You obviously know nothing about US law. Perhaps you might want to read a bit before spewing misinformation. People might also try reading the bill to see its actual scope, and read about its history to see where it actually originated. The sky is falling garbage gets old really fast. It is a trade agreement, not some sort of international law (as if any really exist). It doesn't even have the weight of a treaty to signatory nations....
If I thought that this was a genuine attempt to stop Piracy and infringement of copyright, I would support it. Artists, authors, musicians, developers, whatever is produced as original work and effort of one or more persons, should be protected from plagiarism and theft.
However, I believe it is nothing of the sort. It is the fat cats of particular Western (notice I do not simply say "American") organisations, trying to hang on to the massive profits that they make, from the work of others with talents and abilities that the moguls of the affected 'industries' do not possess.
And think about that word: 'industries'. Musicians, artists of all kinds, do not see themselves as working in an industry. That is what these mega-rich plutocrats have made of it. The heads of music and movie studios, are not interested in ethics or morality. They just want to make a buck. Or a Pound, a Yen or Euro.
If these people put their energies and limited talents into thinking about the internet and how it disseminates material, they might realise that there is a way to use it ethically and morally, to make a profit. Fact is, they do not understand it. Worse still, they don't want to understand it, it frightens them.
Last edited by Bertison; 02 Feb 2012 at 11:35. Reason: Grammar!
Two words - Geneva Convention.
I've never claimed to be a US lawyer or Constitutional expert.
I only have to see the results of court cases that are decided in the US, to know that the law is "flexible".
Also it has been proven time and time again, that the US Government can do basically what it wants, unless SCOTUS rules against it.
SCOTUS won't rule unless someone challenges and they agree to hear the case.
Is that so?It has been claimed that ACTA has been "watered down" from it's original wording.EFFNegotiated in secret, ACTA bypassed checks and balances of existing international IP norm-setting bodies, without any meaningful input from national parliaments, policymakers, or their citizens. Worse still, the agreement creates a new global institution, an "ACTA Committee" to oversee its implementation and interpretation that will be made up of unelected members with no legal obligation to be transparent in their proceedings.
...
In the U.S., there are growing concerns about the constitutionality of negotiating ACTA as a “sole executive agreement”. This is not just a semantic argument. If ACTA were categorized as a treaty, it would have to be ratified by the Senate. But the USTR and the Administration have consistently maintained that ACTA is a sole executive agreement negotiated under the President’s power. On that theory, it does not need Congressional approval and thus ACTA already became binding on the US government when Ambassador Ron Kirk signed it last October.
...
The distinction between executive agreement and treaty should not be lost on this administration: as a Senator, Vice President Joe Biden used the same argument to require the Bush administration to seek Senate approval for an arms reduction agreement.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/0...ous-about-acta
WikipediaACTA establishes its own governing body outside existing international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.[1][3] With regards to the reason for not pursuing ACTA through the G8, WTO, WIPO or other formal existing structures the European Commission explains that a free-standing agreement provides the most flexibility "to pursue this project among interested countries", while stating that "the membership and priorities of those organizations (G8, WTO, and WIPO) simply are not the most conducive to this kind of path breaking project."[1] The draft treaty's title suggests that the agreement only covers infringement of patents, that is counterfeit physical goods such as medicines, however the draft treaty also covers infringement of copyright in the context of "Internet distribution and information technology".[2]
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikileaksThe agreement covers the copying of information or ideas in a wide variety of contexts. For example page three, paragraph one is a "Pirate Bay killer" clause designed to criminalize the non-profit facilitation of unauthorized information exchange on the internet. This clause would also negatively affect transparency and primary source journalism sites such as Wikileaks.
The document reveals a proposal for a multi-lateral trade agreement of strict enforcement of intellectual property rights related to Internet activity and trade in information-based goods hiding behind the issue of false trademarks. If adopted, a treaty of this form would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime, with new cooperation requirements upon internet service providers, including perfunctionary disclosure of customer information. The proposal also bans "anti-circumvention" measures which may affect online anonymity systems and would likely outlaw multi-region CD/DVD players.
...
The ACTA push was launched on October 23, 2007 by US Ambassador Susan C. Schwab and five U.S. members of Congress from the "Congressional Caucus on Intellectual Property and Piracy Prevention".
A copy of her opening remarks follow:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_(2007)
WikileaksBut trade agreements are negotiated secretly, unlike legislation, which leads the FFII to wonder about the state of European democratic practice:
ACTA is a so-called "trade agreement". While technically it is therefore not a legislative proposal, its acceptance will nonetheless lead to legislative and executive obligations for the undersigning parties. Hence, indirectly it will have the same effect as a legislative proposal. Simply calling it differently and using different negotiation procedures cannot be used as an excuse in a democratic society to get around all transparency principles and requirements of said society. If, as currently planned, the agreement will only be made public once all parties have already agreed to it, none of the EU's national parliaments nor the European Parliament will have been able to scrutinize its contents in any meaningful way. We believe this to be a gross violation of the basic democratic principles the EU is supposed to stand for. The argument that public transparency regarding "trade negotiations" can be ignored if it would weaken the EU's negotiation position is particularly painful. At which point exactly do negotiations over trade issues become more important than democratic law making? At 200 million euro? At 500 million euro? At 1 billion euro? What is the price of our democracy?
EU denies ACTA document request; democracy undermined? - WikiLeaks
Last edited by lehnerus2000; 02 Feb 2012 at 11:49. Reason: Additional
So even in my Country protest's have begun against ACTA. Sadly the wheater wasnt kind and there fore not that many people have joined.
This site is not about piracy, we're not talking here about pirate windows and if you do you get banned immediately so.....there's no reason for this thread.
I think is not just about pirating windows or anything else, is about stealing even your ideas, and when you caim for them, you will be inmediately labeled as pirate and put in jail... is about expessing your ideas, and if any government or corporation considers that is not good, they can claim piracy and copyright violations and then you go to jail.
It is worse than it sounds...
Just my apreciation.
See ya!!
This thread isn't about how to pirate Windows (or anything else).
The Administrators obviously don't share your opinion, as no one who has posted on this thread has been banned.
Don't you remember the USSR?
This thread is about the Corporations & Government treating everyone as criminals (or "enemies of the state") in direct violation of the normal standards (e.g. innocent until proven guilty)
ZDNetSummary: Concerned about privacy? Use an online proxy, or the Tor network? A leaked FBI document suggests that these kinds of people may be considered “suspicious”.
Why the FBI thinks you (and I) may be terrorists | ZDNet
Here's a SMBC comic on the subject of Internet "monitoring":
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
ZDNetSummary: The controversial ACTA agreement — the global anti-piracy and anti-counterfeiting agreement — has been postponed by Germany, putting pressure on Europe to reject it.
Germany postpones ACTA signing in wake of protests | ZDNet
The curious thing is, that while Googling the yearly amount of films created in the world, that I found the USA is not the largest producer. I was surprised to see that Nigeria is, along with Pakistan, India and the UK. That would raise the question of how it would effect US citizens who were found to be involved in copying foreign films, despite the previous mention of agreement not being binding on the USA? One hand washes another.
Quote