Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

by **Conservatives states** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:24 pm

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/se ... t-tre.html

Read for yourself, get the word out.

by **Natapoc** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:29 pm

WOW that is a really messed up treaty

I hope it does not become law.

by **Conservatives states** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:35 pm

Make sure you spread the word, we can't allow this to happen.

by **Natapoc** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:39 pm

Conservatives states wrote:Make sure you spread the word, we can't allow this to happen.

See guys, if CM and I agree that something is bad... it must be really really indisputably bad.

For example:

# * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

by **Lackadaisical2** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:40 pm

isn't counterfeiting restricted to currency?

Anyway, yeah, looks like it is a load of bullocks. Copyright=good, this goes too far though.

EDIT: I retain my right to change my mind, should a less biased source come to light, 'cause you never know with this sort of stuff.

by **Lackadaisical2** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:41 pm

Natapoc wrote:
Conservatives states wrote:Make sure you spread the word, we can't allow this to happen.

See guys, if CM and I agree that something is bad... it must be really really indisputably bad.

I don't think CM and conservatives states are the same person...?

by **Natapoc** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:42 pm

Lackadaisical2 wrote:
Natapoc wrote:
Conservatives states wrote:Make sure you spread the word, we can't allow this to happen.

See guys, if CM and I agree that something is bad... it must be really really indisputably bad.

I don't think CM and conservatives states are the same person...?

opps. lol. It is all the drugs

sorry CM and CS. At any rate... yeah it is a bad law. :oops:

by **Conservatives states** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:43 pm

We can disagree whether copy rights are good, but this definitely goes to far, way to far.

I've made a little draft you guys can send out, and get the word out. Send it out on facebook, myspace, twitter, msn, yahoo. Whatever, just get the word out.

"The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:

*

* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
*

* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
*

* That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
*

* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4UyeONiqoo

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/1 ... aundering/

And if that wasn't enough, here is the official documentation:
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files ... _15084.pdf"

by **Urzamalandi** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:45 pm

I'd like some more sources on this, not that im doubting the authenticity of the current article..

ACTA and the Digital Britain plans are looking very similar.

Soon the internet as we know it will be no more. This whole situation has been gathering steam in the last year, and it really seems real now, not just government posturing and angry statements by the media corps.

Freedom of Speech is clearly no more when/if this comes into effect.

by **Conservatives states** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:45 pm

Urzamalandi wrote:I'd like some more sources on this, not that im doubting the authenticity of the current article..

ACTA and the Digital Britain plans are looking very similar.

Soon the internet as we know it will be no more. This whole situation has been gathering steam in the last year, and it really seems real now, not just government posturing and angry statements by the media corps.

Freedom of Speech is clearly no more when/if this comes into effect.

Here: http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files ... _15084.pdf

by **Urzamalandi** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:49 pm

Conservatives states wrote:
Urzamalandi wrote:I'd like some more sources on this, not that im doubting the authenticity of the current article..

ACTA and the Digital Britain plans are looking very similar.

Soon the internet as we know it will be no more. This whole situation has been gathering steam in the last year, and it really seems real now, not just government posturing and angry statements by the media corps.

Freedom of Speech is clearly no more when/if this comes into effect.

Here: http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files ... _15084.pdf

Many thanks, now im going to sit in a corner and cry. I used to like the internet. Freedom of information and all that...

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/di ... ws-roundup

&

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cm ... ion&id=420

by **Conservatives states** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:54 pm

Urzamalandi wrote:
Conservatives states wrote:
Urzamalandi wrote:I'd like some more sources on this, not that im doubting the authenticity of the current article..

ACTA and the Digital Britain plans are looking very similar.

Soon the internet as we know it will be no more. This whole situation has been gathering steam in the last year, and it really seems real now, not just government posturing and angry statements by the media corps.

Freedom of Speech is clearly no more when/if this comes into effect.

Here: http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files ... _15084.pdf

Many thanks, now im going to sit in a corner and cry. I used to like the internet. Freedom of information and all that...

No, no, no. Mirror this, send out the little draft I made, and stay vigilant.

by **Conservatives states** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:23 pm

*bump*

by **Frezens** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:28 pm

Copyright was originally meant to protect someones creative works, now they're trying to use it to police and fine anyone that tries to access any kind of media without paying. This is all for money like everyhting always is.

by **Frezens** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:29 pm

Copyright was originally meant to protect someones creative works, now they're trying to use it to police and fine anyone that tries to access any kind of media without paying. This is all for money like everyhting always is.

by **Sibirsky** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:36 pm

OMG the Obama administration is taking away rights? Who would've imagined?

by **Conservatives states** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:36 pm

Frezens wrote:Copyright was originally meant to protect someones creative works, now they're trying to use it to police and fine anyone that tries to access any kind of media without paying. This is all for money like everyhting always is.

I've always hated copy rights, they aren't necessary at all, and only allow tyranny.

by **Conservatives states** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:37 pm

Sibirsky wrote:OMG the Obama administration is taking away rights? Who would've imagined?

Guilty as charged.

by **Pope Joan** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:37 pm

Damn that socialist Obama!

*sees date* Oh, wait a minute...

August, 2008...then there really must have been legit national security interests at stake?

From the fine folks who brought you Echelon=minus-FISA
and the secret library subpoenas http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section ... tID=102669

by **Conservatives states** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:39 pm

Pope Joan wrote:Damn that socialist Obama!

*sees date* Oh, wait a minute...

irony? Also something funny happened to me today. I got a DMCA from my internet provider, and this stuff just really started to surface today.

by **Natapoc** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:43 pm

Conservatives states wrote:
Pope Joan wrote:Damn that socialist Obama!

*sees date* Oh, wait a minute...

irony? Also something funny happened to me today. I got a DMCA from my internet provider, and this stuff just really started to surface today.

Clinton signed the DMCA. Taking away rights is something both political parties love to do. It is why they are often called the two wings of the one party Corporatocracy.

by **Conservatives states** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:44 pm

Natapoc wrote:
Conservatives states wrote:
Pope Joan wrote:Damn that socialist Obama!

*sees date* Oh, wait a minute...

irony? Also something funny happened to me today. I got a DMCA from my internet provider, and this stuff just really started to surface today.

Clinton signed the DMCA. Taking away rights is something both political parties love to do. It is why they are often called the two wings of the one party Corporatocracy.

Damn straight, I just hope my DMCA is a coincidence.

by **Sibirsky** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:03 pm

Natapoc wrote:
Conservatives states wrote:
Pope Joan wrote:Damn that socialist Obama!

*sees date* Oh, wait a minute...

irony? Also something funny happened to me today. I got a DMCA from my internet provider, and this stuff just really started to surface today.

Clinton signed the DMCA. Taking away rights is something both political parties love to do. It is why they are often called the two wings of the one party Corporatocracy.

It's why I hate them both nearly equally.

by **Arumdaum** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:18 pm

I hope this doesn't pass. If it does, then well bye-bye interwebz.

by **Conservatives states** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:40 pm

If we spread it, this won't happen. Since these fuck heads don't want to be transparent, we'll do it for them.

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

Who is online