AfterDawn: Tech news

ACTA would allow copyright holders to veto new technology

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 03 Oct 2011 1:49 User comments (42)

ACTA would allow copyright holders to veto new technology The entertainment industry would get veto power over new technology under a provision in ACTA, the intellectual property treaty signed on Saturday in Japan.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a treaty which has been negotiated in secret over the course of nearly five years. It was signed by the US, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, and Morocco.

As various draft versions have been leaked, the language has been watered down significantly, but major problems still remain.

Arguably, none of the text is more troubling than what amounts to a mandate for copyright holders to have the right to veto any new technology which could be used for infringement:

In order to provide the adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies
referred to in paragraph 5, each Party shall provide protection at least against:

(b) the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a device or product, including computer programs, or provision of a service that:

is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing an effective technological measure; or

has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than circumventing an effective technological measure.


Any technology capable of copying or distributing works will be used by someone to do so illegally. In most cases, the commercial uses of new technology doesn't exist until well after it becomes available.

Imagine a world where the printing press, radio, television, the photocopier, audio cassettes, the Internet, CD burners, file lockers, and encryption could all have been suppressed on the grounds someone, somewhere would use them for illegal purposes. That is exactly what ACTA would allow.

It fails to take into account that the same technologies used for copyright infringement are essential to everything from modern medical advancements to national defense.

There are still several hurdles to clear before ACTA can officially go into effect. First, at least six countries whose representatives signed the agreement must complete any internal ratification process.

US officials have chosen to bypass ratification by signing it as an executive agreement. This is guaranteed to result in legal challenges based on the president's lack of authority over intellectual property law under the US Constitution.

The European Union, which sent a representative to participate in Saturday's ceremony but hasn't signed the treaty, will also be instrumental in the process. Without their participation, the ACTA coalition could fall apart.

Previous Next  

42 user comments

13.10.2011 2:11
llongtheD
Inactive

Governments and corporations working hand in hand. What could possibly go wrong with that?

"US officials have chosen to bypass ratification by signing it as an executive agreement."

Well what do you know, land of the free, home of the brave officials, chose to sign as an executive agreement. Bypassing other branches of our government, and its not up for vote, or debate by anyone.

Do we still live in a democracy?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 03 Oct 2011 @ 2:13

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

23.10.2011 3:02

Originally posted by llongtheD:

Do we still live in a democracy?
If you are speaking of the US, we NEVER had democracy...at one point we had a "democratic republic"...but then political parties got started and that was the end of the democratic bit...it is hard to say exactly when the republic bit died off, but it was certainly dead by the time the CIA killed Kennedy. We currently live in a monetary dictatorship because every decision is based on who contributed the most money to a given slush fund.

The ACTA sounds like it will be the downfall of the "first world"...the DMCA was restrictive to the point that almost every corporation and citizen was technically in violation...but the ACTA will strangle innovation to the point that all the innovation will happen in countries that didn't sign the agreement.

For instance, say you figure out a way to make a faster internet connection...maybe wireless internet at 10GBPS or even some kind of ultra-high-speed DSL for people living far from cable and fios connections. Well, if people can download illegally (and they can do this on any technology), then anyone who holds a copyright to anything can veto your invention...while existing internet connection technologies are immune from these vetos.

Figure out a way to make flash drives use less power or hold more data? Yeah...that is prime veto territory.

Maybe you design a new smartphone OS that is virtually identical to iOS or Android and it is theoretically possible to copy pirated MP3s to it...you guessed it...apple asks some copyright holder to veto it and your invention gets shelved.

The fact is that almost every technology we have can in some way be used for some form of copyright violation...and while all existing technologies will be grandfathered, all new technologies will be subject to veto. It isn't the end of invention...but it is the end of being able to bring new products to market, and that is the whole point of invention. This would be a catastrophe if the world was in an economic peak...but in a global recession, this will crush what little remains.

All I can hope is that we have one more artificial boom so I can sell my house, my car, and most of my worldly goods...and then move to a country who has not signed their own death sentence.


33.10.2011 6:05
llongtheD
Inactive

That's some dark sh*t KB, hope it doesn't come to that. But how many times has it already come to that?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 03 Oct 2011 @ 6:19

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

43.10.2011 11:15

Part of me knows KB is right & that corporations want this legislation to sneak in & take over as soon, hard and fast as possible to stifle as much creativity as possible to get the scare tactic in place.

But I also know that this is basically impossible to last. It's unconstitutional. It infringes on the ability of others to create the very things KB mentioned & our society simply can't have that.

