|
|
|
ACTA would allow copyright holders to veto new technology
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 3 October, 2011
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.
... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
telewig
Newbie
|
7. October 2011 @ 11:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
|
7. October 2011 @ 11:53 |
Link to this message
|
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!
|
|
onewhite
Newbie
|
7. October 2011 @ 17:53 |
Link to this message
|
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 posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. October 2011 @ 00:51
|
Senior Member
|
7. October 2011 @ 20:05 |
Link to this message
|
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... :(
|
Senior Member
|
7. October 2011 @ 21:12 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
six60six
Junior Member
|
8. October 2011 @ 00:32 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
onewhite
Newbie
|
8. October 2011 @ 00:56 |
Link to this message
|
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..
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
8. October 2011 @ 01:26 |
Link to this message
|
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 posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. October 2011 @ 01:40
|
Member
|
8. October 2011 @ 01:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Where's Ron Paul when you need him most?
|
Senior Member
|
8. October 2011 @ 02:11 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
8. October 2011 @ 05:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
|
FreddyF
Junior Member
|
8. October 2011 @ 06:06 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
8. October 2011 @ 11:45 |
Link to this message
|
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 posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. October 2011 @ 11:54
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
9. October 2011 @ 03:03 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
YOBUZZB
Senior Member
|
9. October 2011 @ 18:22 |
Link to this message
|
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
|
|
