl, have demanded that acta be rejected, items against individual liberties removed, with 630 to 30 votes, last year.

  44. You're late by Nemyst · · Score: 1

    Chances are Bill C-32 will do a lot of what ACTA is planning to do and more.

  45. Make it like a movie preview... by Zancarius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The future won't be decided with a gun, but with a videocam. The winning of hearts and minds by using the massive power of propaganda against the very ones that currently wield it against us. THAT is how you can change things now, not writing some OS that 90%+ won't use because it won't play their game o' the week.

    That's actually a brilliant idea. It's a shame we couldn't get some independent director and/or studio to shoot a brief commercial and then pool resources together to show it during prime time television (since most of the population isn't aware of anything unless they're fed the information via TV--sadly). Better yet, make it look like a movie preview with a dark overture of sorts, including the same baritone narration style common to previews. I'd imagine it could start off something like this:

    [Camera pans through a dark office complex or government building with people in suits walking passed. Perhaps a gray haired actor playing the part of a high powered government official could be seen shaking hands with a corporate CEO of sorts.]

    Narrator: Drafted in the darkest bowels of the US federal government lurks a treaty...

    [Scene shifts to a young 13-14 year old boy basking in the soft glow of his monitor.]
    Boy [sounding panicked]: Oh... no...
    [The breaking of glass can be heard in the background as his mother screams. Trampling boots thunder through the house before the door to his room is broken down and armed agents grab the child, dragging him away.]

    Narrator: ...that threatens the very essence of our freedoms.

    [Scene shifts to a group of scruffy and clearly homeless individuals gathered around a burning barrel sharing stories.]

    Bearded homeless man 1: I remember back when I used to be able to buy anything I wanted on the Internet.
    Homeless man 2: Yeah, then they took it all away from us for sharing music. Now, we can't even buy groceries. Ol' Jack over here was forced to give up a kidney for sharing a movie, weren't you Jack?
    *laughter*
    Homeless woman 1: Oh yeah? They took everything away from me just for feeling up a TSA agent.
    *more laughter*

    --

    (Okay, that last part was stretching it a bit.)

    Anyway, you see where this is going--and maybe it's even a little overboard. Regardless, I think your idea is excellent! It needs to be professionally produced, written, and directed in order to capture the attention of the average viewer. Then it needs to be posted to Youtube.

    --
    He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    1. Re:Make it like a movie preview... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Selling a kidney on the black market would definitely be one way of paying the extortionate fines imposed by courts on the **AA's collective behalf.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Make it like a movie preview... by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      Selling a kidney on the black market would definitely be one way of paying the extortionate fines imposed by courts on the **AA's collective behalf.

      There you go! It could cut to another scene where the kid's mother is visiting him in the hospital after hocking his organs.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
  46. Good idea by manaway · · Score: 1

    The future is here. One of the better examples of what you suggest is this vid: Stealing Home. Except it's not propaganda.

  47. Dark overlord is comming by morbingoodkid · · Score: 1

    Bugger.. Considering that I need to circumvent encryption just to view a DVD. Aahh well looks like I'll just stop spending my money on buying DVD's ! I'm sorry to say making laws to protect the rich and suppress the poor does seem a bit like returning to the middle ages. Am I the only one seeing this or am I just paranoid.

  48. All I can say is: by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    The end is near.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  49. 331 to 294? (source indicating opposite) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's this then?

    http://votewatch.eu/cv_vote_details.php?id_act=1189&lang=en
    (Votes for: 306, against: 322)

  50. UK Voters take note by allanclloyds · · Score: 1

    This measure did not pass thanks to opposition from the 13 Labour MEPs who voted AGAINST their fellow social democrats.

  51. Anti-ACTA PVV/UKID MEPs walked away? by Djofulinn · · Score: 1

    It looks like that ACTA is going through because of some kindergarden-esque quarreling between MEPs.

    The British UKID MEP Bloom was removed from the meeting because he accused the German Schulz of being a 'fascist'. Subsequently the Dutch PVV MEPs left the meeting because Schulz has called the Dutch Van der Stoep a fascist earlier and was not punished for that.

    None of the PVV and UKID MEPs voted. I expect the 4 Dutch PVV MEPs to have voted for the proposal (anti-ACTA). It seems that the UKID MEPs walked out as well, because they didn't vote either. Does anyone know what the UKID MEPs would have voted?

    BTW, it was a very close call: 306 against 322: http://votewatch.eu/cx_vote_details.php?id_act=1189

  52. Three strikes? No encryption allowed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Challenge Accepted.

  53. Good news! by formfeed · · Score: 1

    - for the European pirate party. I was afraid, they'd never get above 2%.

  54. Re:Banning FOSS? Can't happen soon enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend of a friend of mine told me that it plays satanic worship music if you do that backwards.