Oh, the corporations will get their way for a short period of time & the nerds will be scared out of sharing their wares. Once the illegitimacy of this legislation gets shot down the new inventions will get herded into bullshit contracts that take advantage of newer technology where the corporations actually snuck in & LEGALLY took control of the copywritten material before we all get our balls back & fight those derelictions, but we will come back around.


53.10.2011 12:55

If it was a retroactive law then here are a few things that would have been banned.
1. Internet.
2. The printing press.
3. king James Bible. (I think its a copy)
4. Human twins (Not allowed by Dolly the sheep patent)
5. All cars made after the first Daimler Benz.
6. All telephones made after Bell's first phone. (He stole the patent)
7. Games consoles.
8. Computers.
9. Pencils and pens.
10. Aeroplanes unless its made out of sticks.
11. AC Electricty.
12. Trains.
13. Medicine.
I'm sure there are lots more, but, we get the laws from the bastards that we elect. Next election don't vote.

63.10.2011 13:50

Originally posted by Frogfart:
...we get the laws from the bastards that we elect.
In a manner of speaking... It can be said that we are getting the bulk of our laws these days from the money holders (corporations & money elitists) who seem to think they are far above those who are supposed to be the ones concocting, voting & embracing the laws supposedly for the good of all, not the pubic dysfunctional financial 5% of the planet. Yet, here we are.

73.10.2011 14:06

This is INSANE,The RIAA and MPAA really do want it all. If they wanted they could theoretically ban our game consoles and cell phones with this provision...Politicians that were kept out of the dark in all countries participating Need To Ban Acta at all costs

83.10.2011 14:38

I know it sounds crazy, but I'm getting tired of playing their game. The patents on innovation, the law suits, the death of any and everything that can't be controlled by corporations. It's past the point of being ridiculous. It feels like they've declared war on their consumers. So maybe we should stop consuming? Maybe we should become a force like they haven't seen. The anti-consumer. Since the only things they understand are money and control, maybe we should deny them both.

94.10.2011 0:50

Originally posted by LordRuss:

But I also know that this is basically impossible to last. It's unconstitutional. It infringes on the ability of others to create the very things KB mentioned & our society simply can't have that.

That is what they said about prohibition...80 years later and it is still in place, causing more damage than ever, and not going away any time soon.

Originally posted by cpspoo:
I know it sounds crazy, but I'm getting tired of playing their game. The patents on innovation, the law suits, the death of any and everything that can't be controlled by corporations. It's past the point of being ridiculous. It feels like they've declared war on their consumers. So maybe we should stop consuming? Maybe we should become a force like they haven't seen. The anti-consumer. Since the only things they understand are money and control, maybe we should deny them both.
That doesn't sound crazy at all. I am half tempted to buy some land in the middle of nowhere and drop off the grid. I better not do it in Wisconsin tho...it is illegal to drink the milk from your own cow there!


104.10.2011 3:04

Originally posted by Frogfart:
If it was a retroactive law then here are a few things that would have been banned.
1. Internet.
2. The printing press.
3. king James Bible. (I think its a copy)
4. Human twins (Not allowed by Dolly the sheep patent)
5. All cars made after the first Daimler Benz.
6. All telephones made after Bell's first phone. (He stole the patent)
7. Games consoles.
8. Computers.
9. Pencils and pens.
10. Aeroplanes unless its made out of sticks.
11. AC Electricty.
12. Trains.
13. Medicine.
I'm sure there are lots more, but, we get the laws from the bastards that we elect. Next election don't vote.
Why do you think Daimler Benz made the first cars cars were around in the mid to late 1800's.

As larry flynt says (in 2007) people not voting in the USA is the problem, less than 50% of the US population voted and you guys got bush and it was so close that technically he didn't get voted in (because he didn't have a high enough % of votes) but went off to court to get put into power based on people voting him in last time around.

Really you want a big chunk of people to vote in people who'll do a good job instead pandering to 50 people and then get voted in and do what ever the 50 people want and forcing the rest to follow those new rules.

But at the moment everyone in the US just complain about who is in power yet never voted for anyone because they couldn't be bothered or figure it's better not to vote because that makes all the problems go away. lol.

In Australia you get fined if you don't vote.

114.10.2011 3:08

Originally posted by Tristan_2:
This is INSANE,The RIAA and MPAA really do want it all. If they wanted they could theoretically ban our game consoles and cell phones with this provision...Politicians that were kept out of the dark in all countries participating Need To Ban Acta at all costs
Well for Australia to have free trade with the USA they were forced into signing into this ACTA treaty.

