PDA

View Full Version : Richard Stallman's ominous Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement warning...



Linewbie
April 4th, 2009, 11:31 PM
Obama passing new law to allow searching of PC's, Laptops, and media devices
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHzKxtwuGzo

Richard Stallman's comments at 1:10:
"We wouldn't like it if we knew.
They're trying to do policy-laundering.
Democracy gets bypassed and they can do to us whatever they want.
I can only guess that it's going to be nasty,
because if it weren't going to be nasty
they wouldn't need to keep it a secret."

BobLand
April 4th, 2009, 11:50 PM
Given the efficiency of government, I wouldn't worry too much about this.

BuffaloX
April 4th, 2009, 11:52 PM
Was this posted April 1?

This is the most outrageous copywrong law proposal I've ever seen.

Linewbie
April 5th, 2009, 12:11 AM
Unfortunately, it's NOT a joke, I posted it today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Administration Declares Proposed IP Treaty a 'National Security' Secret
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/obama-declares.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial list of corporate lickspittles who are allowed to know what's in the secret copyright treaty the Obama administration claims is a matter of "national security"
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/14/partial-list-of-corp.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, it's okay that a bunch of corporations/lobbyists know the details of this "national security" secret, but the citizens are out of the loop!
Since when is copyright = national security???

And when did Obama first utter the phrase "open government"?

blastus
April 5th, 2009, 12:37 AM
I live in Canada so this doesn't effect me, but our government eventually follows hook-line-and-sinker almost everything the U.S. government does. Up here bill C-61 fell apart but a more nasty one is around the corner. Our governments are caving into the U.S.-based MPAA, RIAA, BSA, IIPA, and dozens of other organizations and passing LAWS without the input from anyone but the copyright holders themselves. Copyright crimes are being lifted on par and sometimes above (concerning legal consequences) serious crimes like murder, rape, assault, robberies, weapons and drug trafficking and law enforcement agencies are being stretched thin.

Sealbhach
April 5th, 2009, 12:43 AM
I don't get this? If someone is arrested on suspicion of a crime, police already get rights to search a person's computer to find evidence. Which I personally think is OK.

What's the difference with this?


.

uc50_ic4more
April 5th, 2009, 01:08 AM
I don't get this? If someone is arrested on suspicion of a crime, police already get rights to search a person's computer to find evidence. Which I personally think is OK.

What's the difference with this?

Copyright infringement, as is stated in the video, is at present a civil affair in the U.S., not a criminal one. Law enforcement being able to invade your privacy and confiscate, then pilfer through your possessions because you are suspected of a civil offense? That is Orwellian kinda scary.

Sealbhach
April 5th, 2009, 01:36 AM
Thanks. I would have thought this would be used against people who make an industry out of distributing copyrighted stuff without permission - sort of like that recent Pirate Bay case?

.

Linewbie
April 5th, 2009, 01:39 AM
Here's another good link:

IP Justice White Paper on the Proposed
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/25/ipj-white-paper-acta-2008/

ubuntu27
April 5th, 2009, 01:40 AM
THis is aweful!!

WE have to spread awareness about this.

Mehall
April 5th, 2009, 01:46 AM
Thanks. I would have thought this would be used against people who make an industry out of distributing copyrighted stuff without permission - sort of like that recent Pirate Bay case?

.

You mean the one the guys form TPB are gonna win?

They can't win in the courts, so they're going through BS laws.

And really? you think the RIAA/MPAA/MAFIAA will stop at TPB/MiniNova/isohunt etc? We already know they don't mind suing Grannies and kids.... =[

Sealbhach
April 5th, 2009, 01:51 AM
I dunno, I just don't worry about these things because I never intentionally infringe copyright. I see that the thread title mentions "Anti-Counterfeiting"... again I don't sell any software that I have no right to sell.

In the UK, the police can stop and search you in the street, but they don't use these powers much, only when they have reasonable grounds.

.

uc50_ic4more
April 5th, 2009, 01:53 AM
Thanks. I would have thought this would be used against people who make an industry out of distributing copyrighted stuff without permission - sort of like that recent Pirate Bay case?

I am quite sure that a huge majority, if not all legislation is introduced with good intentions, better enabling Big Brother to go after "bad guys". History, though, teaches us two things:

1) Entrusting government to define "bad guys" is going to eventually get out of control.

2) Entrusting government to limit themselves out of decency and restraint when laws do not limit them will eventually get out of control.

uc50_ic4more
April 5th, 2009, 01:59 AM
In the UK, the police can stop and search you in the street, but they don't use these powers much, only when they have reasonable grounds.

It's probably not quite so harmless for those with whom the government finds fault.

It's not that they necessarily abuse the powers *now*. It's that eventually they will. It creeps incrementally over generations until you find yourself being searched on the street by someone to whom you've given no authority, but claims it over you anyhow.

blastus
April 5th, 2009, 02:10 AM
The way things are going, I think that in 15 or 20 years from now the Internet will be mostly a gateway to other alternate networks such as Freenet and the Darknet. These alternate internets will be highly resistant to any government threats against them. Law abiding citizens will use them because they are tired of being spied on and tired of being constantly harassed.

t0p
April 5th, 2009, 02:16 AM
I dunno, I just don't worry about these things because I never intentionally infringe copyright. I see that the thread title mentions "Anti-Counterfeiting"... again I don't sell any software that I have no right to sell.

In the UK, the police can stop and search you in the street, but they don't use these powers much, only when they have reasonable grounds.

.

Maybe where you live the police are wonderfully polite, but round my way the police are abusing their stop and search powers every day.

Maybe you're right. You're not a copyright infringer so you don't need to care if the new law burns offenders at the stake. Why should you care about what happens to other people?

blastus
April 5th, 2009, 02:22 AM
Maybe where you live the police are wonderfully polite, but round my way the police are abusing their stop and search powers every day.

Maybe you're right. You're not a copyright infringer so you don't need to care if the new law burns offenders at the stake. Why should you care about what happens to other people?

The larger issue is that it has been repeatedly stated and demonstrated that copyright holders do NOT need any proof of copyright infringement to pursue legal action against someone AND there is no legal recourse or anything that can be made against copyright holders for abusively false claims.

