|
|
|
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.
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
3. October 2011 @ 02:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
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?
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 3. October 2011 @ 02:13
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
3. October 2011 @ 03:02 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
3. October 2011 @ 06:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's some dark sh*t KB, hope it doesn't come to that. But how many times has it already come to that?
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 3. October 2011 @ 06:19
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
3. October 2011 @ 11:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
|
Frogfart
Member
|
3. October 2011 @ 12:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
3. October 2011 @ 13:50 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
Tristan_2
Member
|
3. October 2011 @ 14:06 |
Link to this message
|
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
|
Newbie
|
3. October 2011 @ 14:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
4. October 2011 @ 00:50 |
Link to this message
|
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!
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
4. October 2011 @ 03:04 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
4. October 2011 @ 03:08 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
4. October 2011 @ 05:53 |
Link to this message
|
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.
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 4. October 2011 @ 05:54
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
4. October 2011 @ 06:05 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
Senior Member
|
4. October 2011 @ 06:34 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
4. October 2011 @ 07:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
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?
|
Senior Member
|
4. October 2011 @ 10:34 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
Clam_Up
Junior Member
|
5. October 2011 @ 08:16 |
Link to this message
|
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...
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
5. October 2011 @ 10:23 |
Link to this message
|
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.
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. October 2011 @ 10:55
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
5. October 2011 @ 11:36 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
5. October 2011 @ 12:37 |
Link to this message
|
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.
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. October 2011 @ 13:02
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
5. October 2011 @ 13:29 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
5. October 2011 @ 13:57 |
Link to this message
|
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.
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. October 2011 @ 13:58
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
5. October 2011 @ 14:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by llongtheD:
Hopefully this secret agreement signed outside of this country will never hold up.
I'm with you...
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
7. October 2011 @ 08:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
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?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
7. October 2011 @ 10:17 |
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.
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...
|
|