Though Australia did change stuff in the treaty before signing it so not everything is the same as the US version, a lot of the copyright stuff got changed if you wanted to know plus some other things.

124.10.2011 5:53
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by xtago:
Originally posted by Frogfart:
If it was a retroactive law then here are a few things that would have been banned.
1. Internet.
2. The printing press.
3. king James Bible. (I think its a copy)
4. Human twins (Not allowed by Dolly the sheep patent)
5. All cars made after the first Daimler Benz.
6. All telephones made after Bell's first phone. (He stole the patent)
7. Games consoles.
8. Computers.
9. Pencils and pens.
10. Aeroplanes unless its made out of sticks.
11. AC Electricty.
12. Trains.
13. Medicine.
I'm sure there are lots more, but, we get the laws from the bastards that we elect. Next election don't vote.
Why do you think Daimler Benz made the first cars cars were around in the mid to late 1800's.

As larry flynt says (in 2007) people not voting in the USA is the problem, less than 50% of the US population voted and you guys got bush and it was so close that technically he didn't get voted in (because he didn't have a high enough % of votes) but went off to court to get put into power based on people voting him in last time around.

Really you want a big chunk of people to vote in people who'll do a good job instead pandering to 50 people and then get voted in and do what ever the 50 people want and forcing the rest to follow those new rules.

But at the moment everyone in the US just complain about who is in power yet never voted for anyone because they couldn't be bothered or figure it's better not to vote because that makes all the problems go away. lol.

In Australia you get fined if you don't vote.

You obviously have a very limited view of how things actually work, over here at least.

If you didn't like one of two choices being shoved down your throat by the corporate media, would you still vote? Maybe some don't vote because they no longer want to be part of a broken system.

Damn, I'd hate it if I were fined because I didn't vote for this idiot, or that idiot.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Oct 2011 @ 5:54

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

134.10.2011 6:05
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by xtago:
Originally posted by Tristan_2:
This is INSANE,The RIAA and MPAA really do want it all. If they wanted they could theoretically ban our game consoles and cell phones with this provision...Politicians that were kept out of the dark in all countries participating Need To Ban Acta at all costs
Well for Australia to have free trade with the USA they were forced into signing into this ACTA treaty.

Though Australia did change stuff in the treaty before signing it so not everything is the same as the US version, a lot of the copyright stuff got changed if you wanted to know plus some other things.

Oh yeah, how much did your "vote" count in relation to this "treaty." I'm guessing not very much at all.

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

144.10.2011 6:34

Originally posted by llongtheD:
Originally posted by xtago:
Originally posted by Frogfart:
If it was a retroactive law then here are a few things that would have been banned.
1. Internet.
2. The printing press.
3. king James Bible. (I think its a copy)
4. Human twins (Not allowed by Dolly the sheep patent)
5. All cars made after the first Daimler Benz.
6. All telephones made after Bell's first phone. (He stole the patent)
7. Games consoles.
8. Computers.
9. Pencils and pens.
10. Aeroplanes unless its made out of sticks.
11. AC Electricty.
12. Trains.
13. Medicine.
I'm sure there are lots more, but, we get the laws from the bastards that we elect. Next election don't vote.
Why do you think Daimler Benz made the first cars cars were around in the mid to late 1800's.

As larry flynt says (in 2007) people not voting in the USA is the problem, less than 50% of the US population voted and you guys got bush and it was so close that technically he didn't get voted in (because he didn't have a high enough % of votes) but went off to court to get put into power based on people voting him in last time around.

Really you want a big chunk of people to vote in people who'll do a good job instead pandering to 50 people and then get voted in and do what ever the 50 people want and forcing the rest to follow those new rules.

But at the moment everyone in the US just complain about who is in power yet never voted for anyone because they couldn't be bothered or figure it's better not to vote because that makes all the problems go away. lol.

In Australia you get fined if you don't vote.

You obviously have a very limited view of how things actually work, over here at least.

If you didn't like one of two choices being shoved down your throat by the corporate media, would you still vote? Maybe some don't vote because they no longer want to be part of a broken system.

Damn, I'd hate it if I were fined because I didn't vote for this idiot, or that idiot.
technically you dont have to legally vote make a few mistakes on the voting paper and its invalid and you dont get fined (its compulsary for all australia citizens to fill in a piece of paper).i live in australia and ive never actually voted because im not an australian citizen.politicians will make mistakes you gotta think which one will do less damage to the country and vote for them.

frogfart you forgot to add paper and wood and metal and plastics as you can carve images into them of an idea or a picture which your not the copyright holder off.

custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.