Grant A.
April 5th, 2009, 02:23 AM
If people didn't pirate in the first place, then we wouldn't have to worry about these crap-filled and lobbyist-made laws...

Pirates have only brought this upon themselves. A grateful thanks from me and everyone else here for screwing it up for the rest of us law-abiding citizens. :evil:

Sealbhach
April 5th, 2009, 02:27 AM
If people didn't pirate in the first place, then we wouldn't have to worry about these crap-filled and lobbyist-made laws...

Pirates have only brought this upon themselves. A grateful thanks from me and everyone else here for screwing it up for the rest of us law-abiding citizens. :evil:

+1.

And in most countries, the courts rein in the politicians if they enact laws which are too harsh (assuming the country has a decent constitution).

.

SunnyRabbiera
April 5th, 2009, 02:40 AM
The more laws are passed the more law breakers will come.
It wont last.

MikeTheC
April 5th, 2009, 02:41 AM
I would strongly encourage all of you folks to get a copy of the latest 2600 mag. It has an article which is directly germain to this. It's on pages 6 and 7, and it's an article entitled "ATA Security Exposed". While it doesn't talk about the ACTA legislation, it does explain how data can be recovered from a HDD even if you do one of those 35-pass wipes, and steps you can take to ensure the data on the drive is essentially useless if not, in fact, actually able to be removed.

If this goes through, I think people are going to seriously need to look at switching to Linux, since if this is going to be enforced under criminal statutes, it probably also means they're going to force commercial OS vendors into facilitating data recovery.

I wonder what this will do to the effective legality of running Linux...

SunnyRabbiera
April 5th, 2009, 02:42 AM
I would strongly encourage all of you folks to get a copy of the latest 2600 mag. It has an article which is directly germain to this. It's on pages 6 and 7, and it's an article entitled "ATA Security Exposed". While it doesn't talk about the ACTA legislation, it does explain how data can be recovered from a HDD even if you do one of those 35-pass wipes, and steps you can take to ensure the data on the drive is essentially useless if not, in fact, actually able to be removed.

If this goes through, I think people are going to seriously need to look at switching to Linux, since if this is going to be enforced under criminal statutes, it probably also means they're going to force commercial OS vendors into facilitating data recovery.

I wonder what this will do to the effective legality of running Linux...

Linux would become a target for sure, we just lack the muscle to protect ourselves.

MikeTheC
April 5th, 2009, 02:48 AM
Linux would become a target for sure, we just lack the muscle to protect ourselves.

I think we need to party like it's, oh, I dunno... December 16, 1773.

SunnyRabbiera
April 5th, 2009, 02:52 AM
I doubt that it will have any effect anyhow, piracy will only get worse now because of this...
The war is not over yet.

blastus
April 5th, 2009, 02:53 AM
If people didn't pirate in the first place, then we wouldn't have to worry about these crap-filled and lobbyist-made laws...

Pirates have only brought this upon themselves. A grateful thanks from me and everyone else here for screwing it up for the rest of us law-abiding citizens. :evil:

Technically almost everyone in North America is a pirate:

- If you have ever watched a DVD movie on Linux you are a pirate
- If you have ever backed up a DVD movie you legitimately bought and transferred it onto another device you are a pirate
- If you have ever recorded and kept a digital broadcast with a no-copy flag on your DVR you are a pirate
- If you have ever watched TV on the Internet you are a pirate
- If you have ever watched much of anything on YouTube you are a pirate (copying is copying in this case the video is copied to your local harddrive)
- If you have ever tried circumventing Sony's rootkit to prevent damage to your computer you are a pirate
- If you have ever downloaded a crack for a game you legitimately bought because it couldn't run on your computer because of SecuROM you are a pirate
- If you have ever downloaded a TV episode because you missed it on your cablebox the other night you are a pirate
- If you have ever run Vista (not Ultimate) in a VM you are a pirate...

MikeTheC
April 5th, 2009, 02:53 AM
A follow-up to my prior post. I know this is technically "political", what I'm about to say, but I'm going to keep it clean, straight, and to the point:

In the United States, "treaty law" is the only thing which trumps the Constitution. You need to understand this because, fundamentally, that's what's going on here. They're keeping this all top secret and hush-hush to get it through. Once it's done, it will not be assailable by the court system, even the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter that this is going to be a huge breech, and it won't matter if it is, in fact, completely unconstitutional. It'll be treaty law, and therefore above the Constitution. And, if any of the other countries of the world are anything like the U.S. in this respect, you'll probably also all find out even if you want to protest the law, you will have no legal grounds to stand on to do so. And by then, it will actually be too late, even if you were, for argument's sake, to base your future voting decisions on who supported this treaty.

The time to stop this is now. If we wait until afterward, it will be too late.

Mr. Picklesworth
April 5th, 2009, 02:58 AM
Technically almost everyone in North America is a pirate:

- If you have ever watched a DVD movie on Linux you are a pirate
- If you have ever backed up a DVD movie you legitimately bought and transferred it onto another device you are a pirate
- If you have ever recorded and kept a digital broadcast with a no-copy flag on your DVR you are a pirate
- If you have ever watched TV on the Internet you are a pirate
- If you have ever watched much of anything on YouTube you are a pirate (copying is copying in this case the video is copied to your local harddrive)
- If you have ever tried circumventing Sony's rootkit to prevent damage to your computer you are a pirate
- If you have ever downloaded a crack for a game you legitimately bought because it couldn't run on your computer because of SecuROM you are a pirate
- If you have ever downloaded a TV episode because you missed it on your cablebox the other night you are a pirate
- If you have ever run Vista (not Ultimate) in a VM you are a pirate...

Oh, when do I get my own ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Island_(series))?

(Nice point about running Vista in a VM. Forgot about that! I'm guilty on quite a few counts, then. For TV watching I strictly use the Internet, going on the moralization that my employer pays for cable and the few shows I watch are often aired while I am working there. Everything else is on a free over-the-air broadcaster, often even publicly funded. All I'm doing is removing potential stress from the infrastructure and ignoring ads as I do anyway).

blastus
April 5th, 2009, 03:05 AM
Oh, when do I get my own ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Island_(series))?

