PIPA, SOPA, now ACTA?!

[rastis]

G'day! :wave:

Well it appears that another group similar to SOPA have come up. SOPA appears to just have been a distraction. ACTA are pretty much going to kill people to censor the Internet.

More on ACTA here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Xg_C2YmG0

Cheers!

Jake.

 

[Deano5]

PIPA, SOPA and ACTA, all run by the same people DOGOODA. :wave:

 

[clam1952]

Bit late as this is already up and running http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

 

[mjolnir]

No, it is not already up and running. The article clearly states that this is a proposed action, and further makes no mention that the treaty has been ratified by any government.

ns

 

[clam1952]

No, it is not already up and running. The article clearly states that this is a proposed action, and further makes no mention that the treaty has been ratified by any government.

ns

So what is this then?

A signing ceremony was held on 1 October 2011 in Tokyo, with the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signing the treaty.

 

[Vern]

I wonder how this will affect the importation of *legitimate*. i.e. not counterfeit goods? There are already restrictions on importation of software, e.g. Sony have always been odd about people outside Japan getting hold of the Densha de Go train games (or Asian Playstations to run them on). Likewise Amazon US will only ship certain items outside North America, most definitely not games.

The Wiki article is quite complex but I wonder how long before this is applied to personal import of DVD's and Blu-Rays, e.g. to the UK from the US. This is hardly a breach of copyright as the buyer is purchasing a genuine copy, usually because the studio has not released the title in their country.

It is supposed to be a free world for trade but not, it seems, where software, games, films etc. is concerned with big "bully boy" corporations drawing up their own restrictions then trying to get these enshrined in law.

 

[wreeder]

So what is this then?

A signing ceremony was held on 1 October 2011 in Tokyo, with the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signing the treaty.

Signing a treaty does not mean that it has been ratified and therefore in force. In the USA, all treaties must be ratified by the Senate to be binding to persons living in the USA. The Kyoto treaty is a good example, Clinton signed it but the Senate voted not to ratify it 98 to 2.

 

[Thorinoakin]

Signing a treaty does not mean that it has been ratified and therefore in force. In the USA, all treaties must be ratified by the Senate to be binding to persons living in the USA. The Kyoto treaty is a good example, Clinton signed it but the Senate voted not to ratify it 98 to 2.

What wreeder says is very true. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitio...d-protect-our-right-privacy-internet/MwfSVNBK if ye wish to sign the petition fer it besides contacting ye senators etc.

 

[RRSignal]

Why to oppose SOPA, PIPA and ACTA...

 

[Deano5]

Well if everybody stuck together for a few months and and kept away from the rip off big boys in these industries by not buying any music, films or other gumf, maybe they would rethink their strategies.
But everyone will keep on giving them their money and they will just get more and more greedy.
They get nothing from me. :wave:

 

[Red_Rattler]

I had a post in here, yet it seems I can't find it. This thread was in the top few of my User CP tab.

But as I did to summarise, the US should stop trying to dictate their laws on the rest of the world.

 

[bl4882]

"But as I did to summarise, the US should stop trying to dictate their laws on the rest of the world."

Most respectfully I disagree. The problem is not the US or any other particular government. The problem is governments of any description or type making their power available to commercial competitors to convert everyday activities into crimes so as to maximize short term profits.

Politicians, largely, have accomplished little other than getting elected, usually by making irredemable promises in exchange for votes. They are the last people you would want to sponsor well thought out legislation regarding basic human rights such as, say, free expression and exchange of ideas, which threaten their arrogated power. But that is what you get when you concede them the omnipotence. That did not used to, but now includes, but is certainly not unique to the US.

Bernie

 

[Satyr]

Democracy

G'day,

And then there are still people who believe we livein a democrcy, time to wke up and smell the coffee.

Have a good one,
E.C.

 

[wholbr]

Hi Everybody
Although I agree with much of what has been stated in the postings on this thread I have to say that I feel something has to be done with regard to intellectual rights to documents posted or past through the Internet.