154.10.2011 7:13
llongtheD
Inactive

xboxdvl2, so we have to vote on which idiot will do the least amount of damage? If that's a choice, how f**ked up is that?

164.10.2011 10:34

Originally posted by llongtheD:
xboxdvl2, so we have to vote on which idiot will do the least amount of damage? If that's a choice, how f**ked up is that?
its better than seeing someone whos obviously gonna screw up the whole country beyond repair and sitting on an internet forum complaining instead of voting against him.

custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.

175.10.2011 8:16

Here's a simple solution if this passes:

Become a Copyright holder. It isn't difficult. Write a short book or a screenplay. If everyone is a Copyright holder, we could use that vote to counter the huge corporations throwing the creativity of modern society to the wolves.

Heck, this could work in our favor. Vote only equipment that CAN be used for copying in, and vote out anything with built-in DRM.

Hmm...

185.10.2011 10:23
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by xboxdvl2:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
xboxdvl2, so we have to vote on which idiot will do the least amount of damage? If that's a choice, how f**ked up is that?
its better than seeing someone whos obviously gonna screw up the whole country beyond repair and sitting on an internet forum complaining instead of voting against him.
That's your response? If your satisfied with the lesser of two evils choice your given than so be it. I'm interacting on a forum just as you are. That's the great thing about the "democracy" we live in, we have the right to question our leaders. I do apologize if I stroked your fur the wrong way with my question to you a couple of posts ago. I meant only to further the discussion, not to insult you.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 05 Oct 2011 @ 10:55

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

195.10.2011 11:36

Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by LordRuss:

But I also know that this is basically impossible to last. It's unconstitutional. It infringes on the ability of others to create the very things KB mentioned & our society simply can't have that.

That is what they said about prohibition...80 years later and it is still in place, causing more damage than ever, and not going away any time soon.
I think you're slipping away on something... prohibition (at least the roaring 20s & the whole alcohol thing) has been over turned eons ago. If you're wanting to call the 'war on drugs' prohibition, then we should all get on the same sheet of music as far as labels are concerned. And as far as that is concerned, I'm sorry to say that has been in place since the late 1800's when the railroads were being put in. Seems the Chinese could handle their after work opium high (or low), but the American's couldn't. Not to mention the snake oil peddlers who were putting the opium in cough medicine & all the wives getting strung out on Laudanum. Which, OH MY! was legal. Hell, I can't guess your age, but i know mine, & pot was 'basically' (and I mean that is the most loose terms I can impose) legal until 1974 for the simple fact most folks didn't even know what it was.

205.10.2011 12:37
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by LordRuss:
Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by LordRuss:

But I also know that this is basically impossible to last. It's unconstitutional. It infringes on the ability of others to create the very things KB mentioned & our society simply can't have that.

That is what they said about prohibition...80 years later and it is still in place, causing more damage than ever, and not going away any time soon.
I think you're slipping away on something... prohibition (at least the roaring 20s & the whole alcohol thing) has been over turned eons ago. If you're wanting to call the 'war on drugs' prohibition, then we should all get on the same sheet of music as far as labels are concerned. And as far as that is concerned, I'm sorry to say that has been in place since the late 1800's when the railroads were being put in. Seems the Chinese could handle their after work opium high (or low), but the American's couldn't. Not to mention the snake oil peddlers who were putting the opium in cough medicine & all the wives getting strung out on Laudanum. Which, OH MY! was legal. Hell, I can't guess your age, but i know mine, & pot was 'basically' (and I mean that is the most loose terms I can impose) legal until 1974 for the simple fact most folks didn't even know what it was.
I might be completely off base Russ, but I think you may have missed a little of KB's point. Opium, and many other drugs are still legal as long as they are produced by a corporate pharmaceutical. Hydrocodone, Oxycontin and morphine, among others are chemical derivatives of opium, used for pain relief. The war on drugs is a complete failure, no one can argue that, but do we now want them to decide which technologies we should have based on their bottom line? That's exactly what this agreement will do, stifle anything that is against the corporate paradigm. This isn't just about copyright, look at how these corporations are scrambling to buy up every patent they can, its about thinning the competition.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 05 Oct 2011 @ 13:02

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

215.10.2011 13:29

Originally posted by llongtheD:
I might be completely off base Russ, but I think you may have missed a little of KB's point. Opium, and many other drugs are still legal as long as they are produced by a corporate pharmaceutical. Hydrocodone, Oxycontin and morphine, among others are chemical derivatives of opium, used for pain relief. The war on drugs is a complete failure, no one can argue that, but do we now want them to decide which technologies we should have based on their bottom line? That's exactly what this agreement will do, stifle anything that is against the corporate paradigm. This isn't just about copyright, look at how these corporations are scrambling to buy up every patent they can, its about thinning the competition.
Well, I want to believe I got KB's point, but in print & the ability to get one's opinion across without getting too wordy (a process I seem to share with crack addicts) is pretty tough. He may have been being sarcastic & that's OK, but I took my response in another direction. Simply put, print can't imply demeanor, inflection, facial responses or pitch that words may or may not have in its delivery in a sentence. Even so, news agencies on TV will take spoken transcripts & reassemble them out of context in order to skew a political agenda to their liking. Thus we want to burn down the telecommunication broadcasters.