(Nice point about running Vista in a VM. Forgot about that! I'm guilty on quite a few counts, then. For TV watching I strictly use the Internet, going on the moralization that my employer pays for cable and the few shows I watch are often aired while I am working there. Everything else is on a free over-the-air broadcaster, often even publicly funded. All I'm doing is removing potential stress from the infrastructure and ignoring ads as I do anyway).

Ha ha having to prove intent is such an *onerous* concept -- IIPA

cardinals_fan
April 5th, 2009, 03:07 AM
@blastus: I have never done any of these, except watching TV online which IS legal if done through legal channels.

What bothers me here isn't this particular law (I am not a pirate, and I doubt if this will be administered competently enough to violate my privacy). It's the precedent that is set. Allowing search and seizure this lightly is dangerous, and MikeTheC is spot on about the consequences.

Grant A.
April 5th, 2009, 03:14 AM
Technically almost everyone in North America is a pirate:

- If you have ever watched a DVD movie on Linux you are a pirate
- If you have ever backed up a DVD movie you legitimately bought and transferred it onto another device you are a pirate
- If you have ever recorded and kept a digital broadcast with a no-copy flag on your DVR you are a pirate
- If you have ever watched TV on the Internet you are a pirate
- If you have ever watched much of anything on YouTube you are a pirate (copying is copying in this case the video is copied to your local harddrive)
- If you have ever tried circumventing Sony's rootkit to prevent damage to your computer you are a pirate
- If you have ever downloaded a crack for a game you legitimately bought because it couldn't run on your computer because of SecuROM you are a pirate
- If you have ever downloaded a TV episode because you missed it on your cablebox the other night you are a pirate
- If you have ever run Vista (not Ultimate) in a VM you are a pirate...

I've never done any of that, and I live in the U.S.A. :)

blastus
April 5th, 2009, 03:17 AM
I've never done any of that, and I live in the U.S.A. :)

I'm sure we could find some pirate activity no? ;)

MaxIBoy
April 5th, 2009, 03:18 AM
I can just put all my stuff in an encrypted LVM so they can't look through anything on my laptop. If they decide to confiscate my laptop "just in case," I could always have backups at home.

But now I'm going to have to go to all that trouble, and not everyone is savvy enough to do this. And of course, the fact that they'd even try is deeply disturbing.


I fear the worst.

Mehall
April 5th, 2009, 03:22 AM
I can just put all my stuff in an encrypted LVM so they can't look through anything on my laptop. If they decide to confiscate my laptop "just in case," I could always have backups at home.

But now I'm going to have to go to all that trouble, and not everyone is savvy enough to do this. And of course, the fact that they'd even try is deeply disturbing.


I fear the worst.

The fact is, anyone who is planning any terrorist attacks, or is hiding any kiddie porn, can easily find out how to make a TrueCrypt container, and that essentially stumps the Police. If you make copyright theft as illegal as kiddie porn, which is what this does, soon everybody will have trucrypt on their computer.


2 years and no fine in prison for refusal to give your password or god only knows how long in prison for whatever you have downloaded, plus a massive fine,

blastus
April 5th, 2009, 03:22 AM
I can just put all my stuff in an encrypted LVM so they can't look through anything on my laptop. If they decide to confiscate my laptop "just in case," I could always have backups at home.

But now I'm going to have to go to all that trouble, and not everyone is savvy enough to do this. And of course, the fact that they'd even try is deeply disturbing.

Fedora 11 Beta has a checkbox that enables you to encrypt your installation very easily. No alternate CD with a text installer is required. I found Compiz fairly unstable on Fedora though, Ubuntu got Compiz right.

MikeTheC
April 5th, 2009, 03:27 AM
I've never done any of that, and I live in the U.S.A. :)

Hey Grant, eh, you live in the States, eh?

Sealbhach
April 5th, 2009, 03:32 AM
In the United States, "treaty law" is the only thing which trumps the Constitution. You need to understand this because, fundamentally, that's what's going on here.

I was a little taken aback at that so I did some Googling. It doesn't seem to be correct.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html


Controversy over the Holmes language apparently led Justice Black in Reid v. Covert 335 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html#f335) to deny that the difference in language of the supremacy clause with regard to statutes and with regard to treaties was relevant to the status of treaties as inferior to the Constitution. ''There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. ......... It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights--let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition--to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.'' 336 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html#f336)



Also this:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kgZ5FRbMbs0C&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=constitution+prevails+over+treaties&source=bl&ots=3BrVINe7E3&sig=H3_u7LyLr5xxfPZXcFdAA6sH4S0&hl=en&ei=-xbYSZG9HYShjAfCv_SVDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

It would be strange if Congress and the President could enter into foreign treaties which violate the Constitution.


.

Pogeymanz
April 5th, 2009, 03:41 AM
The way things are going, I think that in 15 or 20 years from now the Internet will be mostly a gateway to other alternate networks such as Freenet and the Darknet. These alternate internets will be highly resistant to any government threats against them. Law abiding citizens will use them because they are tired of being spied on and tired of being constantly harassed.

Hell, I'd use them now. I'm already convinced that we (in the US) are being watched thanks to The Patriot Act.

MikeTheC
April 5th, 2009, 03:42 AM
Fedora 11 Beta has a checkbox that enables you to encrypt your installation very easily. No alternate CD with a text installer is required. I found Compiz fairly unstable on Fedora though, Ubuntu got Compiz right.

For that matter, even Mac OS X allows you to store all user data in an encrypted container.

Of course, since this treaty law could very well pre-empt the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" (and how would we citizens know, it's all "classified"?) the question to be asked is not really so much a technical one as it is a very practical one. And that is: What are we going to do about this?