I own my own business now employing five people. We were recently contracted to install a complete safety regime for a company moving into Somerset uk and setting up in hot processing plastics manufacture. After many weeks of work at considerable cost to our customer the work was completed. The information was then requested by a county council who were considering buying products for school playgrounds etc. The information which included risk assessments, toxicity level guarantees and other production information was sent off to the council along with the companies health and safety policy and equal opportunity information all written by my company where sent off by our customer through the Internet.

Within two weeks of the county council obtaining the information it had been leaked to at least two of our customers competitors who are foreign owned and many parts such as risk assessments etc where plagiarised word for word in their online documentation at no cost to those competitors. No doubt our customer could take legal action but it would cost them many thousands of pounds and months in courts perhaps international to rectify the situation. By then the damage will have been done.

Somerset UK badly needs the jobs is being provided by this new company, therefore you have two ask is the law too lenient on those who obtain intellectual documentation illegally and then use it for their own gain.

Perhaps it's just the other side of why at least some legislation change is needed with regard to the Internet and downloading.

Bill

 

[RRSignal]

YET more evidence SOPA/PIPA were never needed

http://news.yahoo.com/sports-piracy-websites-seized-pre-super-bowl-181636534--nfl.html sorry I'd post a quote but the new forums configuration completely sucks.

 

[sparky15]

These "laws" are not going away. To many deep pockets pushing it. Get used to the fact that the internet is going to be censored.*
The "Arab Spring" scares governments to no end. Hollywood and recording artists have been waging a war for years to protect profits.*
I wish I could blame just my government but the fears of the internet reach to deep into many places. Saudis are buying up social media for fear the Arab Spring might reach their doorstep. Add that to an entertainment industry, we will lose. It's beyond that. ACTA has a lot of countries with a lot to lose behind it.
It's deeper than you think.

Dave......

 

[korikovaVL80]

this is terrible, west government making bad decisions, this censor will lead to nothing good. and i would suggest people to stop buying things from corporations since they are doing all this to stop our daily lives.

i remember i read some woman in USA had to pay millions in penalty, for just downloading some songs. this is hillarious

if ACTA goes to law, i will never buy anything from corporations, no music, no movies, nothing! they have no right to censor what i do on my daily life

 

[mjolnir]

The ...<snippage>...information all written by my company where sent off by our customer through the Internet.

Within two weeks of the county council obtaining the information it had been leaked to at least two of our customers competitors ...<snippage>...

Bill,

Perhaps you could clarify a couple of points. First, on what basis do you assume that the activities at which ACTA (or SOPA / PIPA, for that matter) are targeted are at play here? The reason I ask, is that in 1983, I was working in freight sales, and prepared a bid to provide freight services to a large client, including a detailed bid package. Since this was before the internet (and indeed early enough that PC's were rare), it was all hand typed, and hand delivered to the client a week in advance of the bid deadline. When time came to award the bid, the winning bid was identical to the one I had prepared (including some mis-usage of words), except that it was submitted by a competitor, and was a couple of cents per hundredweight lower than the bid I prepared.

If pressed for an opinion, I'd guess that what happened was not that your internet communication was intercepted (although it might have been), but more likely that the information was obtained after the council received the information, whether with the aid and assistance of a someone affiliated with the council, or through some other means.

As I read the matter, nothing in ACTA would prevent a recurrence of the incident you relate.

ns
there's just not enough information here to know for certain that this

 

[RRSignal]

Bill,

Perhaps you could clarify a couple of points. First, on what basis do you assume that the activities at which ACTA (or SOPA / PIPA, for that matter) are targeted are at play here? The reason I ask, is that in 1983, I was working in freight sales, and prepared a bid to provide freight services to a large client, including a detailed bid package. Since this was before the internet (and indeed early enough that PC's were rare), it was all hand typed, and hand delivered to the client a week in advance of the bid deadline. When time came to award the bid, the winning bid was identical to the one I had prepared (including some mis-usage of words), except that it was submitted by a competitor, and was a couple of cents per hundredweight lower than the bid I prepared.

If pressed for an opinion, I'd guess that what happened was not that your internet communication was intercepted (although it might have been), but more likely that the information was obtained after the council received the information, whether with the aid and assistance of a someone affiliated with the council, or through some other means.