So yes, kindly, I don't need a history lesson on the proper use of the opiate trade. Let's just say I have seen it from the fields it's grown in to the operating tables & equally out into the streets where it really doesn't belong.

Where the subject of the this whole thing should belong is, the corporations have no business owning all of anything. When a company goes "public" it's just that. It's PUBLIC. Therefore the public should own it. We know this doesn't happen, but you get the idea. Therefore why does a "corporation" buy patents? Theoretically this shouldn't happen. Corporations aren't people, despite what they say they are.

225.10.2011 13:57
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by LordRuss:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
I might be completely off base Russ, but I think you may have missed a little of KB's point. Opium, and many other drugs are still legal as long as they are produced by a corporate pharmaceutical. Hydrocodone, Oxycontin and morphine, among others are chemical derivatives of opium, used for pain relief. The war on drugs is a complete failure, no one can argue that, but do we now want them to decide which technologies we should have based on their bottom line? That's exactly what this agreement will do, stifle anything that is against the corporate paradigm. This isn't just about copyright, look at how these corporations are scrambling to buy up every patent they can, its about thinning the competition.
Well, I want to believe I got KB's point, but in print & the ability to get one's opinion across without getting too wordy (a process I seem to share with crack addicts) is pretty tough. He may have been being sarcastic & that's OK, but I took my response in another direction. Simply put, print can't imply demeanor, inflection, facial responses or pitch that words may or may not have in its delivery in a sentence. Even so, news agencies on TV will take spoken transcripts & reassemble them out of context in order to skew a political agenda to their liking. Thus we want to burn down the telecommunication broadcasters.

So yes, kindly, I don't need a history lesson on the proper use of the opiate trade. Let's just say I have seen it from the fields it's grown in to the operating tables & equally out into the streets where it really doesn't belong.

Where the subject of the this whole thing should belong is, the corporations have no business owning all of anything. When a company goes "public" it's just that. It's PUBLIC. Therefore the public should own it. We know this doesn't happen, but you get the idea. Therefore why does a "corporation" buy patents? Theoretically this shouldn't happen. Corporations aren't people, despite what they say they are.
Agreed Russ, and that's why I started my post by saying I might be completely off base. Hopefully this secret agreement signed outside of this country will never hold up.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 05 Oct 2011 @ 13:58

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

235.10.2011 14:40

Originally posted by llongtheD:
Hopefully this secret agreement signed outside of this country will never hold up.
I'm with you...

247.10.2011 8:54

When I said prohibition, I was referring to total prohibition, not laws stating that you must list the ingredients in medicines or racially based laws targeted at chinese railroad workers. The substance in question doesn't really matter...if a substance is banned to all for "moral" reasons, it is called prohibition...and the results are always the same (although they get worse the longer the prohibition holds).

The fact is that if something like this can keep going as long as it has, to the point that the mexico-us border is practically a war zone and the CIA keeps getting caught bringing in drugs and paying for them with guns, and there still isn't any hint of change, why would anyone expect any pointless, unjust law to be overturned?



257.10.2011 10:17

Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by llongtheD:

Do we still live in a democracy?
If you are speaking of the US, we NEVER had democracy...at one point we had a "democratic republic"...but then political parties got started and that was the end of the democratic bit...it is hard to say exactly when the republic bit died off, but it was certainly dead by the time the CIA killed Kennedy. We currently live in a monetary dictatorship because every decision is based on who contributed the most money to a given slush fund.
You have it backwards Killer it was the Republic that has gone the Democracy still somewhat exists but is circumvented often and we are closer and closer to a dictatorship all the time, especially with the president we have now. Kennedy's death had nothing to do with this, nor did Lincoln's.

What can you say about the worlds government powers, they are all corrupted by money obviously! Sad to say...

267.10.2011 11:46

the whole purpose of copyright is to reward innovation and so encourage it.
This is a recipe for stagnation and acts contrary to The World's interests.
If a new device compromises Society's gift of copyright then Society needs to find a new way of rewarding such innovation, not by stifling further innovation.