Consider: You have a computer and have on it whatever you happen to have on it. Let's assume for the sake of argument that whether or not you have materials of a violating nature -- however much of an "on a technicality" degree they may be -- you have nothing on the computer that's truly horrible. Some ripped music, email, photos, couple downloaded videos, whatever... (and even if we made this the hypothetical case of you having absolutely not one single even slightly illegal file)... so you decide to encrypt your HDD's contents from the start, so that there's no recoverable data. You get nabbed, computer gets taken, they check it out, and demand your key(s). Since you've really not been a bad person and (in reality) have done nothing to actually deserve punishment, you refuse.

Well, under conventional "constitutional" legal theory, there would really need to be some kind of probable cause for them to go much further, and even if it turned into an abuse-of-power situation, you could have your day in court and, in theory at least, get the authorities in trouble for doing what they did.

However, under treaty law-dictated regulations, as long as they're enforcing the treaty law, they can do whatever they like, and there's perhaps nothing in the way of legal remedy. You could try to counterclaim false imprisonment, violation of civil rights, failure to "give you your rights", unreasonable interrogation, attempts at inducing self-incrimination... whatever... and you could even have them 100% dead to rights, with stacks-full of proof and documentation. But those are constitutional rights. The Constitution cannot stand in the way of treaty law, and so whatever means were used to uphold treaty law cannot be assailed by the Constitution, since that could be viewed as either infringing upon or even violating the treaty law.

So, in short, we can sit here and laugh this up all we want, but at the end of the day, we have to face the fact that all of us are looking down the end of a barrel with this thing.

MikeTheC
April 5th, 2009, 03:47 AM
I was a little taken aback at that so I did some Googling. It doesn't seem to be correct.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html



Also this:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kgZ5FRbMbs0C&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=constitution+prevails+over+treaties&source=bl&ots=3BrVINe7E3&sig=H3_u7LyLr5xxfPZXcFdAA6sH4S0&hl=en&ei=-xbYSZG9HYShjAfCv_SVDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

It would be strange if Congress and the President could enter into foreign treaties which violate the Constitution.


.

Sealbhach:

I understand how you feel. However, if you look at a far earlier portion of the text you quoted, you'll find the following:


Treaty commitments of the United States are of two kinds. In the language of Chief Justice Marshall in 1829: ''A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished; especially, so far as its operation is intraterritorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument.

''In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract--when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.'' 265 To the same effect, but more accurate, is Justice Miller's language for the Court a half century later, in the Head Money Cases: ''A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the governments which are parties of it. . . . But a treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights upon the citizens or subjects of one of the nations residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law, and which are capable of enforcement as between private parties in the courts of the country.'' 266

Pogeymanz
April 5th, 2009, 03:49 AM
Do you think other countries are really going to be on board with this thing?

I just can't believe how 1984 this thing sounds. Surely other world leaders must see that too...

MikeTheC
April 5th, 2009, 03:55 AM
Do you think other countries are really going to be on board with this thing?

I just can't believe how 1984 this thing sounds. Surely other world leaders must see that too...

One could only hope that a "reasonable person" would find such things utterly draconian and unacceptable. I find them draconian and utterly unacceptable. However, it would seem to be the case that you've got a bunch of leaders jumping on the bandwagon on this thing so they can look like they're doing something to help "combat theft", and of course so they can benefit from the various different financial efforts of the business sponsors.

And, if nothing else folks, and Sealbhach, I'm looking at you on this as well, if you honestly believe treaty law to be inferior to the Constitution (which I wish to God it was), and if you think that judges and our government (otherwise) wouldn't stand up for citizens being railroaded like this, then can you please explain to me why in the name of heck they're doing this all covertly and guardedly and in hushed tones? If they're doing something that's on the up-and-up, why are they trying to hide it from us? (Don't misunderstand, I'm not angry or upset with you two, or anyone else here on the board. It's just I'm trying to make sense of this as much as any of the rest of you are.)

wmcbrine
April 5th, 2009, 04:18 AM
There is nothing in what you quoted to contradict the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law in the U.S. I really don't know where you get that.

When I see things like this, my hope is that it represents a carry-over from the Bush administration, and not actual Obama policy. But I don't know. I do know that it will take years, not just months, to fully reshape the government towards openness, assuming that's what he really wants to do. It should be understood that there's tremendous inertia in government, and that even a sincere reformer faces an uphill battle.

cardinals_fan
April 5th, 2009, 04:19 AM
@blastus:

1. I do not believe that I have any pirate activity in my history. I haven't done any of the things on your list. If you'd like to provide some others, I can address those as well.

2. Encyption is both easy and valid. Remember, people; this is the federal government of the United States. Competence is unlikely. Encrypting the whole disk might raise some eyebrows, but it would be perfectly easy to encrypt a few key files and scatter them around the file system. Do you honestly believe that the drones performing these menial jobs will care?

@all:

Even if it doesn't represent an immediate threat, the precedent set and idea behind this is still disturbing. Just because this doesn't affect you doesn't mean that it's aftershocks might not in the future.

Dr. C
April 5th, 2009, 04:35 AM
Technically almost everyone in North America is a pirate:

- If you have ever watched a DVD movie on Linux you are a pirate
- If you have ever backed up a DVD movie you legitimately bought and transferred it onto another device you are a pirate
- If you have ever recorded and kept a digital broadcast with a no-copy flag on your DVR you are a pirate
- If you have ever watched TV on the Internet you are a pirate
- If you have ever watched much of anything on YouTube you are a pirate (copying is copying in this case the video is copied to your local harddrive)
- If you have ever tried circumventing Sony's rootkit to prevent damage to your computer you are a pirate
- If you have ever downloaded a crack for a game you legitimately bought because it couldn't run on your computer because of SecuROM you are a pirate
- If you have ever downloaded a TV episode because you missed it on your cablebox the other night you are a pirate
- If you have ever run Vista (not Ultimate) in a VM you are a pirate...
In the United States yes in Canada no. Bill C-61 aka "The Canadian DMCA" died on the order paper last year when parliament was dissolved for an election. Canada has yet to implement the WIPO treaties from the 1990's to the chagrin of the copyright lobby.

