Windows 7: Don't forget about ACTA

Try this link:
https://www.eff.org/issues/acta/



It has articles dating back to 2008.

It is difficult to be sure, but ACTA does seem to potentially impose as much danger to citizens as SOPA did, and is just another approach to the problem, using much of the same means. As far as I'm concerned, what any law, treaty or agreement should target is the persons actually providing illegal data, and then secondly the servers that place it online...not the ISP and particularly not the users at large. The article in the first link said that a person illegally downloading 30 songs, could be fined as much as $675,000, which is totally absurd. Perhaps two or three hundred dollars, but no more, otherwise the law is just being used to exploit and profiteer on internet users.

EDIT: I can say what effect that is is having on one potential customer (me), in that I'm far less likely to buy any audio or video DVDs of any kind, because I won't spend my money to support legalized thievery.

Very true Denis, much overlooked that if a total ban on "infringemnt" took place, demand would drop and proces go through the roof.

So, who decides who to monitor? and why?

Even if a country has signed the agreeement, what is to prevent it from withdrawing from it afterward?

Prices would go up regardless of demand.

They are a legal monopoly right now.
The only thing that restrains prices is piracy.

How much cheaper would media be, if the companies didn't waste millions of dollars and man-hours on DRM schemes?

The US would just strong-arm those countries (e.g. threaten/impose "Trade Sanctions").

Quote:

The U.S. demanded that the Spanish government take action to enact tougher policies on file sharing by passing the Sinde Law, or the U.S. would retaliate with trade restrictions or embargoes.

ZDNet
U.S. ‘threatened to blacklist Spain’ over SOPA-style law | ZDNet

Imagine this scenario. On a market somewhere, there is this table loaded with cool stuff. These stuff were left there by people who no longer need it and/or decided to share it with a lot of people. They're all free, and some decided to take some of the stuff, some want to by the new ones since the quality of the stuff on the table were too low for the standards. The market owner, Government, noticed this and decided it's causing trouble and called his bodyguard, ACTA, to stop it.

Government's Logic:

ACTA: Okay you can't get these books at the table for free now. But good news! I'm selling them for only a low price of $xxx.xx!!
Everyone: No more freebies? Okay... BUY ALL THE THINGS! AND BUY MORE!

Reality:
ACTA: Okay you can't get these books at the table for free now. But good news! I'm selling them for only a low price of $xx.xx!!
Everyone: Well screw that I'm outa here.
Someone else: *sneaks behind the table*

True story...

lehnerus2000,

Yes that is true, but my question was about the U.S. withdrawing from the agreement. I realize that is quite unlikely, since I imagine that it is the one that is behind it in the first place, but then the question is whether it would continue to do so, if public pressure was sufficient to force them to reconsider their stance. If that did happen, I don't think the other countries could/would strong arm them to remain, and the entire agreement would fall apart.

The US are exempt from any agreements they push/sign.
"Do as we say, not as we do" applies.

The only countries they can't do it to are China, North Korea and Russia.

Okay, then I realize it is no consolation to any non-US person, but I have to consider it first from a view as a US citizen. If the US government is not bound by this agreement, then it couldn't be used in any legal proceedings here against a US corportation or citizen. For it to be used elsewhere would require the government of the country involved to enforce it...true? I'm simply attempting to establish the impact this agreement will have on all of us.

I have no idea.
I assume that:

• Trade treaty violations are handled differently to criminal cases.
• The US could choose to enforce it on companies if they wanted to.

For example:
Company A upsets the politicians, so it gets persecuted (I mean persecuted).
Company B has "friends in Washington", so it gets off "scot-free".