277.10.2011 11:53

Originally posted by telewig:
the whole purpose of copyright is to reward innovation and so encourage it.
This is a recipe for stagnation and acts contrary to The World's interests.
If a new device compromises Society's gift of copyright then Society needs to find a new way of rewarding such innovation, not by stifling further innovation.

Reward wouldn't be correct? Protect would be more proper or correct.

This ACTA nonsense needs to go just like the Millennium Act does too!

287.10.2011 17:53

This whole protectionism,(i.e. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a treaty which has been negotiated in secret) is biased on one thing. The rich want to protect their wealth at any cost. "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Oct 2011 @ 0:51

297.10.2011 20:05

Originally posted by onewhite:
This whole protectionism is baised on one thing. The rich want to protect their wealth at any cost. "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"
Copyrights are NOT about protecting the rich they are about protecting ones investment in extensive work to create something new. R&D is very costly, copying someone elses work is not, that is where the problem lays, are you capable of comprehending such a concept? Maybe not... :(

307.10.2011 20:48
don1959
Unverified new user

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by onewhite:
This whole protectionism is baised on one thing. The rich want to protect their wealth at any cost. "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"
Copyrights are NOT about protecting the rich they are about protecting ones investment in extensive work to create something new. R&D is very costly, copying someone elses work is not, that is where the problem lays, are you capable of comprehending such a concept? Maybe not... :(
That is what copyrights were intended to be, not what they are used for now. They are used by large corporations to control and stifle competition.

317.10.2011 21:12

Originally posted by don1959:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by onewhite:
This whole protectionism is baised on one thing. The rich want to protect their wealth at any cost. "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"
Copyrights are NOT about protecting the rich they are about protecting ones investment in extensive work to create something new. R&D is very costly, copying someone elses work is not, that is where the problem lays, are you capable of comprehending such a concept? Maybe not... :(
That is what copyrights were intended to be, not what they are used for now. They are used by large corporations to control and stifle competition.
No doubt copyrights are abused and there should be a time limit that can't be renewed or sold but there are still plenty of new work copyrights in process that are valid and should be protected, I know since I've worked on a few myself.

327.10.2011 21:54
don1959
Unverified new user

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by don1959:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by onewhite:
This whole protectionism is baised on one thing. The rich want to protect their wealth at any cost. "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"
Copyrights are NOT about protecting the rich they are about protecting ones investment in extensive work to create something new. R&D is very costly, copying someone elses work is not, that is where the problem lays, are you capable of comprehending such a concept? Maybe not... :(
That is what copyrights were intended to be, not what they are used for now. They are used by large corporations to control and stifle competition.
No doubt copyrights are abused and there should be a time limit that can't be renewed or sold but there are still plenty of new work copyrights in process that are valid and should be protected, I know since I've worked on a few myself.
Well I think that is what copyrights should be for, for people who created something, not to be collected by corporations and used to control what we can hear, see, and read and eventually what we can think.

338.10.2011 0:32

Originally posted by KillerBug:

If you are speaking of the US, we NEVER had democracy...at one point we had a "democratic republic"...
i mean no disrespect, but when referring to a democracy, most people don't necessarily mean a "direct democracy", but a form of government employing democratic principles, namely voting by the citizens. in that regard, a democratic republic is a subset of democracy. either way, it is looking quite grim here.

348.10.2011 0:56

Originally posted by don1959:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by don1959:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by onewhite:
This whole protectionism is baised on one thing. The rich want to protect their wealth at any cost. "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"
Copyrights are NOT about protecting the rich they are about protecting ones investment in extensive work to create something new. R&D is very costly, copying someone elses work is not, that is where the problem lays, are you capable of comprehending such a concept? Maybe not... :(
That is what copyrights were intended to be, not what they are used for now. They are used by large corporations to control and stifle competition.
No doubt copyrights are abused and there should be a time limit that can't be renewed or sold but there are still plenty of new work copyrights in process that are valid and should be protected, I know since I've worked on a few myself.
Well I think that is what copyrights should be for, for people who created something, not to be collected by corporations and used to control what we can hear, see, and read and eventually what we can think.
I take all your points.

I did not wish to say that those who have copyights are the ones who are the problem, rather the actual secret agreement and the way it was made by the faceless rich getting governments to do the dirty work in secret..