Richard Stallman has a very valid point. Why treat these treaty negotiations as a matter of state secret? The fear from the lobbyists is that if the proposed treaty is leaked out, the public outcry will be such that it will die real fast.

wmcbrine
April 5th, 2009, 04:44 AM
P.S. I meant to add:


Copyright infringement, as is stated in the video, is at present a civil affair in the U.S., not a criminal one.The video is wrong. There was a time when that was true, but copyright infringement has been criminalized for many years already -- since at least the DMCA.

MaxIBoy
April 5th, 2009, 05:10 AM
P.S. I meant to add:

The video is wrong. There was a time when that was true, but copyright infringement has been criminalized for many years already -- since at least the DMCA.
Which passed in, what, '98 or something?

MikeTheC
April 5th, 2009, 05:21 AM
There is nothing in what you quoted to contradict the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law in the U.S. I really don't know where you get that.

The quote I put up, which obviously contradicts (and is contradicted by) the section that Sealbhach put up, states that Treaty Law which is signed onto by the U.S. gets supported as though it were domestic legislation.

I would like to add, but honestly I'm not sure exactly where to look for it, other precedents to this as well, none the least of which are such things as land patent grants, allodial titles, etc., all of which I believe are intertwined with how treaties and such are recognized in this country. I know that may seem a bit wide and vague and maybe even crazed-fool-on-something tin-foil-hat in nature, but I assure you I'm as straight, sane and sober as anyone else here.

Please also understand something: I'm not "dying" to be right on this issue. Believe me, if there was ever anything I wanted to be "wrong" about, it's this. It's just I have this sick feeling that I'm actually not wrong.


P.S. I meant to add:

The video is wrong. There was a time when that was true, but copyright infringement has been criminalized for many years already -- since at least the DMCA.

No, violating copyright is (still) a civil matter. *Circumventing* copyright enforcement techniques is a criminal matter.

If I were to copyright the word "Fooshaznagbar" and you used it without permission, you would have violated my copyright, and therefore be in violation of copyright law, which defines this as being a civil matter. I could sue you. Who knows, I might actually sue you because my multi-billion-dollar bailout check never made it to my mailbox. With this ACTA thing, you'd actually now be a criminal.

Should you give me my due for a copyright I hold? Sure. Should you become a convicted felon and spend years in jail and pay tons in state restitution (none of which, by the way, would I ever see since that just goes into the coffers of "the State")? Heck no! It's overkill for you, and it does nothing for me. Besides, I'd have to still go after you civilly, and if you were in jail and up to your eyeballs in criminal penalties, would you even have the capacity to pay me my due? Of course not! Anyhow, just sayin'...

wmcbrine
April 5th, 2009, 06:56 AM
... Treaty Law which is signed onto by the U.S. gets supported as though it were domestic legislation.Right. And legislation is routinely overturned by the courts when it's found to be unconstitutional. So this does not support your contention that a treaty can trump the Constitution.


No, violating copyright is (still) a civil matter. *Circumventing* copyright enforcement techniques is a criminal matter.Not only that. See here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWE/is_4_8/ai_n6108144/), for example. (This actually pushes the advent of criminal copyright infringement back into the 19th century!)

I fully agree that copyright infringement ought to be purely civil, but it's not that way.


If I were to copyright the word "Fooshaznagbar"(Off on a tangent here, but...) You can't copyright something like a single word. At most, you could trademark it.

MikeTheC
April 5th, 2009, 07:05 AM
Right. And legislation is routinely overturned by the courts when it's found to be unconstitutional. So this does not support your contention that a treaty can trump the Constitution.

But how do you overturn something that's not actual legislation?

Alright...

Does anyone have any data (or can anyone find any data) on there being specific examples of overturning of *any* treaty law, and how and by whom it was successfully overturned?

Linewbie
April 5th, 2009, 09:21 AM
This is just a general comment about the ACTA treaty, people can argue that if you've done nothing wrong then you're safe. I would argue, that if the governments of the world have access to most of the world's PCs, then they could very easily make an example of political enemies. Microsoft can't or won't protect your civil liberties, Apple won't protect you, Symantec and McAffee etc etc won't protect you either. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and if you're a troublemaker (i.e. democracy demonstrator etc) then you could become the victim of a new "red" scare. Oh, and guess what, surprise, surprise, they find evidence on your PC!
This treaty is a political weapon against the citizens of the world, and I'm ashamed that Obama's supposed "open government" White House supports it.
Who is really pulling his strings, has he completely sold out that quickly? Was it all an act???
And I think that a McCain White House would do the same thing as Obama!
Ron Paul might not. I say "might" simply because we don't really know what kind of leverage the real people behind this bill are using, considering that the stakes are so high, even Ron Paul doesn't want _________ to happen. Fill in the blank with a skeleton that the government's blackmail machine has uncovered. Or a threat. (To anyone that thinks that I'm an overly dramatic conspiracy theorist, guess what kept J. Edgar Hoover in power for so many years? If something works, you use it! It's just too obvious! The Patriot Act is a blackmail tool, and no one will convince me otherwise, it's a no-brainer that one secret branch of the government keeps tabs on troublemaking politicians to "protect" them from "themselves", and "helps" them make the "correct" decisions. And guess what, in 2001, Congress didn't even know what they were voting for because BushCo changed it the night before the vote! Whether or not the entire text of the Patriot Act is available for public inspection, I am not sure, but if it is, then they have certainly learned their lesson, hence a secret ACTA!

This treaty MUST be stopped, hopefully someone with a conscience leaks it!!

wmcbrine
April 5th, 2009, 12:38 PM
But how do you overturn something that's not actual legislation?The same way as anything else. What's the difficulty?


Does anyone have any data (or can anyone find any data) on there being specific examples of overturning of *any* treaty law, and how and by whom it was successfully overturned?There's no reason to expect that such a thing would exist. You'd be presuming both that past treaties have included unconstitutional provisions, and that those provisions were later challenged. Assumes facts not in evidence. If no treaty law had ever been overturned, that still would not indicate that one could not be.

Anyway, I think the burden of proof is still on you here.

wmcbrine
April 6th, 2009, 12:51 AM
Some more links on the subject of treaties vs. the Constitution:

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html
http://www.asil.org/insigh10.cfm

It turns out there's more controversy over the issue than I expected, but the bottom line is still that the Constitution prevails.

