New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
ACTA : Welocme to Censored World!
Hi,
Today in japan EU, USA ,Canada , Japan , South Korea , Australia , .... signed an international trade agreement .One of major goal of this agreement is to force signatory countries into implementing anti file-sharing policies under the form of three-strikes schemes and net filtering practices.
Under ACTA, internet service providers are virtually obliged to monitor all user activity for possible copyright violations. It also gives trademark owners and officers of the law great authority to violate privacy while investigating suspected infringements.
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta-signed-by-the-eu-lets-defeat-it-together
Comments
From stopacta.info,
That's exactly right.
Maddox recently posted a rant and his opinions on SOPA. Even if you don't care for Maddox, I highly suggest giving this a read. He's absolutely right about the futility of a painless protest... unless you're willing to inconvenience yourself to some degree in order to hurt the companies/parties supporting legislation like this, nothing is going to change.
Oh, crap. Not here too...
I swear if it comes to the UK, I'ma be very pissed..
I think that it wont go through. People started to wake up, first in Poland and now it's spreading through whole Europe and suddenly politicans try to distance themself from those agreements.
Is that why 22 of 26 EU states just signed ACTA in Japan?
That signature means nothing without verification, and I hope it won't happen.
My statement above is completely valid. Just like @vedran said ACTA is not accepted by any country yet. It's needed ratification in European parliament and then in parliament of every individual EU state. And now when evertyhing become pretty much public and people start to wake up suddenly politicans start to distance themself from those agreements.
It's very small chance that this will go through European parliament and even smaller that this will go through parliament of every individual EU state.
As example (and I think that Vedran can confirm as he come from same EU coutry as me) suddenly almost EVERY politican here think that ACTA is very bad idea, against constitution and they don't support it now when things are more clear around it.
ACTA is worse than SOPA.
There's more than just protecting interests of entertainment industry. Do you have permission from Monsanto to use seeds to grow salad on your own garden? Can you prove origins of those seeds?
@Spirit, perhaps you are right. Maybe it won't go through...but what it covers will go through, these things always do in the end.
Governments never shrink, they only grow. Sometimes you can stunt their growth for a long time, but in the end they still grow. It's just the way the world is.
Yeah, I am thinking the same. I expecting this to see some other time in some other shape with different name... and just hope that people wont be tricked and passively accept it as we do this so often. Time will tell, guess.
edit.
All this is just pathetic now. Rats.. Our country representative which signed ACTA in Tokyo gave official statement now that she signed ACTA in the moment "civil negligence" and she wasn't careful enough what she signing... And that she support protests against ACTA.
Can you imagine? Wtf..
Can you imagine? Wtf..
Women, right?
Scapegoat rather.
ACTA makes 0 new laws, it is nothing compared to SOPA.
Countries of signed it have just signed to review it and discuss how they could implement it in their own laws, hence it is a treaty.
ACTA =! SOPA, ACTA is not any LAWS.
Most of the confusion caused by this is by Americans who are confused as it comes straight after SOPA and Anonymous DDoSing any site about it.
For example the EU has signed it, but its created 0 new laws, the EU will then decide how to implement some of this treaty in its own laws within the EU, or add onto existing laws.
Don't forget that treaties are just a necessary step in the international process of creating new laws. Treaties influence decisions and set precedents for legislation.
Good to hear it's just a treaty. I think the U.S. needs to deal with U.S. copyrights being infringed in China and other developing nations, and not worry so much that John Smith didn't pay for the copy of Harry Potter he downloaded...
So, instead of policing their own citizens, you propose that the US should continue the fantastic policy of sticking their dick in everyone else's business? Not that I agree with suppression of liberty under the guise of "infringement", but I don't find the solution to be oppressing another nation's people instead. The only thing you've done there is take some attention away from John Smith and decided to fuck with Yu Zheng intead.
I think that China (and other developing nations) should respect our (as well as other countries) patents & copyrights. I don't mean the individuals in those nations, I'm talking about the businesses that infringe on U.S. (and even multinational) companies patents and copyrights. It's pointless to go after individuals.
Sorry, but I have to disagree there. Targeting a company is pointless; as an entity they have too many resources. Not to mention all of the politicians and judges that already reside in the company's back pocket. It's more effective to target an individual... say, the CEO. Nail him, nail him hard. Of course, after he falls he'll be shortly replaced. Then systematically prosecute the board, the VPs, and every high-ranking position. If you make it abundantly clear that the individual will be facing responsibility, rather than a faceless company they can all hide behind, you will find far fewer people willing to engage in that behavior to begin with.
When I was referring to individuals, I mean ordinary people that are torrenting illegal files, etc. The problem with going after a CEO of a corporation is that he's protected, and has very little liability. Of course if he directly violates a law, then sure, but otherwise, it's the corporation itself that "committed" the act and is the party that you can sue, can't directly sue the management.
Very true. The actual illegal act is likely untouchable. However, no person is immune from vice; and the more resources they have (6, 7 figure paycheques, for example), the more extravagant their activities. Can't nail the CEO of the company for illegal trade? Nail the CEO directly for every legitimate thing under the sun instead. The rest will still get the hint after a few sacrificial lambs go down.
Or simply revoke personage from corporations and only allow people to make political contributions. It's such a simple solution, why do they complicate it?
Some less known but interesting reading which you wont find on all those popular "say no to ACTA" pages.
http://metinalista.si/why-i-signed-acta/
There are not such things as "country and government representatives" only front men for corporate interests who always open to being incentivized into believing that they are serving some "national" or "patriotic" interests. After all when they leave government service they have their pensions to worry about, perhaps a few directorships where they earn £30,000 and they only have to show their faces at meetings every now and then, all expenses paid of course.
The only antidote to such laws are vigilante populations who keep an eye on representatives activities, instead of pottering about on Facebook, watching Big Brother, X Factor and (gasp) making posts on LET at unseemly hours.
Who knows, ask the Supreme Court.