358.10.2011 1:26

Originally posted by onewhite:
Originally posted by don1959:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by don1959:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by onewhite:
This whole protectionism is baised on one thing. The rich want to protect their wealth at any cost. "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"
Copyrights are NOT about protecting the rich they are about protecting ones investment in extensive work to create something new. R&D is very costly, copying someone elses work is not, that is where the problem lays, are you capable of comprehending such a concept? Maybe not... :(
That is what copyrights were intended to be, not what they are used for now. They are used by large corporations to control and stifle competition.
No doubt copyrights are abused and there should be a time limit that can't be renewed or sold but there are still plenty of new work copyrights in process that are valid and should be protected, I know since I've worked on a few myself.
Well I think that is what copyrights should be for, for people who created something, not to be collected by corporations and used to control what we can hear, see, and read and eventually what we can think.
I take all your points.

I did not wish to say that those who have copyights are the ones who are the problem, rather the actual secret agreement and the way it was made by the faceless rich getting governments to do the dirty work in secret..
The biggest problem with patents and copyrights is that they are all handled in civil courts. This means that while a big corporation can defend a patent even when they don't think they actually own it (or when it is something really vague like, "Entering information into a device"). However, a small company or individual cannot do the same even when the case should be open-and-shut...because they have to pay lawyer fees that they usually can't afford, and they also don't own any judges...and by the time the ruling finally comes down, it is 20 years later and their idea is either outdated or being copied by every company in china that is immune to copyright and patent suits. Copyrights and patents are just for big business...this is not what they were intended for, but this is what they have become.

BTW..."Democratic Republic" implies that votes go to choose the people who will make decisions. Ignoring vote rigging, the fact that we have a one party system where the candidates are nominated by two committees and run against eachother in spite of the fact that they are both the same means that the system is not Democratic...and the fact that the forces that actually control the government will kill anyone who happens to slip through the cracks to oppose them means that it isn't really a republic either...not anymore than Nazi Germany was a republic anyway. THAT is what Kennedy has to do with it...he warned of the military industrial complex and avoided a nuclear war...and he was killed for it.

As for Lincoln, I only wish that bastard had been shot sooner. The south had every right to leave the union and the unprovoked aggression of the north is still one of the most offensive parts of history. And don't start saying it was about slavery...Lincoln only started saying that after he had started the war...and his proclamations against slavery were clearly limited to the south (written to clearly allow for slavery in states that had not left the union), in spite of the fact that they had already left the union and therefor were not subject to his decrees.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Oct 2011 @ 1:40


368.10.2011 1:30

Where's Ron Paul when you need him most?

378.10.2011 2:11

It was most definitely about slavery but not only that, only a true blue confederate would say different and we all know what's that about or at least most of us with common sense. But I don't see how that has anything to with ACTA or this discussion. Also you don't quite understand what a Republic is and the document that is suppose to protect all of our rights. Another for history lessons and schooling you.... :D

BTW, Lincoln was one of our best presidents and it is a shame he was assassinated but that's history and we can't change it.

388.10.2011 5:25

If you meant the constitution when you said, "The Document", it was actually intended to limit government, not to guarantee rights. Of course, it has not done either in a very long time.

On the civil war, the north benefited from slavery far more than the south, as the north had most of the textile mills, and these relied on cheap cotton picked and cleaned by slaves. There were some very wealthy people in the south who loved slavery...but most southerners hated slavery...not because of moral objections, but because it lowered the working wages for non-slaves. These are the men who fought and died for Dixie, and they didn't do it for slavery.

It may sound harsh, but the civil war was about the rights of white men...primarily the right to a government that they elected, the vast majority having voted against Lincoln.

Most people (northerners included) considered slaves to be property, and property rights were an important secondary reason for the war...it turned out that they were actually correct in their stance that one property right loss would lead to more, given the state of the current system. But again...the emancipation proclamation didn't exist with the south tried to leave the union, and it didn't exist when the war started...it didn't even exist a year after the war started. Maybe Lincoln really believed in it, or maybe he just wanted to gain back some of the moral high ground lost by starting the war...it is hard to know the actual thoughts inside the head of a man who was dead before the oldest person alive was born...but I will give you that Lincoln didn't approve of slavery for moral reasons, otherwise he wouldn't have used it as an excuse for an unprovoked war.

BTW...I happen to live in Florida now, but I was born and raised a Yankee. You say I need to go back to school...I say you need to read the real history instead of the whitewashed revisionist BS they teach in schools...I bet you still think Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction...or rooting out terrorists...or bringing freedom...or fighting magical elves...or whatever they are currently claiming.