Linewbie
May 7th, 2009, 09:03 AM
Thought someone would like to see this:

Classified US, Japan and EU ACTA trade agreement drafts, 2009
http://wikileaks.eu/wiki/Classified_US%2C_Japan_and_EU_ACTA_trade_agreement _drafts%2C_2009

glotz
May 7th, 2009, 09:30 AM
^ Just as that got to the interesting part, there was no content!

Since nobody else posted it http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/

t0p
May 7th, 2009, 09:58 AM
In the UK, the police can stop and search you in the street, but they don't use these powers much, only when they have reasonable grounds.


I can't believe you wrote that. Especially since your location is apparently "London". I guess you must be a white, clean-cut middle-class boy from a nice neighbourhood.

I'm not white, I'm working class, I live on a council estate. I've been stopped and searched many times. Never because I was "up to something". Just because of the way I look, and because some people on the estate take drugs.

Then again, maybe you think that's "reasonable grounds"...

And then there's all the hoo-hah in the last several months over police officers stopping and searching tourists and photographers because they've been taking photographs. Which is something tourists and photographers tend to do. Complaints are made; high-ranking cops say that this shouldn't be happening and that they have issued guidance to rank and file officers that they shouldn't do this; then it happens again. All in the same London where you live.

Fact is, some police officers will overstep the mark and abuse their powers. Giving them even more powers is not the way we should be going, in a so-called democracy.

</rant>

dspari1
May 7th, 2009, 10:28 AM
It sucks, but this just means that people are going to have to make a decision of either paying or switching to open source alternatives.

koshatnik
May 7th, 2009, 01:47 PM
If people didn't pirate in the first place, then we wouldn't have to worry about these crap-filled and lobbyist-made laws...

Pirates have only brought this upon themselves. A grateful thanks from me and everyone else here for screwing it up for the rest of us law-abiding citizens. :evil:

You could argue that the entertainment industry has brought it upon themselves by failing to evolve their distribution models with the changing face of digital media distribution.

Let's not feel too sorry for the entertainment industry. They have, and continue to, operate massive distribution cartels, holding out independent players and stifling competition. They dictate terms on distribution deals, and have a stranglehold over wholesalers and whom these wholesalers distribute to. My friend had an independent record shop in my hometown in the UK, and used to sell new CD's at much lower prices than the big high street chains. As soon as these chains found out, they put the squeeze on the wholesaler to stop selling to my friends indie shop. He went out of business in 6 months.

The entertainment business does a similiar thing with distribution. And the recording industry is notorious for its horrendous treatment of artists and the control it enforces over their work.

The fact is, the entertainment industry thought it could hold on to the then dominant mode of media distribution, ie the CD or the DVD, without realising that the rise of home computers and digital ripping software, and the speed of broadband connectivity, would kill that model dead.

Maybe the big bosses at Sony, Paramount, etc, should look closer to home as to why things are so screwed up. They need to move with the times and find new ways of generating revenue, rather than pursuing these idiotic recriminations against a digital medium that has evolved ahead of their thinking.

monsterstack
May 7th, 2009, 03:58 PM
You could argue that the entertainment industry has brought it upon themselves by failing to evolve their distribution models with the changing face of digital media distribution.

Let's not feel too sorry for the entertainment industry. They have, and continue to, operate massive distribution cartels, holding out independent players and stifling competition. They dictate terms on distribution deals, and have a stranglehold over wholesalers and whom these wholesalers distribute to. My friend had an independent record shop in my hometown in the UK, and used to sell new CD's at much lower prices than the big high street chains. As soon as these chains found out, they put the squeeze on the wholesaler to stop selling to my friends indie shop. He went out of business in 6 months.

The entertainment business does a similiar thing with distribution. And the recording industry is notorious for its horrendous treatment of artists and the control it enforces over their work.

The fact is, the entertainment industry thought it could hold on to the then dominant mode of media distribution, ie the CD or the DVD, without realising that the rise of home computers and digital ripping software, and the speed of broadband connectivity, would kill that model dead.

Maybe the big bosses at Sony, Paramount, etc, should look closer to home as to why things are so screwed up. They need to move with the times and find new ways of generating revenue, rather than pursuing these idiotic recriminations against a digital medium that has evolved ahead of their thinking.

At this point I have absolutely no sympathy for the media oligarchy who run our Governments. It is high time they just got the hell on with it and killed themselves.

LightB
May 7th, 2009, 04:33 PM
Are you people in high school, or what?

There is so much wrong with this silly thread and the youtube vlogging it links to that it's not even funny, but I'll touch on a few points.

- This "treaty" is supposed to be about nations agreeing upon grounds to search physical devices at international crossing points. This is old news, the youtube vlog has scooped nothing.

- Full of conjecture, plain silly, amateur "reporting". Since they don't know the internal facts, they instead throw around names for political reasons, and sneak in the verb "seems" where "is" should be. Cliched sensationalism, void of substance. And Richard Stallman is a proud kook.

- What about things like the Patriot Act which is far more invasive? Oh no, some 'allegedly proposed international checkpoint treaty' is far more alarming. I'm yawning here.

- Nevermind this supposed treaty, we already have a much more serious privacy concern related to abusive copyright enforcement over PCs and similar devices. Post on this very thread don't fail to mention the MPAA/RIAA thugs, etc. Now that's about reaching into people's privacy in their homes, not an international crossing treaty?

- Gimme a break with this paper thin veiled biased political vlogg/thread.

- One more thing: Bush Lied, People Died. :lol:

ice60
May 7th, 2009, 04:36 PM
I can't believe you wrote that. Especially since your location is apparently "London". I guess you must be a white, clean-cut middle-class boy from a nice neighbourhood.

I'm not white, I'm working class, I live on a council estate. I've been stopped and searched many times. Never because I was "up to something". Just because of the way I look, and because some people on the estate take drugs.

Then again, maybe you think that's "reasonable grounds"...

And then there's all the hoo-hah in the last several months over police officers stopping and searching tourists and photographers because they've been taking photographs. Which is something tourists and photographers tend to do. Complaints are made; high-ranking cops say that this shouldn't be happening and that they have issued guidance to rank and file officers that they shouldn't do this; then it happens again. All in the same London where you live.

Fact is, some police officers will overstep the mark and abuse their powers. Giving them even more powers is not the way we should be going, in a so-called democracy.

</rant>
not only that but this was a main news story a couple of days a go -
POLICE stop and search someone in London under the Terrorism Act every three minutes
http://www.thelondonpaper.com/thelondonpaper/news/london/police-stop-and-search-someone-in-london-every-3-minutes
last time i was stopped and searched was because two policemen both 'saw me ridding a stolen bicycle' that i hadn't even seen! they went and checked the bike and it was chained to some railings. so i must have stolen it, riden it around where they'd seen me, then chained it back to the railings of the owner's house, all in a matter of 10 seconds lol. i told them to check for my fingerprints, but they said it would take too long. morons!

Dr. C
May 7th, 2009, 06:14 PM
Are you people in high school, or what?

There is so much wrong with this silly thread and the youtube vlogging it links to that it's not even funny, but I'll touch on a few points.

- This "treaty" is supposed to be about nations agreeing upon grounds to search physical devices at international crossing points. This is old news, the youtube vlog has scooped nothing.

- Full of conjecture, plain silly, amateur "reporting". Since they don't know the internal facts, they instead throw around names for political reasons, and sneak in the verb "seems" where "is" should be. Cliched sensationalism, void of substance. And Richard Stallman is a proud kook.

- What about things like the Patriot Act which is far more invasive? Oh no, some 'allegedly proposed international checkpoint treaty' is far more alarming. I'm yawning here.

- Nevermind this supposed treaty, we already have a much more serious privacy concern related to abusive copyright enforcement over PCs and similar devices. Post on this very thread don't fail to mention the MPAA/RIAA thugs, etc. Now that's about reaching into people's privacy in their homes, not an international crossing treaty?

- Gimme a break with this paper thin veiled biased political vlogg/thread.

- One more thing: Bush Lied, People Died. :lol:

This is a direct result of the secrecy regarding this treaty. When you have only one side of the debate (the lobbyists for big media, and big propriety software) being allowed into the room and those that are likely to oppose it (privacy rights groups, Free Libre Open Source Software advocates, civil liberties groups etc.) excluded from the debate the only reasonable thing for those excluded to do is to assume the worst and act accordingly. Richard Stallman is right on the money on this one. The only reason to treat this as a state secret is because it is bad, and the strong fear by its proponents that if the details get out there will be such a strong groundswell of opposition that the treaty will not happen.

glotz
May 7th, 2009, 07:29 PM
Not to mention this is an international treaty. **** like the DMCA is US only, for now.

And, if you look at the leaked documents, you'll discover this is not only about physical goods, if it were, we wouldn't be discussing it.

jwbrase
May 7th, 2009, 07:44 PM
But how do you overturn something that's not actual legislation?

A law or executive order still has to be made to implement the treaty, and a budget has to be drawn up that funds the implementation. If the implementing law is challenged and rendered unconstitutional, the treaty is effectively null and void.

jwbrase
May 7th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Why treat these treaty negotiations as a matter of state secret? The fear from the lobbyists is that if the proposed treaty is leaked out, the public outcry will be such that it will die real fast.

Actually, not so much that as that it allows the negotiators to conceal exactly who negotiated for/against a given provision. If the American/British/Somewherestani public objects to a certain provision when the treaty is made public, signed, and sent to congress for ratification, the US/British/Somewherestani negotiators can say "Oh, somebody else wanted that. We argued against it, but in the end we had to compromise." This lowers the chances of the treaty losing an election for some politician or another.

The trick is to write your Congressman/MP/whatever, and tell them that the voters will not be happy if they sign a treaty that compromises on certain issues. And once the treaty does become public and stands before Congress/Parliament/whatever, write them to object to whatever provisions you object to.

LightB
May 7th, 2009, 09:47 PM
This is a direct result of the secrecy regarding this treaty. When you have only one side of the debate (the lobbyists for big media, and big propriety software) being allowed into the room and those that are likely to oppose it (privacy rights groups, Free Libre Open Source Software advocates, civil liberties groups etc.) excluded from the debate the only reasonable thing for those excluded to do is to assume the worst and act accordingly. Richard Stallman is right on the money on this one. The only reason to treat this as a state secret is because it is bad, and the strong fear by its proponents that if the details get out there will be such a strong groundswell of opposition that the treaty will not happen.

Yet the far worse thing that I mention can and does happen. Where's the active opposition to that? Then there's internet neutrality, another far more serious issue. This alleged treaty is small potatoes compared to those.

PurposeOfReason
May 7th, 2009, 10:46 PM
Any real pirate worth his weight in mp3s is far from shaking in his boots. I don't see this working well except agains 12yr old kids who just discovered limewire.

Linewbie
May 8th, 2009, 07:29 PM
Here is a personal commentary written last year about ACTA by William J Patry, former copyright counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives.
He shut down his blog apparently because some readers could not differentiate his personal views from his job at Google :roll: (or maybe he felt a lot of heat since that summer day! :shock:).
I found this floating around on the internet, even though the link is dead and it was pretty hard to find, so for no other reason than that I think that it deserves reading!
(Because someone REALLY does not want you to read it!) [-X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
William Patry
An ACTA Call to Arms: No More Secret Government

Last week I posted about the proposed Ant-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement (ACTA). The issue is getting coverage in the blogosphere,
but none in the mainstream press at least in the U.S., which is
regrettable, since the issues raised are of great public interest.
Since my last blog, I have received information from Geneva and
national capitals that requires updating the blog, and a call to arms
to stop this monster dead in its tracks, to just say no to secret
government. It will take a determined, global effort to do so. ACTA is
the most extreme example yet of the devastating effect of making
intellectual property a trade issue. GATT/TRIPS is the most visible
example, but it is far from being the only one. A larger point about
TRIPS, regardless of the specific provisions contained within it, is
that it demonstrates the power shift away from those who traditionally
made copyright policy and to those who make trade policy. In the
United States, that is the United States Trade Representative, who
reports to the President.

The attitude of USTR toward copyright is a blinkered, one-sided view
that copyright is good and therefore as much of it as possible is even
better. But a view is just that unless there is political muscle to
implement it, and here lies the systemic danger, the fact that USTR is
in the driverŽs seat in initiating and negotiating agreements that are
cast as trade agreements, but which are in fact agreements
fundamentally reshaping substantive IP law. No trade official in any
country, no matter how well intentioned, should have that authority.
In the U.S., the power to make copyright policy vests exclusively in
the Congress. We do not want our trade representatives to negotiate on
their own agreements that require changes in domestic copyright laws
and then present the agreement after signature to the legislature as a
fait dŽaccompli.

Use of the fait dŽaccompli is not limited to trade representatives,
and is a disease encountered in other executive branch agencies. The
DMCA is an example of an attempted fait dŽaccompli. Much to the
chagrin of its proponents, the DMCA ended up being only passed after
considerable hearings and congressional involvement, in large part due
to the fact that the Administration, in that instance through the PTO,
did not get everything it wanted from other countries in the 1996 WIPO
treaties, and hence couldnŽt completely rely on the fait dŽaccompli
argument. Had it been able to do so the story would have been
different, and that is what the ACTA process is intended to achieve.
(I will add that it is a farce to accept comments from the public on
drafts you canŽt see, and on provisions that are dramatically expanded
after those comments are submitted).

ACTA is the most extreme example of this to date, and say what one
will about the DMCA (and there is a lot that could be said), the
DMCA process was pretty open if ugly. This openness is attributable in
part to the persistence of Congressman Rick Boucher who was forceful
in articulating a different approach to the substantive issues, and to
the opposition of powerful communications companies. It was also open
because there were lengthy pubic meetings at WIPO, with daily reports
in a pre-blogger era that helped keep people who werenŽt in Geneva
informed of what was going on. While one may decry the results of
those treaties, as I do, the treaties were not written in secret.

With ACTA, none of this will take place: the agreement is being
negotiated in secret, and if the reports are accurate, it will then
presented to the public in December after the elections where it will
bind the next U.S. Administration. Not that things are better in
Europe. USTR is hardly the only one pushing for agreement and for
acting in secret: the EU was an early and enthusiastic advocate.

Here are the two comments I have received from reliable sources after
my last posting, neither of which knew of the otherŽs comments, and
both of which are separated by thousands of miles. Here is the first:
The rumors of what is in the draft are pretty much all bad and the
scope is growing, not shrinking; it is even said that the latest
version has filtering language in it.Here is the second: I have
been told that this secret treaty is going way beyond enforcement and
is basically attempting to re-open a lot of the issues in WCT/WPPT,
which is consistent with the leaked info re filtering. The overriding
problem is not with any particular proposal (although there is lots
wrong with the proposals) but with a secret process, run by trade
representatives, trying to rewrite the laws on incredibly contentious
substantive issues that were thrashed out in public previously, but
are now being rewritten in secret and through the blinkered
perspective of trade, not copyright policy. People usually work in the
shadows because they are ashamed to work in the sunlight. It is up to
us to open the windows, otherwise they will stay shut and we will be
shut out from decisions that will seriously impact us, well beyond the
search of our laptops and iPods at borders and airports often-cited as
an example of how ACTA might work.

There is no reason why ACTA should not be opened up now. If it is
opened up, any false descriptions of its intent or provisions could
easily and effectively be dispelled. The failure to open it up now
speaks loudly about its proponentsŽ purposes and our worst fears of
its substance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEAD LINK http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/06/03/william-patry-an-acta-call-to-arms-no-more-secret-govt/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. If someone finds a working link to this, post it and we will see how long it takes to go bye-bye!

Linewbie
May 8th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Here is an example of how government power can be abused.
NSA eavesdropping on phone calls is supposed to protect us from terrorists, but apparently they are very busy listening to Americans (including soldiers) have phone sex and sharing it with their NSA coworkers!

Exclusive: Inside Account of U.S. Eavesdropping on Americans
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5987804

What else are they doing with that awesome power?
Blackmail? Insider information for personal gain? Who knows!?

The point is, when your government says that they need absolute power and to trust them, there is a problem because there is absolutely NO doubt that they will abuse their power for personal gain, because weak HUMANS run the government! :evil:

P.S.
Here is a similar show about NSA abuse of power:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/

beefncheese
November 4th, 2009, 10:16 PM
Some fresh ACTA news:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/acta----a-patriot-act-for_b_345000.html

Unfortunately, the mainstream media is still completely ignoring this. I wonder why? ;)

Dr. C
November 7th, 2009, 09:47 PM
There is a lot more on ACTA including the leaked document and it is starting to get mainstream media attention http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4516/125/

It is hard to pick what is worse but the third party liability provisions are designed to cripple the Internet. Basically an ISP can be held legally liable for infringing content traveling over their connection if they do not censor content and cut off infringing users. The chilling effect of this is huge.

So for example if Steven Ballmer alleges that Linux infringes on Microsoft patents an ISP would be motivated to block the distribution of GNU / Linux .iso images and cut off service to those who try to distribute GNU / Linux .iso images for fear of a lawsuit by Microsoft. The implications for the distribution of FLOSS are huge.

zephiel
April 2nd, 2010, 01:51 AM
http://www.stopacta.org
Join us and help stop ACTA. We also have a irc.

pyritu
April 2nd, 2010, 01:55 AM
ACTA is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. It's an international treaty being discussed by the US, Japan, NZ, the European Union, and others. It has a set of guidelines for countries to follow involving the enforcement of copyright law on the internet. It also has a rule in it that says 'no circumventing DRM'.

After ACTA is passed, MS and the RIAA would team together to pass a law against open source operating systems. The fact you can modify and compile the source code on your own means that, even if some people made DRM for Linux so it's legal,someone could modify the code and remove the DRM. The RIAA doesn't want that, so they'd want a law passed that'd ban open source software, and MS would want it too because it'd help them secure their monopoly.

There's an article here about it, which also links to the leaked document: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/complete-acta-text-finally-leaked.ars