As I read the matter, nothing in ACTA would prevent a recurrence of the incident you relate.

ns
there's just not enough information here to know for certain that this

I missed his post. SOPA/PIPA are not in any way intended to address electronic eavesdropping; if anything, it will lower the barriers which are already low as it is since big media is asking for stronger enforcement capabilities.

It sounds like what happened to Bill was exactly as you described: someone in the corrupt county council leaked the information. Happens all the time, everywhere. That's what happens when government becomes involved - why some people seriously think government is on their side is beyond me. Had the country council not been involved, the leak probably would not have occurred and someone may not have made a quick buck at the expense of Bill's client.

Even if electronic eavesdropping were involved, there are already laws supposed to protect us against that. However, people disregard such laws all the time. As one who has been on the front lines of this since the 90's, I can tell you that virtually every of the hundreds of thousands of malware breaks some law. Yet, it's extremely rare that government makes even a half-assed attempt at enforcement against those who put it there/benefit from it, and then, usually only when it immediately negatively affects them or a close ally/partner. But if the beneficiary happened to be with a competitor who paid off/was closely tied to someone in Bill's county council, and, thus, benefited from the electronic interception, then, sure, odds are almost non-existent that any kind of enforcement effort would have even been attempted, unless Bill's client had some good, solid proof and the time and money to go to court.

 

[wholbr]

Bill,

Perhaps you could clarify a couple of points. First, on what basis do you assume that the activities at which ACTA (or SOPA / PIPA, for that matter) are targeted are at play here? The reason I ask, is that in 1983, I was working in freight sales, and prepared a bid to provide freight services to a large client, including a detailed bid package. Since this was before the internet (and indeed early enough that PC's were rare), it was all hand typed, and hand delivered to the client a week in advance of the bid deadline. When time came to award the bid, the winning bid was identical to the one I had prepared (including some mis-usage of words), except that it was submitted by a competitor, and was a couple of cents per hundredweight lower than the bid I prepared.

If pressed for an opinion, I'd guess that what happened was not that your internet communication was intercepted (although it might have been), but more likely that the information was obtained after the council received the information, whether with the aid and assistance of a someone affiliated with the council, or through some other means.

As I read the matter, nothing in ACTA would prevent a recurrence of the incident you relate.

ns
there's just not enough information here to know for certain that this

Hi RSignal and Everybody.
To be honest RSingnal being American legislation still going through Congress as I understand it, I would not be sure of the details or its likely effects on other countries throughout the world. What I was trying to “get going” is a constructive debate on this forum as to the best way of reducing the downloading of intellectual rights material which could be highly damaging to companies and jobs and at the same time would not restrict someone who just wishes to download a music track for its own use.

To answer your question regarding the company safety regime which has been “pirated” by other companies through distribution via the Internet generally it comes down to tendering procedure here in the UK. It is very common for a prospective customer on receiving a tender for services or goods to request the tendering company to produce its safety policy and documents, employee terms and conditions and with many large retail companies details of wage rates etc. The thinking behind this as far as the customer is concerned is that they would not want the press to suddenly come out with a statement that one of its suppliers had its employees working in unsafe sweatshop conditions.

In the above manner the safety information by way of risk assessments, toxicity guarantees and Hotline Manufacturing procedures produced by my company for our customer was forwarded to the county council in question by our customer via Internet transmission (as requested) and then leaked to that company's competitors following that in all likelihood. Someone within the Council probably got a very good “back hander” for their action by sending it out via the Internet to those only to glad to receive it. It is very much not unknown

In the good old-fashioned days when everything was sent through the post in hardcopy to a specific person it was undoubtedly more difficult for the above leaks to occur as people would have to have risked photocopying and posting which would have been much easier to spot or trace by their employer.

One good thing to come out of it is that one of the companies who received this is stolen or pirated material (whichever way you look at it) has our assessments and other material on their website as generic assessments when we in fact did the assessments as specific or operational. That may well land them in big trouble if anything goes wrong.

Bill
good thread this one, look forward to a good debate after our enforced absence