398.10.2011 6:06

I suspect this will never be enforced. Congress should immedietly pass a law prohibiting enforcement or spending any money for anything to do with it. They have absolute power over what the Government spends money on. They should be even more inclined to kill this because the President is trying to do an end run around the constitution, it clearly is a treaty, but the President is trying to make laws by executive decision, which does not work. There will be a big showdown on this stuff soon, as well as the Justice Dept (Executive branch, Presidental control) is enforcing laws they see fit to enforce. That is not their job. They are required to enforce laws Congress passes regardless of what they think of them. The unfortunate fact is Congress may use this to extort more moeny from the MPAA & RIAA for the upcomming elections, in which case we all may be screwed. I really hope ther use some common sense with this, but there is a terminal lack of common sense in Government these days.

408.10.2011 11:45

Despite the sudden outbreak of North vs. South again (& by the way, historically KB is on the right track, but not 100% correct) the biggest problem ACTA holds is that they also can/do scoop up patents that have fallen out of the time limit of Federal protection.

I don't know what the limitations are now, but it used to be something like 20/25 years of infringement protection. Once that time limit was about to end the originating patent holder could petition for another 20/25 years, but then that was it. After that 50 years the patent became public domain.

This process works across the board even for movies, books, songs, you get the idea, but different 'kinds' of patents (of course). The US isn't trying it yet, but After Dawn reported on the European recording industry trying the very thing I'm speaking about already LINK & if it works there who's to say the slimy bastards over here wouldn't ooze their way into it here?

"That" is a problem (along with the other concerns members have mentioned) I am sure we can all be forewarned about. Now... what do we do about it? And don't say picket & piss on their front law either, because we've all seen what that got the peaceful folks on Wall Street. I say hold down a couple of the Tea Baggers & ask them for a couple of secrets... You just 'know' they have to have some pictures of some of those politicians sodomizing goats or something because there is simply no way they should be getting the kind of attention that their getting. So in keeping with my sense of balance, I say share the wealth... RIGHT!?!

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Oct 2011 @ 11:54

419.10.2011 3:03

Step 1: Kidnap some politicians without anyone seeing you do it.
Step 2: Force them to have sex with animals while you record HD video
Step 3: Make them smoke crack while you record HD video
Step 4: Make them step on crosses while you record HD video
Step 5: Release them, and let them know that WikiLeaks will get the videos if they don't start representing the people.

Just a theory there...the kidnapping part might be rather difficult tho...so I think I'll just stick with my plan of leaving the country in search of a place on the rise rather than on the decline.



429.10.2011 18:22

Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by llongtheD:

Do we still live in a democracy?
If you are speaking of the US, we NEVER had democracy...at one point we had a "democratic republic"...but then political parties got started and that was the end of the democratic bit...it is hard to say exactly when the republic bit died off, but it was certainly dead by the time the CIA killed Kennedy. We currently live in a monetary dictatorship because every decision is based on who contributed the most money to a given slush fund.

The ACTA sounds like it will be the downfall of the "first world"...the DMCA was restrictive to the point that almost every corporation and citizen was technically in violation...but the ACTA will strangle innovation to the point that all the innovation will happen in countries that didn't sign the agreement.

For instance, say you figure out a way to make a faster internet connection...maybe wireless internet at 10GBPS or even some kind of ultra-high-speed DSL for people living far from cable and fios connections. Well, if people can download illegally (and they can do this on any technology), then anyone who holds a copyright to anything can veto your invention...while existing internet connection technologies are immune from these vetos.

Figure out a way to make flash drives use less power or hold more data? Yeah...that is prime veto territory.

Maybe you design a new smartphone OS that is virtually identical to iOS or Android and it is theoretically possible to copy pirated MP3s to it...you guessed it...apple asks some copyright holder to veto it and your invention gets shelved.

The fact is that almost every technology we have can in some way be used for some form of copyright violation...and while all existing technologies will be grandfathered, all new technologies will be subject to veto. It isn't the end of invention...but it is the end of being able to bring new products to market, and that is the whole point of invention. This would be a catastrophe if the world was in an economic peak...but in a global recession, this will crush what little remains.

All I can hope is that we have one more artificial boom so I can sell my house, my car, and most of my worldly goods...and then move to a country who has not signed their own death sentence.
KB you have a very good understanding of this! It's too bad there aren't enough of us, that have this understanding, in positions of power and authority where it will do some good!

"In all your getting, get an understanding!"

Dell Dimension DIM4600 Intel P4 CPU 2.66GHz 2.5GB-DDR 160GB-HDD Primary 80GB-HDD Slave Memorex 16x DL -/+RW Burner JLMS DVD-ROM XJ-HD166 WinXP Home Edition SP3

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive